There are just two or three matters which I should like to raise. The first one is in connection with the situation that has been precipitated in Cork, where prosecutions have taken place against bacon curers for purchasing pigs at a price beyond the scheduled price. In consequence of the prosecutions and of the shortage of pigs, those factories are closing within the next week or ten days.
I have had a communication from the bacon section of the Transport Workers' Union saying that they are making representations to the Ministries of Agriculture and Industry and Commerce to convene a conference in Dublin early next week, at which representatives of the workers would attend to discuss ways and means of avoiding the serious position that would be caused by the closing of those factories. It is clear from that information, and from the particulars given here in recent weeks that the numbers of killings of pigs have gone down from 21,000 to about 6,000, that there is a very serious situation in respect of the pig industry in the country. It is not likely that it will be remedied in a short period. The responsibility of the Ministry with regard to that matter is very grave. I have dealt with this before, and there is no necessity for rehearsing what was said, but certainly during the Recess it is advisable that the Government should pay a little attention to the problem which is facing the workers in those various establishments, and to the loss that has been sustained by agriculturists by reason of the peculiar policy which has been adopted with regard to this industry. They should review generally the agricultural situation in the country to see what can be done to improve matters. I believe they can be improved. I believe there is a surplus of certain foodstuffs in the country which should be available for pig production.
The second point which I desire to raise is the price at which turf is sold in this country at the present time, and the quality of that turf. I do not intend to go into that to any extent, except to say that 64/- a ton is a prohibitive price, and that the quality of the turf does not reflect any credit whatever upon the scheme.
The third matter which I want to raise is on the Vote which the Minister dealt with this morning, that is, personal injuries compensation for damage arising out of any action of the belligerents in or on this country. The Minister gave us last evening particulars of the compensation which the new scheme proposes for adults and children, persons under and over 18 years of age, and so on. He also informed us regarding a scheme that is in contemplation, but not yet finally adopted, for persons in the various voluntary services of one kind or another dealing with air-raid precautions, fire-fighting, and other matters of that sort. In the course of his statement the Minister said that the State was in this case faced with the problem of providing for what might be almost an unlimited liability. I cannot accept that statement. I think on reflection the Minister himself will admit that there is at least an exaggeration implied in the statement.
I would suggest to the Minister that there should be an early reconsideration of the sums which he read out here last night as being the basis of the proposals which the Ministry had in mind for dealing with those cases. I want to put to the House just one comparison in regard to this matter. There is in this year's Vote for personal injuries compensation an estimated sum of £25,000 for persons who have been injured by bombs or any action of the belligerents. In another part of the Estimates there is provision for a sum of £3,000 for A.R.P. and fire-fighting agencies of one sort or another in which people may have been injured. There is a total there of approximately £30,000. On the other hand, we look up the sum which has been provided in this year's Estimate for damage to property, and we find that the sum is £250,000. I do not intend to make any cheap comments upon the relative values of life and property but, obviously, if we are prepared to pay for property, if we admit the moral obligation on us to provide for the restoration of that property, surely the moral responsibility for providing for the lives that are in jeopardy is a greater one. We make no complaint, whatever, regarding the sum that has to be provided for property. It is quite true that property charge once dealt with is finished, and that the other is more or less a continuing charge for a number of years. The disparity between the two provides even for that.
The second point concerns persons who give service either in A.R.P. or fire-fighting services. In these cases a scheme for providing compensation could very usefully and legitimately have been formulated before any liability whatever fell upon the State. It is inconceivable that months and months after the occasion arose for providing compensation we have not yet decided on a scheme. In these cases there is no justification whatever for not putting a person into even a better position than he was in prior to an accident. In other words, if a man earned £6 a week prior to an accident which kept him from work, he should get £6 a week from the moment he met with the accident until he could take up his occupation again. Whatever medical or other expenses had to be incurred should also be provided. In connection with personal injuries compensation, I suggest that there should be at once an addition of 33? per cent. to the figures given. The amount may be considerable, but, even with that addition, if bears comparison favourably for this country from the point of view of its economy with that in operation in Great Britain.
The third matter concerns compensation for the destruction of property. In the case of persons living on weekly wages it is very wrong to have assessors valuing any articles, whether common to the persons' homes or to themselves, by inquiring how much was paid for them. Assuming that articles cost £5, £10 or £20—and I suppose that none of them have many articles value for more than £20—it is indefensible to deduct a certain amount for wear and tear. These articles were going to last for a lifetime and the owners have not books and accounts to indicate what was allowed for depreciation. They simply paid for these things and when forced out of their homes at a moment's notice—perhaps blown out—the least the State can do when giving them houses is not to grudge the few extra years' advantage they would have from articles which had already undergone four or five years' service.
It may be that the Minister is faced with the usual Departmental objections as to the necessity for bearing in mind the increasing cost of running the State. There are certain services that the emergency has imposed upon us which do not permit of that peculiar and, in present circumstances, antediluvian method of dealing either with compensation for property or to persons. It is not wise in these cases to say that we have to be careful. Remember that for five years we have shown an entire disregard in the way of balancing our accounts. No one knows that better than the unfortunate people who are at present without a roof over their heads, or short of wearing apparel. They know what our indifference has been towards balancing the accounts of the State. The extra sum that would be given those concerned would not upset anybody's purse, much less that of the State. The House generally would prefer that we should put on one side of the account a sum of extra consideration by reason of the pain and suffering that has fallen upon these people by the disaster, and that we should approach consideration of it rather from the point of view of Christian charity than that of strict accountancy which is so prevalent in most Governmental activities.
