Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1942

Vol. 89 No. 2

Private Deputies' Business. - Employment for Adults—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed.

Last night, when I started to speak upon this matter, I alluded to the vital statistics in so far as they interpret the actual physical condition as at present existing, and I think it was Deputy Dr. Hannigan who wanted to know the periods over which we had the statistics. Up to last night I had the figures only for the first two quarters of the year, but I have since got the figures for the third quarter. The same tendency which is shown is even aggravated in the third quarter: the marriage rate has gone right up; the birth rate has gone right up and the death rate is still rapidly falling. I think if the Deputy would inspect these graphs he would save himself a lot of trouble. However, I will give him the figures if he wants them.

Taking the three quarters of 1941 and 1942, as far as marriages are concerned, this year the figure was 4,007 against 3,554; in the second quarter, it was 4,616 against 3,724; in the third quarter it was 5,041 against 4,223. Births were 14,365 against 13,678 in the first quarter; in the second quarter, 18,177 against 14,946; in the third quarter, 17,735 against 15,056. The figure for deaths in the first quarter was 12,103 against 14,648; in the second quarter, 10,811 against 11,328, and in the third quarter, 8,524 against 8,683. The deaths, which would, I think, interest Dr. Hannigan perhaps more than anything else, those of infants under one year, which would be to some extent an indication, fell from 80 per 1,000 births, 62 per 1,000, to 57 per 1,000. These are the recognised vital statistics covering the physical condition of everybody in the whole State.

During what period?

During this year.

Yes, during 1942.

What is the Parliamentary Secretary quoting from?

As a matter of fact, I am quoting from the Quarterly Return of Marriages, Births and Deaths, but the Deputy will find all of them in the Irish Trade Journal. In the same way, we had other vague suggestions of evil conditions and, mind, I do not want to overstress them one way or the other, except to remove this atmosphere that has been attempted to be created, that there is something specially bad and wrong now and that things are visibly going wrong. The question of malnutrition was raised. It was admitted by Deputy Keyes that the statistics that were given were favourable but, because they were favourable, he says statistics do not matter. There is no evidence, as far as we know, that malnutrition exists on any extensive scale. All the indications at the present moment are, broadly, favourable, but I do not regard the degree of improvement as sufficiently satisfactory nor am I satisfied that the basis upon which those figures are gathered are of very definite exactness. Some years ago I thought that the three vital statistics were the three most important social statistics we could get and I went to a good deal of trouble to inquire what they were and to do what I could to see that they would be made more uniform and more reliable.

The next matter that was dragged in here was vouchers, all this being consciously or sub-consciously directed to producing the idea that the Government in charge of this was callously disregardful—these were words used— callously disregardful of the necessities of the problem. One Deputy said:—

"We charge the Government that they are deliberately and wilfully responsible for lowering the vitality of the people."

I want the House to realise the meaning of a phrase of that kind. A Government appointed by the majority of the people, maintained here over two or three General Elections, here now, I should say, for 11 or 12 years, are of such a character that they can be accused of deliberately and wilfully, of set purpose and known intent, reducing the vitality of the people. Surely there is no man in the House who, adverting to the dictionary meaning of these words, would use them in relation to anyone here. No honest man would say them and no intelligent man would believe them. But, as part of that campaign, the very action which is taken by the Government for the purpose of trying to safeguard the most unhappy and the most unfortunate of our people from consequences entirely outside their control, to assure them immediate, definite and unchallengeable access to the necessities of life, is turned into a weapon of attack —not a weapon of light attack. "Deliberately degrading," says Deputy Murphy, "producing the sordid symptoms of servility and decay." This is the thing that is done by the Government of this people, for the poorest of its people: giving them direct cheques, not upon paper money of variable quality and of variable reliability in their access to goods, but giving them cheques direct upon the goods themselves, cheques which have precedence of everybody else's on the bank of those essential and necessary goods, and they are described as "deliberately degrading," deliberately producing "sordid symptoms of servility and decay." What are these? 84,000 vouchers have been issued to the dependents of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance, to old age pensioners, including blind pensioners, their dependents and children, to widows, children and orphans who are beneficiaries under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts and to the recipients of disablement benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts: every one of them is entitled, whatever may be the variation in price, and whatever may be the difficulty in getting them, to a share in those goods every week.

What is the effect of that? "Degrading". Here is a report from a county medical officer of health. I do not propose to give you the name or the county, but I am prepared to hand the document to any Deputy who wishes to see it. It is a typical statement. I do not propose to publicise the individual himself:—

"During this year supplies of medicines were limited, especially as regards cod liver oil, emulsion, malt, ostomalt, etc. These medicines were very useful in families whose dietary was limited and insufficient, and the failure to obtain them owing to war conditions was a hardship and probably discouraged attendance at dispensaries. This coincided, unfortunately, with the scarcity of the formerly despised ‘bread and butter and tea' diet of many families... However, the introduction of the food voucher scheme towards the end of the year for recipients of home assistance, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions, etc., has been of the greatest benefit during the winter. In fact, it is the greatest single measure of relief yet afforded, and it is hoped that it will be continued irrespective of war conditions, and it should eventually repay a hundredfold by maintaining and improving the health of those for whom it is intended....

An improvement in the health of small children, resulting from the regular supply of milk and butter over a period of a few months during this winter has been evident. Such improvement gives us the hope of an increase in the general standard of health among those from whom our cases of tuberculosis are mainly recruited."

That is a description in a report by a county medical officer of health of the filthy thing which this Government invented deliberately to degrade the people and create "sordid symptoms of servility and decay". In exactly the same way as there have been these 84,000 cheques upon the bank of food for the people, there also have been issued 36,000 vouchers upon the bank of fuel, a bank which has been prepared for them over the whole year. The best, the driest, the most uniform, the most portable, and the most conveniently burnable type of material that we could get in the country has been kept for those 36,000 beneficiaries, and, due to the foresight of this Dáil, they are now in benefit.

I think I may say that I am personally responsible for the voucher system. At any rate, I am prepared to take personal responsibility, by name, for every one of the 8,000 people who are receiving food cheques in Cork, and the 5,000 who are receiving turf cheques. I am prepared to say that I personally am responsible, by name, for any insult which has been offered to them in trying to help them in this manner, and making sure that, whoever else may go short this winter either of food or fuel, at least they will not go short. This is quite an important matter. It is one in which in the interests of fair play and of decency in public life we ought to come down to brass tacks, one way or the other. When this voucher system was introduced into this House it was denounced with "bell, book and candle" by the Labour Party, and then, apparently they had a meeting. At any rate, and I say it is to their credit, one of them had the courage to come in here and withdraw the whole of that attack and to say that they did approve of it. Not having immediately seen the benefit which was there, they have had the courage and the manliness to admit the mistake of putting themselves behind a movement which could be misrepresented.

I have not changed my mind yet.

I am not interested whether the Deputy has changed his mind or not, but I am interested in the fact that we are fulfilling our responsibilities to the poor, and are prepared publicly to stand over it.

You are not.

The Deputy has spoken in this House 30 times for the once that I have spoken, and for once he is going to stay quiet.

I have given as good example here as the Parliamentary Secretary.

Deputy Hickey says that he has not changed his mind.

About the vouchers.

Wait one moment. You are not a Greek chorus. Deputy Hickey says he has not changed his mind, but what is the mind of his Party? Was it the mind of the first man who denounced it, or of the second man who approved of it? Was it the mind of Deputy Murphy who is now denouncing it, or was it the word of Deputy Keyes, who proposed the motion? Deputy Keyes, speaking in this House on the 26th November last—the quotation is from column 2564 of the Dáil Debates— said: "I should like to join with previous speakers in appealing to the Minister to arrange for an extension of the food voucher system." Deputy Hurley asked: "What case can the Minister make for not extending the scheme to these people?" Now, which is it?

You would not give them cash.

Which does the Party stand for? Does the Party stand for Deputy Murphy, who says we are deliberately degrading people, that we are producing symptoms of servility and decay, or do they stand for Deputy Keyes, the proposer of the motion, who said: "I should like an extension of this system"? He asks for the indefinite extension of this system. So far as we are concerned, as long as there is food and fuel and any other store in this country, and there are people in need, it will be our policy to bring the needy as closely and securely in contact with that supply and to give them as unchallengeable a demand upon it as is humanly possible.

Then we are told again, in the same spirit of producing this atmosphere of blackness, that we are engaged in deliberately deporting the people—that that is our solution of the unemployment problem. The only justification for that was the statements that there were extremely high wages in another country and that we were not prepared to raise the standard of wages in this country in competition with those outside wages. At the same time, a bitter complaint is made that the cost of living is rising and that wages are unable to meet the increase. I have already quoted in the House the actual costs of one of the most important and critical commodities in consumption at the present moment— turf fuel. I have shown you its price from the time the slean is first put into the bog until the turf is delivered at the dumps. I have shown you that 78 per cent. of the total cost represents direct wages and, in the other 22 per cent., there is contained a very considerable residuum of wages.

What would be the effect of raising the wages of all those engaged in all the processes of primary and secondary production that are required in order to bring those goods to the fireplaces of the people? Assume that you raise the whole of the wages 10 per cent., and the direct wages content is 78 per cent., and what is the effect? Is there any getting out of it? This is an absolutely inescapable necessity. I might be accused of having a false idea of this matter. I am going to quote a very courageous and honest utterance which has been made by one of the parties engaged in that process of secondary production called transport. There was a meeting held in Cork, a meeting of the Cork branch of the Railway Clerks' Association, and Mr. J.T. O'Farrell, the Irish secretary, said that during the period in which prices generally had gone up by 45 per cent., railway freights had increased by only 15 per cent., while standard rates and passenger fares were not increased at all. Railway men were not content to try to exist any longer on pre-war incomes in order that the public should have transport services at slightly over 1923 rates.

The Parliamentary Secretary must mean 1939 rates.

I beg your pardon, it should be 1939 rates.

Transport to roadside, labour content, 90 per cent.; transport to rail head, labour content 50 per cent.; rail charges, labour content 60 per cent.: transport to dump, labour charges 60 per cent. Is it not perfectly clear to everybody that, in this particular case, if the cost of transport goes up, the cost to the consumer of this commodity must go up in proportion? If it were possible to put a fence around some particular trade or industry and say: "We will raise those wages and we will not raise any others," then what might happen would be that the injustice under which the railway clerks feel they are labouring could be remedied at the expense of the general community.

But no one here is going to suggest that if, for this purpose, and under these conditions, the wages of railway transport workers are raised, all other wages shall not be raised in conformity with them. And if all wages concerned in this transaction are raised in conformity with them, what escape is there from the statement that the increase of those wages will produce, in relation to an absolutely necessary and vital commodity, a directly corresponding increase and the destruction of the benefit of the increase to those who receive the wages? If all the wages in relation to all the people engaged in that one transaction of handling turf are raised, surely the same thing will happen in relation to agriculture, in relation to manufacture, in relation to fishing, and so on, and the demonstrable and provable effect will be that the benefit is extinguished in the process of the remedy attempted to be made.

If there was some way in which one could segregate particular cases, then, in my opinion, it would be quite reasonable to decide which should have the benefit and which should pay the price. But, speaking generally, that is not so. What is possible is this, and it is behind this proposal that I would like to regiment the feeling and the power of the Dáil, that wherever there is a rise to be given, it shall be given (1) to those who are on the lowest end of the scale, and (2) to those to whom a rise in wages will be translated through an inducement to work further into a higher productivity in relation to some necessity. But any mere smearing of the whole picture is not going to do any good whatever. I have said that I am merely taking turf as an example that, in my opinion, the primary producer, the man who is working hardest, the man out on the wet bog in the fog, in the dark of the early morning, going home in the wet. dragging through all that heavy stuff— he is the worst paid man of the whole lot. He is the man we are going to be short of this year, and if any inducement is to be given down the whole long line of production, from the time a slean touches the peat until the cured turf touches the fire, in my opinion, the man who has the first claim on it is the man with the slean and the barrow, who brings that wet turf from the condition of wet peat into the condition of saved turf on the side of the hard road, ready for us to take away.

Why did you not say that in 1941?

I have been saying that all the time and I have never said anything else, but that the one place to put the money into the wages pool is at the bottom. If you have any increase of money to put into the wages pool, where you put it will always affect other things, but it will directly affect the place you do put it. If you increase all the lower wages by 2/- or 3/-, that 2/- or 3/- will go to every one of them, and one halfpenny of it might go to men with 15/- above them. If you give 7/- to the men at the top, it will drag up the lower wages by about 1/-. Where the wound is, put the plaster, where the necessity is, put the money; where the right is, do it; and give to the men who need it most, to the men who have been unprotected, to the men who are delivering the goods.

We shall, and we are in process of doing it.

And we will support you.

We raised the wages the last time. When we were being attacked here in respect of low wages on relief schemes, we were the strongest and only force raising agricultural wages. When we were accused, on the basis of 24/- a week, of paying a low wage, we were paying a wage which was higher than the agricultural wage in every county in Ireland, with the exception of Dublin and Clare, and, in the same way, we have seen that any money the State gives for the relief of necessity came to those who needed it most and came, so far as was humanly possible, at the time they needed it most and in proportion to their individual needs.

The next thing we have in this smearing of the picture is that the only figure of wages which Deputies can discover as having been paid is 4/11. There was no allusion to any other wage. "Crumbs," says Deputy Murphy, "a little bog road of £40 at 4/11 a day in the winter." He did not say that in every one of the schemes covered by over £1,000,000 and sometimes more the wages appropriate to that trade in the particular districts and ruling at the time were paid. He did not even know that of the 4/11 works, a very considerable proportion were not done in the winter. They were the one type of works of which we used, if possible, to find an opportunity to do a considerable part in the summer. We did about 200 separate draining schemes every year in the summer months, because, under these conditions, we could get better value.

What is the proportion of the total amount of unemployment fund money which is spent at 4/11? Make a guess at it—the one figure you know; the thing you chalk on the footpaths for general elections and which some people publish on placards on which they do not dare to put the printer's name. What is the proportion this year of the 4/11 to any other wage? Ten per cent. What were the other wages? What I am suggesting is that when we come to solve these questions Deputies should try to leave an atmosphere of cleanliness and fairness. Let us come together as men anxious to co-operate and not men who, because they serve, are accused of deliberately degrading the people. Here are the figures: Clonakilty, 5/10; Cobh, 8/6; Buncrana, 6/-; Tralee, 8/5; Drogheda, 8/10; Dundalk, 9/11; Ballina, 8/4; Westport, 8/-; Sligo, 9/2; Carrickmacross, 5/-; Clonmel, 8/6; Dublin, 11/4; Cork, 11/4; Wexford, 8/6; and Bray, 9/-. They have never heard of any of these rates, and, if they did hear of them and did know them, and if they knew that £1,000,000 of work was being done on a basis of this character, why did they deliberately choose to concentrate on only one figure? Why did they not tell the truth, and the truth in this matter is the whole truth?

For how many days a week?

I am giving the daily rate of wages—precisely what Deputy Murphy quoted—for whatever days— sometimes for two, sometimes for three, sometimes for four, and sometimes for six days.

But never for six.

Oh, yes, many for six. Are the Deputies sure of that? I know, and the Deputy does not. He is simply chancing his arm, like something else I shall deal with in a minute in regard to chancing of the arm. At present due to the fact that unemployment assistance is increasing, that voucher values have gone up, that extra provision has been made of one kind or another, and that the amount which a man is given on relief works is related to the amount which he receives for unemployment assistance, it has been necessary to increase the day's work, and, broadly speaking, unemployment assistance payments and helps of that kind are rising so high that they are tending to push rotation off the map. It went up from two days to three days, four days, five days and, in some cases, to six days. In the cities it is four days now; in some places it is five days, and in many places it is six days, and as the unemployment assistance and other payments made by the State for the benefit of the unemployed increase, that same thing will rise, but the House may take it that whatever money is put in our hands for the relief of distress due to unemployment will go to those who need it most where and when they need it most and in proportion to their individual needs, without regard to any other consideration whatever.

That is the second time you have said that.

Yes, and I have been saying it all the time. The Deputy will find it on the records of the House—a formula of which I am proud, a formula up to which we have lived, and a formula which has lifted relief works, as they are called, to the level of unemployment work, which has taken out all the degradation and all the evil there was, which has enabled a man to draw unemployment wages with as high a head as any other wages and which has allowed 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 men in the year to go through the register and not to be beholden to any man, not to have to ask me, Deputy Davin or the county surveyor for a job, but knowing he has got a job in title of his necessity, that he held it as long as his work was right, that he was beholden to no man and was earning money which he could take with his head up and spend with a good heart.

For about six weeks out of the 52.

That is another interruption. There will be plenty of them before I am finished. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd February, 1943.
Barr
Roinn