Deputy Byrne is raising on the motion for the Adjournment the matter dealt with in Question No. 18 on to-day's Order Paper.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Press Censorship.
Mr. Byrne
To-day I asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures why it was that references to the inadequate allowances given to the wives of our National Army men were refused publication in the newspapers, and why the soldiers' wives are debarred from getting publicity for their grievances. I met a group of women quite recently who told me that they had been asked to write letters on behalf of other women to the newspapers, drawing attention to their grievances, and setting out their hardships. They did so. They set out the hardships of those women, and the inadequate allowances they are receiving for themselves and their children. They also drew attention to the very high cost of living. One woman, I understand, went so far as to send a receipt from a draper's shop for a pair of stockings that she had bought for a ten year old child about 12 months ago, the stockings costing 9½d. A few days before she wrote to the newspapers she had paid 1/11½d. for a pair similar to the pair that she had bought a year ago for 9½d.
The cost of all clothing for workers children has increased in the same proportion. Those women submitted other receipts to the newspapers to show how impossible it is for them to pay their rent, to feed their children, not well but moderately, and to clothe them on the inadequate allowances they are receiving. They drew attention to the wages and allowances paid in other departments of the service, and to the increases recently given to people in these services. These letters were sent to the newspapers. The newspaper editors were not allowed to publish them—to expose the hardships that those people are suffering from. Yet those people could read in the newspapers every other morning reports of the various applications that are being made by other people for increases in their wages. The latter got publicity simply because a vast organisation in this country is able to defeat Ministers—not this Minister, but other Ministers—in their aims to keep down wages. But simply because men are in uniform the Minister is in a position to keep down their wages.
No consideration is given to the rents that are being paid in the City of Dublin in the tenement quarters— these rents average 10/- a room. The soldiers' wives are not getting a rent allowance to enable them to pay that sum even for the humblest room in a tenement quarter. I am being appealed to everywhere I go to do something about this. I am sure every other Deputy has had the same experience. I do not claim to be an exception. I know that appeals have been made to Deputies by soldiers' wives. Probably I meet them more frequently than others, because there is a very big number of soldiers' wives and their families in the large area that I represent. I am stopped by them 20 times a day. They say to me: "Oh, Mr. Byrne, what are you going to do for us; what is the Government going to do; will you, or the other members of the Dáil, not do something on our behalf; do we count for nothing?" I promised them that I would do something. I have raised the question several times here, three times within three months prior to the end of 1942. Quite recently, at the request of this deputation. I wrote a letter to the Minister asking him to consider favourably an application for an increase in the allowances that are being paid. I got the usual cold reply on a half sheet of paper saying: "Dear Deputy Byrne, you raised this question on such a date in September, on such a date in October and on such a date in December, and the circumstances have not altered since." The Minister and his officials who say that the circumstances have not altered since must be asleep to what is going on. Those people are expected to buy so many pints of milk, so many loaves of bread and so much butter, if it is possible for them to get it, and to pay their rent, but, owing to the rapid increase in the price of these commodities the soldiers' wives are not able to do that on the allowances they are getting. It is not right to see the children of our soldiers insufficiently fed and clothed. I am satisfied that the taxpayers of the country would be anxious to see such allowances given to soldiers' wives as would enable them to keep their children in reasonable comfort.
A woman told me recently that she had a girl of 17 years of age who is incapable of doing any work. She is partly an invalid, but her condition is not such as to enable her to get into a home. Her father is a soldier. The mother said that when he was employed on the roads in Dublin his wages helped to keep this girl. The Minister just knocks her off as if she did not exist, simply because she is over 16 years of age. I hope that her case will get immediate and sympathetic consideration from the Minister.
My question on the Order Paper related to the Press Censorship. The Minister, by what he has done, has smothered the grievances of those people. That is not a good way to carry on government. To smother grievances only creates dissatisfaction. Those people have grievances and I think they should be allowed to ventilate them. Publication in the newspapers would provide a safety valve for them. If people are suffering hardships it is only right that they should be allowed to draw public attention to them.
A short time ago, when the Army Bill was under discussion here, the Minister for Defence stated what he is going to do. So far it is jam to-morrow for those people, but never jam to-day. The soldier's wife is not entitled to infant-aid free milk or to free fuel, nor do I think she is entitled to cheap fuel. The soldier's children are not entitled to the facilities provided by the Minister for Education in regard to partly free school books. All these privileges are withdrawn from the soldier's wife and children, simply because the husband is employed by the State. They are suffering from the hardships caused by the high cost of foodstuffs and, with the cost of clothing and rents still further increasing, I ask the Minister to increase their allowances and not to cloak their grievances by refusing permission to the papers to publish them.
I wish to associate myself with the protest made by Deputy Byrne, in so far as there has been an abuse of the powers given to the Minister in connection with the censorship. When the Emergency Powers Order was being discussed here in September, 1939, we received a definite assurance from the Taoiseach, on behalf of the Government, that these powers would be used only to cut out of newspapers matter likely to endanger the neutrality of the country. Protests have been made here since that assurance was given that the powers were being used for other purposes. The Minister, when he was replying to questions earlier to-day, attempted to justify the use of the censorship in connection with this particular matter, on the ground that publication would injuriously affect recruitment for the Army. I do not want, and neither, I am sure, does Deputy Byrne or any other Deputy, to do or say anything that would prevent the young men of this country joining the Defence Forces either for the duration of the emergency or as permanent soldiers.
I think it would be far better if the Minister and his colleagues faced up to this situation and gave people who might be willing to join the Army an assurance that, while they were serving in the Army, their dependents would be looked after in a just manner. The Minister knows well that matters affecting the dependents of serving soldiers have been raised elsewhere. Deputy Byrne spoke about increasing the allowances now given to the dependents of serving soldiers. He knows more about this matter than anybody else, or at least he ought to, and he must be aware that we have hundreds of soldiers whose wives or other dependents are getting nothing. I have taken advantage of other opportunities to protest against that.
I say it is a disgrace to the Minister and the Government—to the Minister in so far as he has any responsibility— that the dependents of men who are in the Army are not provided for. Some of those people, to my own knowledge, are a charge on the ratepayers. Deputy Byrne is entitled to make a protest against the miserable allowances that are granted.
I suggest that the Minister and his Government colleagues should look at this matter from a different angle. By public advertisement they should indicate their desire to provide better allowances for the dependents of serving soldiers. That is the right way to get recruits for the Army. I do not think that you will in any way injure the recruiting campaign by the publication of statements made in the House, or in the course of correspondence—statements or appeals made on behalf of the dependents of serving soldiers. I regard the refusal to publish them as an abuse of the censorship, in so far as I understood the Taoiseach's assurance, and that is the principal reason why I desire to be associated with the protest made by Deputy Byrne.
One would think from Deputy Davin's and Deputy Byrne's speeches that they were not living in the country, or that people in the country had not their eyes open, or did not read the newspapers. Everybody knows that on any occasion when the matter of soldiers' pay was raised in the House, it has been published. This question of censorship to-day related to the publication of correspondence. I gave the reasons for stopping the publication of correspondence. It was quite obvious from some of the letters that were submitted, and, indeed, from some that were published, that they were not being put forward with a view to righting grievances of soldiers or their wives or other dependents, but with a view to disrupting the country and having a crack at the defence forces generally. There are certain people in the country—and I do not exclude Deputy Byrne from among them—who must have grievances, who live on grievances, and the more irremediable the grievances, the better they like them.
Mr. Byrne
That is not fair, coming from the Minister, and I repudiate that.
I will refer to the Deputy's attitude to-day. He had three questions on the Order Paper and one related to soldiers' wives. There is a Minister directly in charge of the Army, the Minister who makes orders increasing soldiers' pay. Did Deputy Byrne ask for his attendance here in order to impress on him the grievances of the soldiers or their wives? Not at all.
Mr. Byrne
Yes, I did.
The Deputy did not.
Mr. Byrne
The Minister must be dreaming.
Deputy Byrne did not. He had the option of bringing in the Minister for Defence in order to impress on him the need for increasing the allowances to soldiers' wives. He did not do it. He acted in the same way as he has often acted. He keeps his mouth shut during the whole session of the Dáil and then when it is about to adjourn he shouts out asking us what we are going to do about this, that and the other. There is never a suggestion from him——
Mr. Byrne
On three occasions at least I raised this question and I got the one reply and the Minister has no right to make lying statements from that bench—lying statements from the Front Bench.
We all know the Deputy's form in matters of this kind. Before he ever raised this question of soldiers or their pay the Minister for Defence and others came together in order to keep the Army as far as possible from being made the plaything of politicians looking for votes.
Mr. Byrne
The Minister is one.
The Minister for Defence raised the pay of the soldiers and he raised the allowances for their wives.
The question before the House is not so much the question of allowances for soldiers or their wives, but of references to soldiers' allowances being suppressed by the censor.
The Deputy had an opportunity of raising that question and he refused to do it. He would rather have a grievance about something.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Minister look at Question No. 27, in which I asked about soldiers' allowances, for the fourth time within a month?
The question in respect of which the Deputy gave notice was Question No. 18, which does not deal specifically with soldiers' allowances——
Mr. Byrne
I asked the question only to-day.
——but with the fact that reference to soldiers' allowances was suppressed by the Minister's Department.
The Deputy was very careful to avoid raising the question of soldiers' allowances with the Minister. He wanted a grievance and he was backed up by Deputy Davin.
Mr. Byrne
I do not know where the Minister has come from. Was the Minister here during Questions?
The Deputy will take it from the Chair that he must not go outside Question No. 18.
Mr. Byrne
The Minister says I did not raise it, and here it is in Question No. 27. He must have been asleep, or in another part of the House where men go asleep.
If the Deputy was not satisfied with the answer of the Minister for Defence in relation to Question No. 27, regarding the inadequacy of the allowances to soldiers' wives, that was the question he should have raised on the Adjournment. Instead, he raised another question——
Mr. Byrne
Which includes both matters.
——because he wanted to have a grievance.
Is not the matter in Question No. 18 of sufficient importance to call for some comment from the Minister?
I have commented on it.
Has the Minister put forward any defence?
I answered the question to-day and I have commented on it now. I do not want to say anything more, except this: I think we are in a dangerous enough situation in this country for Deputies to realise that it is their duty to keep the Army out of mere Party politics. If there are questions affecting soldiers, I do not think Deputies should stand for having them dealt with by anonymous correspondents in the columns of the newspapers. The matters can be raised here. The Dáil set up another body to examine into Army affairs and, without giving away any secret, I can say that the matter of soldiers' pay and allowances has been before that body, and, without Deputy Byrne or anybody else here raising the matter, the Minister one year ago increased the pay of soldiers by over 50 per cent. and the allowances of their wives and children by a large amount at the same time.
Does the Minister consider it improper that members of the House should raise questions of pay and allowances for soldiers and their dependents in the national Army?
No.
It is not improper?
No.
Is he aware that this very matter of pay and allowance for soldiers and their dependents has been raised not only in the Parliament, but in the public press of Great Britain, at a time when that country is at war?
Yes.
As this is a very important matter, can we have at least this position, that if questions are raised in a bona fide way by Deputies of any Party or of no Party, they will get an answer—a civil answer, if possible—and that the question and answer will not be censored?
Mr. Byrne
Or made the occasion for abuse.
I have already dealt with all the questions the Deputy has asked me. I do not propose to repeat myself.
Mr. Byrne
And you made lying statements.
The reason for my intervention in the debate was that Deputy Corish proposed to raise the same question. The reason he expressed anxiety was that the Minister would not answer a question as to whether he intended to cut out of the papers reference to the matter which was raised here to-day. Can the Minister answer that now?
The Dáil adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 17th February, 1943.