One of the reasons why I am stressing the non-issue of the Departmental Report is this. While agreeing that £2,250,000 is a very generous State contribution towards the maintenance of families. I would like to be satisfied that within the limits of that sum we could not do better than by excluding the first two children. We are discussing that particular matter in the dark. We have not got a White Paper, or the Report of the Departmental Committee.
Children's Allowances Bill, 1943—Second Stage (Resumed).
It was never promised that that report would be published.
I am not tying anybody to promises. I am pointing out in a reasonable way that where a Departmental inquiry has been held in order to arrive at a Bill such as this, surely the data as to the number of families of different sizes and the cost of catering for all children, or all after the first, would be considered relevant material which should be made available to Deputies when they are considering the Bill? We are all with the Government in trying to do the best we can so far as the sum named goes. There are few of us, if any, inclined to look a gift horse in the mouth or say "That is not enough, and you must give more". We know the world is progressing, even while we are living through existing conditions, and this must be regarded as the first step. As a first step I would consider it a very considerable step, but I am rather hesitant with regard to the plan of expending this £2,250,000 from the third child onwards I would like to see how it would work out in cost if we began at the first child; how far the £2,250,000 would go, and where we would have to stop. It is a very moot, debatable point whether it is advisable to begin at the first and stop half-way down the line, or exclude the first and second. Particularly since prices started jumping very steeply, the cost of a first child nowadays is something appalling and, in a country such as ours, where the majority of families have more than one——
Does it cost much more relatively than the second or third?
Of course it does. A pram costs as much as a motor car nowadays. You buy the pram and the clothes and the equipment for the first child, and that passes down the line.
Thanks for the information.
The increased cost of all these articles has been more steep than the increased cost of any other kind of article. Even in what I might call old times, the cost of what one might describe as the equipment for the first child was as great as that of any four subsequent children—living in an age where the second child inherited from the first, and so on down the line. Taking all that into account, I would like to be in a position, as a Deputy supporting the Bill, to reckon how far we could go down the line if we made money available for the first and had to stop somewhere lower down. I think they found in Great Britain that by excluding the first child they practically halved the cost of the whole scheme, but there they issued all the data necessary; they made the man in the street and every member of Parliament acquainted with the position; they put them in the possession of all the information on which the Government was going to base its scheme. Here we have a Departmental inquiry sitting for 12 or 18 months doing its work—I accept it that it was done efficiently—and thoroughly investigating the comparative sizes of families and the costs incurred. As a result of all that accumulated information the Government introduced a scheme. I cannot understand why all the information is withheld from this Parliament when we are discussing our scheme. It is something like a blind man trying to get a vision of a picture which has been described to him, when the man could be given his sight. We arp anxious for this Bill; everybody in the House is prepared to support it, but we would like to be in a position to discuss alternative schemes of expending this money without demanding more, and possibly even decreasing the cost.
I am sure the Minister will he able to give some of the figures the Deputy seeks.
But that information should have been available before the Second Reading of this Bill. We have shown our interest in the measure and in the Departmental inquiry by putting down questions on the Order Paper at different intervals during the past 12 months. We asked when the report of the Departmental inquiry would be available. It is true, as the Tanaiste said, that no promise was made that we would be given the report, but common sense and, I would say, parliamentary courtesy and a desire to have a real discussion based on a knowledge of all the facts, would indicate that that should be available. It was not available in time for the Second Reading and I suggest that it should be made available before the subsequent Stages.
There seems to be a degree of confusion or misunderstanding, and a certain amount of doubt and uneasiness with regard to the alteration in the income-tax code arising out of this Bill. The Minister stated that the payments under this Bill would be offset by a reduction in the allowances now made in respect of children under the income-tax code. If the Minister, when he said that, meant that nobody could benefit by this Bill and at the same time get relief in the way of income-tax, then I think we are all with him. His statement, and the subsequent discussion between him and Deputy Lynch, did not make the point clear. Suppose, as the Minister suggested, the allowances under the income-tax code are reduced by £20, does that mean that children's allowances in respect of income-tax will be reduced by that amount? If so, people with children over 16 years of age who will get no benefit from this Bill will be injured financially. I presume it was not the intention, when introducing this Bill, to assist some families and make the financial position of other families worse. If the reduction in income-tax only applies in the case of the child that is setting an allowance under this Bill, then, of course, that would be perfectly fair, and, obviously, should he done. Otherwise, you would be putting some people in a privileged position.
Both the Leader of this Party and the Leader of the Labour Party have availed of the Second Beading of this Bill to bring to the attention of the Government the desirability of amalgamating under one department the administration of the various pieces of legislation that provide small weekly sums for a very large number of families. We have old age pensions, unemployment assistance, unemployment insurance, national health insurance, widows' and orphans' pensions, home help, and now this Bill. All these measures are being administered by different Departments, different sets of officials and different sets of investigation officers. It is their duty to visit some humble home that is getting a small weekly allowance under one or more of these pieces of legislation. I have frequently to visit houses throughout the country. For medical reasons, it is part of my business to know in confidence what a particular family is in a position to do in the way of providing nourishment for a patient. I frequently visit houses which are in receipt of small weekly incomes from three or four different sources. One person may be drawing 3/- a week in National Health Insurance; the father may be in receipt oi 6/- or 7/- a week unemployment assistance, and, perhaps, the grandmother in the corner may be drawing the old age pension. The total income of the home may be only 12/- a week.
Surely, it is not sound business or economy to have four sets of investigators, four sets of inspectors and four staffs administering and doing the accountancy work involved in the distribution of that small weekly sum. I believe that under these various schemes the administration costs represent a very high percentage of the total sum provided under each. I am not suggesting that this Bill should be delayed in order to bring about an amalgamation in the matter of the administration of a number of these schemes. Careful consideration should, and must, be given to their amalgamation under one department, so as to have a more thorough investigation and an easier method of payment, but, above all, so as to cut down the administrative costs. The Minister says that the cost of this measure is going to be very great, that the amount of money that is being provided for the various social services is immense, and that we cannot afford to go further. I think that is probably true. We cannot afford to go further in the way of piling on taxation, but we must go further, I suggest, in the way of effecting economies in overhead charges, costs of administration and of investigation.
With regard to the machinery to be employed for putting this measure into operation, I do not know what the Minister's intentions are. All that we learn from the Bill is that there is to be a new set of officials, referees, investigation officers, deciding officers, accountants, clerks, etc. The Government has already adopted the policy of having county managers. In connection with other necessary Government legislation, the county manager is now being employed as a regional officer. In the event of an interruption between Government and people, the Government have put the responsibility on him of carrying out all the services, and of making all payments, in his region. As regional officer he must be familiar with the circumstances of every household in his county, so that if the interruption which was visualised at one time took place, and which we all hope will never take place, he would be able to carry on and make payments. Where, may I ask, could better machinery be got for the administration of a measure such as this? The home help supervisor for a county has to be familiar with the financial circumstances of every home in his county. Practically all those men are excellent officers. They have assistants employed under them who carry out their duties in their own districts. Have we reached the point when we are going to have another group of investigating officers working alongside them?
What I am about to say will be said in no critical spirit, nor because there have been changes in Government. The system has been the same, irrespective of the changes in Government that have taken place, but in view of all this overlapping, you may have those with nothing better to do spending five or six days sitting on the fence in front of a labourer's cottage and coming away at the end of a week laughing at Government and at the efforts of Government that are being made here with all these investigators, inspectors and others engaged in paying out average weekly sums of 2/-.
This is a new Bill dealing with children. We already have in a Government Department a system under which every child born has to be registered. We have that locally as well as centrally. We also have administrative machinery that is bound to investigate and know the financial circumstances of every home in each administrative area. You have local officers and a machine designed to make payments locally or centrally. Let the first step be towards sound economy, towards sounder administration, to ensure that this scheme will not result in the creation of a number of new officers and new administrators and investigators. Perhaps that question can be better discussed on the Committee Stage, but I put it to the Minister for consideration.
I welcome this Bill not so smuch for what it provides as for the principle behind it. It should be recognised, even in normal times, that a service of this kind is necessary. Even then it would take great courage to face the liability which follows the introduction of such a Bill. It should also be recognised that, in addition to its other responsibilities, it is very creditable to the present Government that they made time to examine this question. I do not think it could be interpreted from the Minister's introductory statement that he had raised the flag on high, or said that this was the limit which could be expected by recipients. It is the limit to which the Government could go at this stage. There seem to have been complaints of lack of information about the scheme. It is true that a statement indicating the difficulties of the present position was not circulated, but certain information was given from which it is possible to make calculations. The Minister envisaged that the scheme would cost about £2,500,000 and will affect 120,000 families.
Was that information given to-day?
Yes. It is a simple calculation to find how many half-crowns there are in £2,500,000 and to divide by 52. It is estimated that provision will be made for 400,000 children. The Minister also stated that if the scheme applied to the first child in a family it would cost £3,500,000. I calculated that if the original figure related to 120,000 families, the latter would affect 150,000 families and at 2/6 per week that would include 500,000 children. If the benefit was to apply to every child, the Minister mentioned that the scheme would cost the State £5,250,000 and would affect 240,000 families. His calculation meant that 800,000 children under 16 years of age would qualify on the appointed day. The Bill in the initial stages provides for 50 per cent. of the children in the State under 16 years of age. I think that is something which should be taken as a very big step in the direction that we all want to go. It ought at least to be regarded as something well done as the first step in this scheme, and a big bite off the load that has to be borne. The House should recognise that this Government has consistently faced its responsibilities towards the masses and that rrpm the very day it took office it has made an effort to deal, as far as was possible, with the most necessitous in this community. Many points were raised by Deputy O'Higgins, with some of which I am more or less in agreement. I agree that the first child born into a family is the most expensive.
And the most welcome.
I agree. I suppose it is because Deputy O'Higgins and myself have large families that we agree that that is the expensive stage. The early years of married life are the difficult ones. The earning powers of parents then are generally not large. The greatest hardship is experienced with the first and second child. When the parents are more advanced in years, and the children are bigger, the earning power is greater. To that extent I agree with Deputy O'Higgins. I believe that all these points were considered by the Government and by the Departments concerned and that they investigated a variety of other schemes. I am sure they calculated the cost in all circumstances, and having the results before them,they probably came to the conclusion that this is the most this, State can do with this limited amount of money. The Bill was introduced in the hope that it was going to do the best that was possible in this way rather than in any other way. On the Committee Stage it will be open to any Deputy to introduce amendments and, in the meanwhile, to look for information which would enable other suggestions to be made.
The charge on public funds cannot be increased.
I am dealing with the points raised by Deputy O'Higgins, who stated that he was not in a position to judge whether the distribution of money in this way was going to do the greatest amount of good. The Deputy felt that there was other information to be secured from which better results, might be obtained. I agree with that approach to the matter. I do not, however, agree that there was any suggestion of bluff and finality on the part of the Minister, who, so far as I can interpret his remarks, made it clear that we were limited to this amount in present circumstances. I did not understand him to say that we were limited to this amount for all time, and I do not think it fair to interpret his introductory remarks on those lines.
I did not interpret his remarks as referring to all time. I was speaking only of the present time.
The point is that this Government has made a beginning in this matter. This scheme will benefit 400,000 children, and it will do so because the Government, in its wisdom and its judgment is to how it can best manipulate the finances of the State, has come to the conclusion that the amount which they can reach in this connection is the sum of £2,500,000. Experience of the administration of the Act may show that they arc overestimating or under-estimating, and, when experience has been obtained, they may be willing to alter the rules and regulations, which, I understand, will be made from time to time, to make the scheme apply in other directions. I should like to see, as we would all like to see, a lot more done, but the Government is the best judge as to how far it can go.
I regard the Bill as being of great value from the point of view that the, scheme is not designed to provide contributions from the State solely to necessitous families, but is designed to affect certain sections of the community, excluding the income-tax class, that is, those who pay income-tax to such an extent that, by claiming this particular payment, they would lose more, through the loss of children's allowances for income purposes, than they would get. Therefore, it not alone concerns necessitous families but it puts on an even keel the heads of families who are in similar classes of employment, but in whose living circumstances there is a disparity, in that the standard of living is affected by the fact that, in one case, there is a ]arge family, and, in the other, a small family. These contributions will benefit these people, and to a certain extent, lessen that difference.
A very good feature of the Bill is the provision of a flat rate to which no means test, as we understand a means test as applied to other schemes, is attached. Experience of the working of the scheme may suggest that a similar procedure be followed in respect of other social services and we may live to see the time when the means test which affects certain people will be done away with. We would all like to sec ideal conditions existing in every case, but it cannot, be done. In this particular case, however, there is a flat rate, with no moans test, which is a good feature. Deputy O'Higgins said he would like to see consideration given to the Bill with a view to its extrusion by a scheme of contributions. I do not see how anybody could seriously suggest a contributory scheme in relation to such a Bill as this. One has to have regard to the facts and circumstances of the people who are to benefit. A man in employment who might want to benefit by the scheme would have to make a certain number of contributions, hut his continuance in employment is beyond his control and he may lose his employment. There are all kinds of difficulties which would make the adoption of such a suggestion impossible, as it is not at all on the same basis as that of other schemes.
I do not remember the Minister saying that if the House accepted this Bill it became an obligation on the House to support the Budget. What I understood him to say was that he hoped there would not be criticism of additional expenditure arising out of payment under the Bill.
Did the Minister not say that there would be a moral obligation on those who supported this Bill to support the Budget?
I said they were under a moral obligation to support the taxation necessary to pay for it.
That is what I understood the Minister to say—that they would have to recognise the fact.
A distinction without a difference.
There is a substantial difference.
The Budget will cover quite a number of other matters. I believe the Minister would be grateful for and would welcome any suggestions for improving the scheme as a social service, and I imagine that if anybody can point out to him how this sum of money can be used to better advantage, without reducing the number of children whom it would benefit, he will be prepared to consider any such suggestion quite seriously. If I felt that I could suggest something which would result in an improvement, I should be very anxious to press it, and I am sure that if I could make a good case it would be seriously considered; but I should like to hear people making suggestions of a practical nature. I quite admit that, unless one has certain data, one cannot make these suggestions, but, in the meantime, it might be a good thing to suggest to those who are concerned about making suggestions for improvement that they should ask certain questions to which the Minister might have the answers on Committee Stage, when they could be dealt with on the appropriate sections. If there is to be an intervening period, perhaps we could get this information by way of Parliamentary question and answer. There should, and can, be no secrecy about it. The census figures of population are available, and, as Deputy O'Higgins said, the registrations of births are available, so there is no secrecy about the thing at all.
There is a point which was touched on by Deputy O'Higgins which I think ought to be seriously considered. I agree that a time will come when there will have to be an amalgamation of all these social services, not alone for the purpose of eliminating certain overlapping costs, but to get a better picture, a more concise way of looking at the matters concerned. I do not know whether it is the best thing that this service should be administered by Industry and Commerce. I do not know that it makes any difference what Department administers any service in present circumstances, but I should like to suggest—it has been suggested before— that the time may come when it might be advisable to amalgamate all these services under one Ministry—a Ministry of Social Services—and not have them all separately administered as they are to-day. I agree that with different Departments administering social services, such as unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, and now these children's allowances, you may have an overlapping of services. But, generally speaking, I cannot see how any Deputy can do anything but welcome this Bill because of the new service that it introduces. I do not suggest that anybody in this House ought to say that this is the ultimate goal at which we should aim. But one has to remember that we are living in abnormal conditions and that an additional £2,500,000 from the taxpayers, which it really amounts to, is a very big bite off the loaf. I hope, therefore, that Deputies who will follow in this debate will not approach it from the point of view from which it was approached by the Leader of the Op position, with, a sort of cynical, sarcastic criticism. There was nothing right in it, except the figure given, with which he could agree. I hope that other Deputies will approach it from the point of view of recognising that it is a big step forward and making suggestions as to how more good can be done than will be done under the scheme at present before us.
I think all Deputies will agree that the principle of the Bill is sound. It does introduce a new principle in regard to social and reformative legislation by lessening the disparity existing between the standard of living of people with families and the standard of living of those who remain single. In that way it does introduce a new and essentially desirable principle. While it will be agreed that parents with families should be called upon to bear perhaps a heavier burden than people who remain single, it is right that this burden should not be insupportable and that the State and the general community should assist those citizens in carrying out their responsibilities.
There is one section of our community whom I hold will derive perhaps greater benefit from this Bill than any other section, namely, small landholders and small property owners throughout this State. In the past, those people have been debarred from the benefits of most social legislation, and they are very often people of very small means. An attempt to investigate the means of people engaged in agriculture was made some years ago by a Cork professor and resulted in the finding that quite a number of those people were earning incomes of less than £1 per week. It would be absolutely impossible for people with such an income to undertake the responsibility of marriage. In the past people in that class have not been able to avail of social legislation to any extent. Even when they came to the age of 70 and gave up possession of their holdings, they found it extremely difficult to benefit from the old age pensions legislation. A good feature of the Bill is that it does away with the means test. No slur is cast upon the person who takes advantage of the provisions of the Bill. For that reason it is very welcome.
I understand that the person who is to claim this allowance is the father of the family. While I am prepared to agree that it may be right and proper that the father, as head of the family, should make the application for this allowance, and, perhaps, for a revision of the allowance at the end of each six-monthly period, when such revision becomes due, I am not prepared to agree that it is right or proper that the allowance should be paid to the father of the family. I think an unanswerable case can be made for the payment of the allowance directly to the mother. There are exceptions to every rule, but, in general, it must be recognised that the mother is more closely interested in and associated with the providing of food and clothing for the family. While the father may consider it his duty, and may remind himself frequentty that it is his duty to provide for the welfare of his family with regard to essential requirements, such as food, clothing, etc., the mother, without any reflection on the matter, instinctively feels that it is her duty and will make provision for her family without any coercion. Since the mother is more closely associated with the upbringing of the children, I think it is right and proper that, in tho main, the allowance should be payable to the mother. In making the application for the allowance, there might be provision for the father, if he desires that the mother should ndt draw the allowance, to set down specific reasons why she should not. But, as a genera] rule, I think the allowance should be payable to the mother in those cases where the mother is living.
While we are prepared to agree that 2/6 per week is a very small allowance, particularly at present when the cost of living is so high, and while we are prepared to suggest that there should be some increase in that allowance, I am not one of those who hold that there is no limit to the amount of the allowance that should be paid in respect to children. It is not desirable that the allowance paid by the State to citizens should be out of proportion to the amount which they earn through their avocations. It is sound and reasonable that the allowance should be sufficient to assist in the upbringing of the children, but not sufficient to relieve the parents of all obligations whatever. That applies also to the plea for the extension of the allowance to the first and second child. I agree that a good case can be made for that extension also, but I hay that there is a definite limit, even apart from the limit set by the condition of the national Exchequer. I do not agree that support of this measure places an obligation on Deputies to support all increased taxation necessary to provide these allowances.
Why not? Where is the money to come from?
There are very definite and obvious methods by which money can be obtained other than by taxation. For example, there is economy.
£2,250,000?
£2,250,000 may seem a very large amount of money; but we must remember that in the last 10 years or so national expenditure has been increased by £10,000,000 or £15,000,000, so that £2,250,000 is not such a huge sum that it could not bo obtained by economy in general administration, by the prevention of overlapping in the various Departments, and also, to a great extent, by a reduction in tho price which the Government and local authorities have seen fit to pay for money which they borrow. There are opportunities along the lines I have indicated of saving money which could be applied to the financing of a desirable measure such as this.
I welcome the proposal in this Bill to have the payments made weekly. That, of course, is very desirable. In certain cases various payments are made to workers and others fortnightly and monthly, which is not at all desirable. The people who will benefit most by this Bill are people of very small means who cannot avail of credit facilities in the shops or elsewhere and it is most essential that they should receive the money within the shortest periods of time. Therefore, it is most desirable that the payments should be made weekly.
I think the Minister made a fairly good case for this Bill. I think it is a Bill which the people of the country in general will welcome. It has been suggested that there is an alternative, in the way of a contributory scheme of allowances, but if we take a broad view of this Bill, it is reasonably contributory inasmuch as the general taxpayer contributes to the provision of the money. I cannot conceive any method by which citizens could be called upon to make a direct contribution towards a measure of this kind. I cannot imagine, for example, small farmers or small property owners being asked to stamp cards in respect of such a measure as this, particularly having regard to the fact that a very large percentage of smallholders and small fanners are aged, unmarried persons, who have no prospect whatever of deriving any benefit from the provisions of the Bill.
Therefore, I think that, since everybody contributes in taxation, fairly and equitably—we hope—every citizen of this country is entitled to draw the allowances provided by this Bill without feeling that he is, accepting charity of any kind. He is simply accepting from the Exchequer a payment to which he is entitled by reason of the fact that he has a certain number of dependents to support.
I do not quite agree with the Minister when he said that this Bill represents a redistribution of the national income only, and that he cannot raise the national income. I think that anything which tends to increase expenditure does have the effect of raising the national income. We have seen how the national income in this country and in Great Britain has increased over the past few years by reason, solely, of increased Government expenditure and I think that if the Minister were to consider being a little more generous in a measure of this kind, he would be justified in borrowing the money required, or part of the money required, for the first year, on the assumption that the national income would increase and that it would be possible to find the money ouc of general taxation in later years. I think a strong case was made in regard to that particular point by Deputy Dillon when he was speaking in connection with this matter some time ago and he was, of course, advocating a much more generous scheme than this. I think the case he made for borrowing the money, or part of the money, for the first or second year was sound.
I welcome this Bill particularly, as I say, on behalf of the rural community. I welcome it also because it casts no slur upon those who will derive benefit from it. I hope that, now that a step has been taken in this direction, we will have the principle of family allowances further extended as the years go by and as we gain experience of the operation of the Act.
Like all the other Deputies who have spoken before me, I also give this measure a very hearty welcome. That welcome is tempered somewhat with slight regret. That regret is in regard to the matter Deputy Cosgrave raised in his speech —it has also been touched upon by Deputy Hogan and other Deputies— namely, the question of a contributory scheme. I cannot see any objection whatsoever to a contributory scheme. Some Deputies appeared to think it waa an unheard of thing in this country, whereas the contrary is the fact. There are systems of unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance and home assistance in this country—I suppose everybody is aware of that—and Deputies should be aware of the fact that the ordinary workingman, when he is employed, contributes towards his unemployment insurance, which he draws upon at a subsequent date when he is unemployed. I do not see any reason why bume contribution should not be made to a scheme of this kind. I feel that no decent, honest workingman would object in any way to a contributory scheme but rather that he would welcome it because he would feel pride and pleasure in drawing money to which he felt entitled, having contributed to it over a period of months or years.
I came into this House to-day prepared to hear a whole lot of nonsense spoken, on this very serious subject of relief. A number of Deputies who took part in the debate put forward suggestions which, if carried into effect, would mean placing another £2,500,000 on the shoulders of the taxpayers. I certainly re-echo the sentiments of the Minister when he asked every Deputy in this House who intended to raise his voice in the matter seriously to consider the position and its reactions or relations to the coming budget. I do not at all agree that this was thrown out by way of threat. It was, in my view, asking Deputies of this House to come down to realities, when discussing questions of this kind. You cannot have it both ways. You had Deputy Cogan of the Farmers' Party advocating an increase in the half-crown. We would all like to see this increase in operation but it costs money and Deputy Cogan would be the first man in this House to tell you of the tribulations and trials of the poor working farmer in Mayo or somewhere else in raising money for a measure of this kind. One cannot get more out of a pint measure than a pint. That is all that is in it. Whatever the national income in this country may be—£5,000,000 or £10,000,000—you cannot get more out of it than that. This Bill, or any other, form of relief, will certainly involve taxation. We have to face up to that and pay for it. That is why I think the decent workingmen of this country are prepared to put their hands in their pockets and pay towards a contributory scheme. As Deputy O'Higgins and others suggested this afternoon, why does not the Minister take this step and get all those schemes under one heading?
I have read the Beveridge Report from the first page to its concluding page, but I must say that I should not like to see the Beveridge plan put into operation in its entirety in this country. I have the feeling that a number of independent men in this country—and, when I speak of independent men, I mean independent workingmen throughout this country— would not like to see that plan implemented so far as this country is concerned. If you want to bring up a race of spineless people—a jelly-fish kind of race—and spoon-feed them from the cradle to the grave, you must take into consideration what type of people you will have in this country in another generation or two. I know that that is not in the Minister's mind, but I think it is an undoubted fact that in the minds of a large number of people there is growing up the idea that they should be able to get something for nothing; and what is that wing to lead to in the end?
The Minister has pointed out what this could mean in certain circumstances: that it might mean 1d. per lb. on sugar, 1/- in the £ on income-tax, 1d. per pint on beer, and so on; and I am quite sure that our citizens would be prepared to pay that if they thought that an adequate return would accrue for the benefit of our people. That is my reply to the critics, and I anticipate that that will be the Minister's reply. I do not share the view of Deputies who challenged the Minister's figures, when he said that it would mean putting an extra 1d. or so on various commodities, because I believe that it would mean that people would have to bs more guarded as to what they would spend. However, in connection with that matter, I shall reserve any further remarks I have to make until the Committee Stage of the Bill, when various amendments will be put forward.
As I have said already, I welcome this Bill, but I think that the Minister should have taken his courage in both hands and brought in a contributory scheme, because I believe that if you had an amalgamation of all the various schemes—unemployment assistance, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, and this scheme—an omnibus scheme, such as you have across the water, under which the workingman would pay one contribution, it would be a further step forward. I welcome this Bill as a good and courageous step forward, however, and I hope that it will pass through this House with the goodwill and good feeling of every Party in the House. It seems to me that every Party in the House is in favour of the scheme, and, therefore, I hope that the Minister will seriously consider whether or not it is possible to make this a contributory scheme.
I think that it is, somewhat futile to expect any individual member of this House or any Party in this House to take up an attitude of opposition to this scheme, introduced by the Minister, because it is quite clear, not only as a result of this debate, but from the views put forward by various people for a considerable time before the introduction of this Bill, that it is the considered opinion of a large number of people in this country that a scheme of this kind is necessary. Because of the peculiarities of the Parliamentary machinery, however, the putting forward of such a measure, and its practical application, are two different things. Nobody will cavil with the Minister or the Government in regard to any effort they may make to give improved or more widely distributed social services and, therefore, we are confined exclusively, in this debate, to the actual scheme within the frame work and limitations laid down by the Minister. However, before passing from that point, I want to take issue with the Minister on what seems to me to have been the most important matter referred to in the course of his infcroductorry remarks. That is where he referred—as he did in the previous debate—to the fact that we have in this country certain conditions of want, certain conditions of lack of income, certain conditions which mean that a section of our people are not enabled to enjoy what we would all recognise as ordinary, decent and human conditions; and that, given a fixed national income, that particular situation can only be met by a redistribution of the national income that exists at the present time; and the Minister takes credit to himself that in this measure, which we all welcome, he has taken a step in that direction. Now, I am not at all clear as to whether he has done so, because it seems to me that there are certain qualifications that have to be attached to the Minister's statement. Deputy Anthony says that we cannot take more out of a pint pot than is in it, but he seems to forget that some of us may take more out of the pint pot than we are entitled to take. That is why I agree with the Minister or the Government in the introduction of schemes such as this and similar schemes of social insurance, or all-embracing schemes of this nature, winch would give to the mass of our people something that they do not receive at the present time: and that is their proper share of the national income produced by them.
We have had in this country, over a period—and notably since the present Government took office—an attempt, not only to increase the national income by various legislative and industrial measures, but also, within certain limited degrees, to redistribute the national income. I have already made reference to that fact in other debates, but I am very much afraid that, if one went into the figures and examined them carefully, it would be found that no matter how well-intentioned or sincere the Minister or the Government may have been, no great or significant change has taken place in regard to the redistribution of our national income, even allowing for the fact that four years of war have intervened. I think it will be found, if one examines the figures impartially, with regard to the redistribution of our national income, that the poor are still poor, relatively, so far as the rich are concerned, and that, in many cases, the rich have become richer. I think it will be found that the situation has become even more intolerable as a result of the experience of the last four-year period of war, and that that period has brought greater security and mors wealth to those who already possessed wealth, and a greater degree of poverty to those who were already poor and upon whom the emergency presses most hardly—and these form the majority of our nation.
In this country we have carried on a struggle for many generations, with the object of trying to reinstate our people, not only in national ownership, but in social and economic ownership of their own country. Whatever may be said with regard to our progress nationally, I think it must be admitted that, so far as industrial and economic ownership of our nation is concerned, we have made little or no progress. Accordingly, when we come to deal with such a measure as this, and when the Minister puts it forward to this House as being a measure which, in his opinion, accomplishes something that does need to be tackled—the redistribution of our national income—we are entitled to question that statement, with a view to seeing if he is correct in his assertion.
First of all, when we speak of the national income, we then have to try to discover what is the present distribution of that income. Of course, we can get the ngures that have been given to us by economists, and, on the basis of those figures, we can relate the figure that we are now discussing, of £2,250,000, to the total. On that basis, and giving full credit to the Minister when he says that there is going to be a change, which would mean a redistribution of income, as between one small, wealthy group and a very much larger group who are in much poorer circumstances—the actual amount, involved would be, comparatively, a very small matter.
Even allowing for what the Minister has said, however, we cannot take it for granted that there will be a complete change-over. We have no definite figures as to how the actual expenditure of this sum of £2,250,000 will be spread over the whole of our population. We are told that there is to be no means test, and I am sure that everybody will agree with that, but it seems to me that we are going about it in another way, by reducing the relief that has been given to people coming under the income-tax group. The Minister has given us certain figures with regard to that matter, but it appears to me, from the figures he has given, that the amount concerned would be infinitesimal—that, practically, the amount concerned would amount to nothing—and, therefore, any offset in that particular regard will not be of any particular value.
It is when we come to the point of how the money is to be found that we are entitled to question what actual redistribution is taking place, and on that basis we have no information whatever. Two points arise. First of all, we have no indication from the Government or the Minister as to what proportion of the national income they feel requires to be redistributed, and secondly, who are the people who have got too much, who are those who have too little, and how the balance is to be distributed. If we could get these figures, we could give them every credit for approaching the question from the proper angle, but we have got no indication, as I say, except a general statement that within the limits of the income of the country, the Government were doing all they could to succour and to strengthen the weakest portion of our people. In the redistribution of this national income, we should like to know how much at any given time they feel has to be changed over to the more needy members of tlie community. Here we are presented with a figure of £2,250,000, and we have a scheme which proposes to distribute this income as a social measure. Everybody with any social sense will welcome this measure, although we may not agree on the actual details of the scheme, but we cannot estimate the value of this very large and very significant social measure until we know what is in the mind of the Government as to the ways and means of finding the money to finance the scheme.
The Minister tried to frighten us by referring to additional imposts on beer, sugar and tobacco. I do not know whether these are to be taken even as clues as to the lines upon which the Minister for Finance will proceed when it comes to a question of raising the money. We are also told that any money we do raise to finance a scheme like this is a burden that must be placed on the back of the taxpayer. Why must we always approach questions of this kind in that way? Why do we not endeavour to distinguish between taxpayers? Why do we not realise that at the present time 60 per cent. of our total taxes are being raised by indirect taxation from the least well-to-do of the people, and that only 40 per cent. is being taken in direct taxation from the well-to-do? Within our community, we have got degrees of affluence and wealth and why cannot we find out ways and means of bringing about that redistribution of which the Minster speaks? If we take some of the figures supplied officially by the Minister, we find that in this small country with a population of under 3,000,000, we have a comparatively small number of people, 2,800 people, in receipt of a total income of £9,000,000, or £3,000 per person per annum. That is, roughly, £60 per week. A great many of our social services are based on the practicability of helping families whose income is not £60 a week, but £60 a year. Surely, it is from such sources as these that we should consider the possibility of raising this additional taxation?
It may not be possible to find all the money in that way, but at least by taking a larger share from those in receipt of these enormous sums of money—£9,000,000 between less than 3,000—a considerable proportion of the expenditure required to provide support and sustenance for the weakest portion of our people could be found. The actual amount of money we take in income-tax, supertax and excess profits from these people with large incomes still leaves them with incomes which are altogether out of proportion to those of the masses of the people.
They still draw a great deal more than the amount upon which the average person in the country has to live. If we try to contrast their condition with,that of the poorest sections of our people, those with whom we are directly concerned, the comparison is one that it is almost impossible to make. We have, on the one hand, the man or woman with three or four children living on unemployment assistance, or the widow with a State pension, contrasted with those who, after paying all taxes, are still drawing £20, £30 and £40 a week. Surely these are inequalities that can be remedied by legislative measures or fiscal measures, to provide a new basis of social relations or a new social structure for the country.
Therefore, from that point of view, I would make the criticism that whatever good is in the Bill, the big factor that has yet to be decided is the means by which the money will be raised. Who will bring about what the Minister says is his purpose, a redistribution of national economy, so that those who are in a position to hear the burden will be called upon to contribute in proper measure to ease the burden on their less fortunate brethren?
I do not think that line of criticism is unfair criticism. It is a criticism which the Minister has invited by his introductory remarks, but it is one that I think, so far as I could see, many speakers seem to have failed to envisage. Deputy Cogan suggested that the load of taxation is fairly and equitably distributed. If Deputy Cogan had studied the facts, ho would know that that is not the case at all. There can be no suggestion of fair and equitable distribution of taxation when on the one hand you have individuals drawing £2,000 or £3,000 a year after paying all taxes, and against that, families trying to exist on £2 or £3 a week. There is no equality or decency about that. It is nearly time that we approached this question of placing on the backs of that section of the community who are best able to bear it, the cost of bringing about that redistribution of income of which the Minister speaks, and which I am at one with him in his desire to bring about.
In regard to the Bill itself, naturally the conditions and limitations laid down by the Minister, and the amount of money to be provided, leave very few suggestions to be put forward. It was very nice of Deputy Briscoe to tell us when he was speaking—perhaps he had the advantage of speaking to some officials in the House—that we could make our suggestions to the Minister and that they would be sympathetically considered. When you have already built the four walls of a house, there is not much use in talking about the plan. In this case the house has been already set up, and we are told that we can take it or leave it. There are, however, one or two points which I should like the Minister to consider. In regard to the age limit of 16 years, I take it from the Minister's introductory statement he was following the procedure laid down in other countries, but it seems to me that there is a somewhat different case to be considered here. We have got an Act on the Statute Book here, the Conditions of Employment Act, which fixes an age limit of 18 years, and, because of that fixation, there has grown up in our industries a reluctance on the part of employers to take in children under 18 years of age, owing to the limitations in regard to hours of work provided for in the Act which, it is held, would create certain difficulties in the normal running of a factory.
It has become quite a commonplace now that boys and girls are told that they are not wanted until they reach the ago of 18. That is a very widely-developed practice which is still growing. I would suggest that that fact might be considered with regard to the ago limits provided in this Bill, seeing that we take it for granted in the Bill that when a child reaches the age of 16 he can take up employment and is able to contribute to his own upkeep. We have a condition of affairs in this country where a gap exists between these ages, a gap of two years in which the demands of a boy or girl on the family income are very great, for food, clothes and the ordinary small, amusements that a young person looks for. That may mean a very great strain on the family income. I think the Minister might consider whether it is not equitable and fair that that age of 16 years should be modified to the extent that the allowance should be paid up to 18 in the case of children who are not able to find employment. When we realise that within the City of Dublin each year, thousands of boys and girls are turned out who have no earthly chance of obtaining employment and who must continue to be a burden on their parents until they can obtain work at the age of 18, we realise that we are only trying to do what the Minister sets out in the Bill, to assist large families and help them to carry the burden of the children who cannot obtain work at the age of 16 and remain with the family for some time.
There is another point which, I think, is not made clear in the Bill. I take it that such allowances will be paid to the children of serving soldiers, where they are covered by dependent's allowances. Also, there is the case of children over 16 years of age who, by reason of infirmity or physical defect, are debarred from earning their living—they may be chronic invalids or cripples of one form or another—and who must remain a burden on the family tor all the days of their lives. Surely, an exception could be made in that case and some provision made for bringing those children within the scope of the scheme.
In regard to the contributory scheme, I think the Minister dealt quite fairly with it and that it is purely a question of the administrative difficulty. So far as the working class and the trade union movement are concerned, I do not think there was at any time an objection to paying an equal and fair share of any scheme such as this. We have to realise the conditions under which the bulk of our people live and are forced to rer families. Those conditions are not of our making. While it is very nice to talk, as Deputy Anthony does, of preserving the independence of our working class and not making them spineless by giving them so much, the first prerequisite to the independence of any man or woman is the provision of a means of earning livelihood at decent rates of wages and under proper conditions. Until we have discharged that function, we have no right to suggest that our people want to be reared as spineless people or that they want to hold out their hands to get something for nothing.
The working class, not only in the towns and cities but also those on the farms, represented by the Farmers Party, are the people who give all and are entitled to full measure. They are not getting it. Such schemes as the one introduced to-day provide one small source of returning to the mass of die people what has been denied to them for a very long time. From that point of view, the contributory scheme is one that could be inaugurated in association with, or on top of, the present scheme, but there is the question of ordinary human social justice to be dealt with first. This is a first step in that direction, though I am still doubtful that the Minister is doing what he said he set out to do, namely, effect a redistribution of the national income on the basis that it is a solution of some of our social problems.
I am very glad, naturally, to see this Bill introduced into this House. I have been trying to get it introduced for five years and, to-night, I see the realisation of that ambition. I will not dwell unduly on that, as I have no doubt the Government will scream that I had nothing whatever to do with it. It really does not mattel who was responsible for having this Bill brought in: the all-important thing is that it has been brought in.
In our rejoicing at what I regard as something, closely approximating to a great revolution, which will be brought about by this Bill when it becomes an Act, we should not lose sight, of the fact that family allowances, desirable as they are, are only a second best. The ideal, as I see it, in a Catholic country, would be to ensure that every person who did an honest day's work would receive for that labour a wage sufficient to enable him to rear a Christian family. If we could realise that, it would be a very much better way of meeting the whole question of the special responsibilities of the fathers of families, than the method enshrined in this Bill. Unfortunately, our country is so circumstanced and the units of industry and agriculture are so small, that it is highly unlikely to be practical in our time to work out a scheme whereunder the persons engaged in agricultural and industrial employment would receive a wage strictly related to their family responsibilities. That ideal being impossible, the best way to meet the evil resulting from the absence of any recognition of the difference between the responsibility of a father of a family and the responsibility of an unmarried man, is to introduce a system of family allowances which shall be superimposed upon the normal wage system of the country, and which will provide a special allowance as a reward to those who have family responsibilities.
I listened to Deputy Larkin saluting this as the first step in the redistribution of the national income. I want to sound a note of warning. If the Labour Party are going to take up the line that everyone who is capable of earning a good income in this country is to have that whole income taken away from them and given to someone else, the net result mil be that everyone capable of earning a good income will quit this country. There is no getting away from the fact that Has incidence of income-tax, supertax and the other taxes at present being borne by those with comparatinely substantial incomes, is very heavy at the present time. I know that, it Bounds dramatic and effective to say that there is £9,000,000 being distributed between 3,000 people and to compare that with the man earning 30/- a week; but the truth is that the incidence of income-tax bears wy heavily, not primarily on the, people who are, in enjoyment of what would seem, to us fantastic, incomes, of £20,000 and £30,000 per year, but on the man earning £2,000 or £3,000 a year.
Take a professor in the university: is he worth £1,200 a year or is be not? If this House thinks he is not, there are hundreds of academic institutions-throughout the world that will be most glad to offer the distinguished scholars of this country more than that sum to give their services and learning in various centres throughout the world. There are many men working in this country at their own particular jobs who could get more money by going away but, so long as they are able to maintain a reasonably high standard of living here, according to what they think themselves entitled to, they prefer to remain here and give their own people the benefit of their knowledge.
If it is proposed that a man who has spent 15 or 20 years acquiring scholarship, for the puiyose of qualifying as, a specialist or becoming a professor in a certain line, is to be brought down to the same measure of remuneration or reward as the man who is doing comparatively unskilled work, the net result will be that the scholar and the professor will leave this country and go where their services are better rewarded. The same applies to the position of an engineer or a distinguished administrator, or to somebody whose presence in this country results in the creation of employment, the stimulation of industry or the promotion of agriculture. If all those men are to be denied a reward comparable with what they might secure in any other part of the world, the net result of die attempt at a redistribution of our national income which Deputy Larkin mentioned will be that those distinguished men will leave this country and go where their services will be properly rewarded.
Would you apply that to directors' fees?
I know that every kind of specious rubbish can be bawled at me. I can be asked if I am now championing the cause of those individuals who are drawing £15,000 a year from foreign investments. That is "codology". I am talking of people whom Deputy Davin and I know well—high officials of the railway company, for instance. Deputy Davin knows perfectly well that they have to be there if the railway is to be kept in existence and if employment is to be provided tor engine drivers and railway porters. High individuals in our public service —I do not want to mention names— have been lost to us because of the demand for them elsewhere. I have in mind one who rose to the highest position in the British Administration. I forget the reasons he left our Administration, but I mention that individual to show the pull there is on the very best men we have got and how, by leaving us and going to other countries, they can get a monetary reward far in excess of anything-they can hope to earn here. When we exacerbate that situation, undoubtedly we run the risk of losing to foreign competitors the superior brains and ability which are being used in the organisation of industry, agriculture and other enterprises to provide the national ircome we have got and maintain the people who are working in their jobs.
Stripped of the service of these elect children of this country—and they are elect bcause their superior ability and training make them stand out in the community—we might find that we had no income to distribute and that, instead of serving the wage-earners by distributing the national income on the lines which, I gather. Deputy Larkin (Junior) had in mind, our very attempt had resulted in tearing down the structure on which their livelihood existed. The men of brains and ability in agriculture and industry having pone over to our competitors who offered superior rewards, we might find that we had robbed the wage-earner of this country of his ability to earn at all.
So much having been said, I want to say that I welcome this Bill. I welcome it for something far more important than the half-crown. It is the recognition of a great principle. It is the recognition that, in our community, there should be no penalty for exercising a Christian man's right to marry and raise a family, in so far an the community can help it. We all know that the terms are not overgenerous. Two-and-sixpence for each child after the second child is not a fortune. But I want to say quite deliberately that I think it wag a courageous thing ot the Government, in tne circumstances in which it finds itself at present, to face even the burden ot the half-crown. In the aggregate, it is a substantial sum and many an Executive would have run away from the task of finding the wherewithal to finance this first step on the right road. I salute the Bill, firstly, for that immensely important thing—that it recognises the principle of the family wage and our desire to do the next best thing to providing a family wage direct when it is not possible for the employer to provide a family wage for the earner. I also salute it because it has abolished the means test. This is, I think, the first piece of social legislation on the Continent of Europe which has abolished the means test. I have always detested that stigma of pauperism, attached to every social service both here and in Great Britain, under which the fact that a person claimed to be entitled to the advantages provided by legislation enabled a government inspector to trespass on his borne and cross-question him regarding his domestic affairs.
Under this Bill, every person who has three or more children is entitled, as a right, to get the allowance without any reference to his domestic circumstances whatsoever. I hope we shall yet be able to organise all our social services here on that basis. If people came into my home, however well-intentioned they might be, seeking to confer some favour on me, and, as the price of it, claimed the right to pry into my domestic affairs, I should be prepared to suffer a great deal before submitting to that indignity. The right I claim that my own home be sacrosanct is a right I claim for the home of every individual, rich and poor. The acknowledgment of that right in this Bill is a precedent on which this Dail will not lightly go back.
In passing, I want to say something which may be more strictly relevant to the Financial Resolution which we shall consider before the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Minister, I understand, has adumbrated a very heavy scheme of taxation to meet this service. One cannot distribute £2,250,000 without getting it from some source, but I strenuously urge on the Government, speaking as one thoroughly conservative in matters of public finance, not to attempt to finance this measure exclusively out of revenue during the emergency. The cost of the Army is £8,500,000 per year. The Ministry of Supplies, which may reasonably be expected to shrink to diminutive proportions post-war, is a heavy charge on the Exchequer. Various subsidies of one kind or another constitute a drain on the Exchequer at present, and many of them are made necessary by the existence of the emergency. It is perfectly legitimate for the Government, at this stage, having decided to introduce this admirable advance in the social service of our community, to introduce the system of two separate Budgets. That should be done rather than attempt to pile on the taxpayer the total burden of financing this service during the emergency. The Minister for Finance should prepare an emergency Budget and an ordinary Budget, and bring before the Dáil proposals to finance a certain part of our emergency expenditure expressly and explicitly out of borrowed money.
While saying that in regard to the emergency, I want to second most warmly and emphatically the Minister's introductory statement that, in normal times, this service must be financed out of revenue if it is to have any prospect of success or survival. If we were to adopt as part of our normal budgetary practice the financing of social services of this kind out of borrowed money, we should be simply starting on the downhill road which would end in the collapse of all social services. Having that conviction as clear as crystal before our minds, we should not allow it to confuse us in contemplating the emergency situation with which we are at present confronted. It would aend off the whole scheme on the wrong foot, it would create unnecessary prejudice against it, if it were made the occasion for putting upon the community a burden of taxation far in excess of their capacity to bear without serious economic dislocation. From the most conservative point of view, it would be an improvident tiling to do. I shall not pursue that question now because it will arise on the financial resolution which we shall later discuss.
In what I propose to say now, I confess that I am somewhat thinking aloud. There is, I think, something to be said for making these allowances payable to the mother of the family. I think that that would emphasise the purpose of the allowance and would establish a kind of permanent memorial of the desire of the Dáil that it should be used for improvement of the amenities which can be afforded to the children in the family. Now, further than that I do not want to go in indicating the way in which Dáil Eireann desires this money to be used, because, while we have eliminated the means test, I can foresee that before this debate is finished we will find ourselves confronted with a new and much more insidious temptation, and that is that some pious soul will propose that this family allowance will be given in the form of food of some special nutritive character on the ground that we here know better what to do with the family income than the parents whom God has pat over the family. I think it is reasonable that the Dáil should express a general principle as to how this money ought to be used; but to trespass inside the family circle, to seek to usurp the functions of a father and mother, and dictate to them how the family income is to be used best for the welfare of the family, would be, to my mind, utterly anathema.
The beauty of this Bill is that it bolts and bars the door against the bureaucrat. It strengthens the citadel of the family against the Government. It places a complete and absolute discretion in the hands of the parents to use this income as they think best for the benefit of the children, and I earnestly hope that, while we might do something by handing it to the mother, we would not go an inch beyond that in any form of dictation or interference in the way the total family finances are to be administered by the parents.
I want to ask some specific questions of the Minister which he may or may not be in a position to answer at the moment. As I understand the Bill, if a family has four children, A, B, C, and D, A and B do not get any allowance and never will, but the moment C arrives on the scene the family gets 2/6 until he attains the age of 16 years, and the same applies to D and to any subsequent children. But, when A and B attain the age of 16 years, that will not operate to knock C out of benefit. If I am correct in that assumption——
It will operate. There must be more than two children under 16.
Suppose on the day of the passing of the Act the family consists of two children only, and a third is born, and a fourth and a fifth, that means there are three family allowances going into the house. The eldest child attains its sixteenth year. Does that mean that the children's allowance stops in respect of one of the children? Surely the Minister could reconsider that?
At what age will the Deputy stop?
When the child reaches the age of 16 years.
Mr. Larkin
There are a whole lot more traps in the Act.
I refuse to believe that there are traps and pitfalls. The purpose of bringing in the Bill is to permit us to examine it and to take common counsel as to what is equitable and reasonable and within our resources. I cannot see that allowing a child to continue drawing the allowance until he is 16 can be very material.
It is not the child who draws the allowance.
No, it is the parents who draw the allowance. Let us examine the thing from two points. One could not imagine the Government saying that if you allow that to take place it will cost too much money—that to allow a child to draw benefit until he is 16 years would cost too much money. Children become more or less like steps of stairs in a family. If the first child becoming entitled to benefit is two years younger than the second child and gets his 2/6 a week, all you do is to extend the benefit to the third child by two years until it reaches the age of 16 years.
But we are not paying benefit to the child; we are to the parents in respect of the number of children under 16 years.
I can see that you can get a lovely Departmental kind of argument out of this—the kind of thing that would come out of the Revenue Commissioners.
The Deputy is assuming that a child will come every two years.
The difference in cost is not going to be substantial to the community; but it will cause a great deal of disappointment and a sense of injustice if a family enjoys allowances in respect of a third child and, because another child attains the age of 16 years—a child that never had an allowance—the parents lose the family allowance in respect of the third child. You may argue that the moment the eldest child reaches 16, that lowers the burden of the family, and it is not reasonable that it should go on, getting the same family assistance as it got while the eldest was under 16 years. But in practice, as Deputy Larkin pointed out, the child of 16 does not immediately become an earning asset. It probably will not earn any substantial wages until it is 18 or 19 years, and then probably the contribution to the family would be very much less than the entire wages because the child will become an independent individual. Therefore, I would urge that once the child under this Bill becomes entitled to a family allowance, the family will continue to get that allowance until that child reaches 16 years. I strongly represent to the Minister that unless that principle is adopted, a bitter sense of grievance will be created in the minds of lots of people. I do not think we ought to make that concession until we see what it involves. I think it will involve allowing a person with two children over 16 now and two under 16 to get the, allowance, whereas if the Minister's principle stands, then you have a family with the ctBIdren aged 17, 16, 14 and 12 years anal fliat family will get nothing under this Bill.
Mr. Larkin
Deputy Norton has cleared that point up.
Surely it is desirable that representations should be made from more than one part of the House that this anachronism should be removed. The Minister says, by nodding assent, that interpretation is correct. I will only repeat that it is a pity to allow that principle to remain. I do not think any substantial sum can be involved. It would be impossible, of course, for the Minister to say what the sum will be, but I ask him to look into that point and, if it is trifling, and he finds the majority of Deputies agree with the viewpoint presented by Deputy Norton and myself, he ought to reconsider it.
Does the Deputy mean dial the age limit should Iw raised to 18 years?
The Taoiseach misunderstands me. As the Bill stands the child of 12 to-day who becomes eligible for the family allowance has an older brother and sister, 13 and 15 years respectively. The child of 12 draws the family allowance for 12 months and then the eldest child attains 16 years. Now, the eldest child never had any allowance under the Bill, but the moment that child in respect of whom the family enjoyed no allowance attains 16 years, the allowance in respect of the 13-year-old child stops because the family no longer can claim to have two eligible children before the first child drawing the allowance. My proposal is that, suppose there is a family with children of 15, 14 and 13 years, the third child should be deemed to be a child in respect of whom the family is entitled to draw the allowance until he reaches 16 years of age.
Or let the child be reckoned as one of the family.
Either way.
What the Deputy is suggesting is precisely the same aa raising the age to 18.
I do not charge the Minister with shaking his gory locks at me, but that does not frighten me.
The Deputy is putting the matter in a most complicated manner.
Let us look at the matter in the ordinary way. If a family is getting the allowance of 2/6 in respect of Charley, why on earth should that stop when Willie becomes 16? That is what will bewilder and confuse the minds of the people.
I have tried to follow the Deputy, but I confess that I have not succeeded.
There are three children in the family. William, John and Charles. William is 15, John 14 and Charles 12. Under the Bill the family will gut the family allowance in respect of Charles, the 12-year-old boy.
The family do not get an allowance in respect of Charles. The family get an allowance because they have more than two children under 16. The family get tho allowance, not the child.
Let us assume that we are not trying to trip up one another. Is not the position this: that the youngest, Charles, gets the allowance of 2/6 a week? The Minister says that it is the family that get it.
The title of the Bill is "Children's Allowances Bill".
Let us not argue about that. John, the eldest boy, is 15 when the Bill passes. He never gets the allowance, but when he attains the age of 16 we do not want Charles to lose his allowance. Do you follow that?
We are paying the allowance to families in respect of the number of children they have over iwo who are under 16.
Is not what Deputy Dillon said true, that the allowance is paid to a family in respect of one child because they have three altogether?
If they have three children under 16, they get an allowance for one.
And when one reaches the age of 16, the allowance ceases.
Because they have not got more than two under 16.
There is no need for anyone to get heated over this.
You can alter the age, but if you do you must have due regard to the consequences of doing so. The only difference between what Deputy Dillon is saying and what I am saying is this: that he wants to raise the age from 16 to 18, but he is putting it in such a complicated manner that no one can understand it.
There is no need for anyone to get vexed about it. I congratulate the Minister on bringing in the Bill. This point that I am dealing with is one of the great defects in the Bill. It is an anachronism that could bo removed without, in effect, raising the age to 18. If you were to raise the age to 18, Charles would continue to get the allowance until he reached the age of 18, but I am not proposing that at all. What I am proposing is, that Charles, the third child, would continue to get the allowance——
Charles does not get the allowance and never got the allowance.
——until ho reaches the age of 16. I want to see this scheme succeed, and get the welcome that it deserves in the country. It is a good scheme and reflects credit on tliose who have brought it in, but ought not to be spoiled for a ha'porth of tar. Let us suppose that the Bill comes into operation to-day. There are three children, A, B and C. A is 15, B 14 and C 12. The family receives the family allewance in respect of C only.
In respect of one child.
Very well.
Because there are three children under 16.
Whatever the Taoiseach may say the people and, I believe, the bulk of Deputies here believe that this allowance is being made to relieve the special circumstances of parents. The view of Dáil Éireann is that with our limited resources as a community, we must expect parents to enter upon matrimony fortified with provision sufficient to maintain the first two children out of their earnings, and that it is only when the family reaches larger proportions the community comes in and makes a family allowance in respect of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth child. I know you can argue that in a family of three children the popular interpretation of this Bill will be that the family allowance is given to the third child. That may be a mistaken approach. I think that 90 per cent. of the Deputies will feel that what we were doing in this Bill is asking ourselves could we give it to the second child, and that we made up our mind that in view of the financial burdens of the present time, the cost would be excessive to give it to the third, but that people who had a third, fourth, fifth and sixth child would get this help. As I say, the popular feeling will be that it is the third child that guts the allowance, although the Minister says it is the family is getting it in consideration of having three children.
Three under 16.
I am suggesting to the Taoiseach that the additional financial burden of allowing the third child to enjoy the family allowance until it reaches the age of 16 is not going to be a substantial one. Now it may be an illogical thing to do. It may seem to differ from the underlying principle of the Bill. What matter if it is the better thing to do, and if it is the thing that our people will best understand. I suggest, and press upon the Minister, that once he has accorded a family allowance in respect of a third child, that family allowance should continue until the third child attains the age of 16, and that no regard should be had to the age ot the older children. That is a point that we can discuss further on the Committee Stage. It is one that I intend to press upon the Minister.
In regard to the new principle which, I understand, was adumbrated by Deputy Norton, I most emphatically subscribe to it, namely, that the Minister should also provide when the Bill comes into operation that, in the case of a family consisting of three children, one being 16, one 15 and one 14, it should forthwith be entitled to one family allowance in respect of the 14 year old child. I am convinced that is what the people expect, and that is what they all believed the Bill was going to provide. I believe it that is done, it will send the measure off to a good start, and that is something which I most earnestly desire that it should have.
I understand there is a queer proviso in the Bill about regions. I suppose what is meant is some economy in administration, and that a small group of officials should deal with the country region by region. It is a point to which I do not attach much importance, provided it does not mean that this allowance is going to be paid monthly or at longer intervals. I think it should be paid weekly with this option, that those who desire to take the allowance monthly, or at longer periods, would be permitted to do so. I do not know whether the allowance will be paid in the manner that old age pensions are paid, but in my view people who are not accustomed to receive payments weekly at the Post Office should not be constrained to do so. In their case the payments might be allowed to accumulate and permission be given to cash them at their convenience.
Apart from these points the Bill does not seem to be a very involved one. I do not regard it as the end of the road. I regard it as a very early beginning. I heartily congratulate the Government on introducing it. I believe it will be a lead, not only in the advancement of our own social services, but a lead to Great Britain, and that in doing good to our own small population, we shall, perhaps, do good to the far bigger industrial population of Great Britain and other countries that will follow our lead. I trust, however, it will not be made the occasion for a general assault upon everyone in this House who has the presumption to have an income. I thank God that we have in our midst some men who by their superior skill or intellect were capable of earning a higher income than the unskilled labourer. I worn the House again that, if we deny them the just reward of such exceptional abilities, there are others who will be glad to give it to them. I hope that the scheme will go through with a little further amendment, except that which the Taoiseach found it difficult to understand, and which the Minister for Industry and Commerce understood at once, but resisted vigorously from the word "go." I hope when the Taoiseach is clear in his mind on that, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will soften his heart, and that they will go forward together to make the concession in respect of this Bill and, if they do, I think to-night will be a very memorable occasion in the history of the social services of this country.
This Bill embodies a principle with which the whole House is in agreement. It might, therefore, seem strange, and did, in fact, seem strange to many speakers in this debate, that this Bill should have been brought in in the spirit in which the Minister introduced it. On a Bill, on the principle of which all Parties are agreed, it certainly strikes one as strange that a speech of a most war-like tone should be made, and that the Minister should lake up a most threatening attitude. At first sight that might appear rather strange, but on close examination it would have been hardly possible for the Minister to have adopted any other attitude. If, must be plain to everybody who listened to the Minister's speech that the introduction of this Bill was no labour of love for him.
Persons who listened to the Minister must have formed the conclusion that he was bringing in this Bill with very great reluctance indeed, and must have come to the conclusion that he thought he was acting unwisely. They must have come to the conclusion that the sums of money which the Minister mentioned, involving 1/- on the income-tax, 2d. on this and 6d. on that, were very great sacrifices which he was making with the greatest reluctance. In consequence of his reluctance and because he was probably acting against his better judgment, the Minister adopted a particular tone when introducing this measure. I sincerely hope when the Bill is going through Committee that the Minister's attitude will be less dictatorial than it was to-day.
It is unnecessary for me to say that though this may not be the most perfect of Bills of this nature, or the most perfect scheme which could be introduced, yet since this principle of family allowances was one of the things which we put in the very first place on our programme at the last general election, the people are pleased to see any form of family allowance. I am not at all sure that the introduction of the Bill will, of necessity, do the maximum amount of good, or that it may be capable of amendment into the better Bill, which we all wish the Minister would have found himself willing or unwilling to introduce. I forget who it was that said: "Good is the enemy of the best". Possibly this Bill being good, because it embodies a good principle, may prove to be the enemy of the best, but wider in its scope and working on a different principle than the Bill we would like to have seen introduced.
There is one thing in this Bill against which I want to lodge my most emphatic protest. There is one section in it which certainly should not be in any Bill introduced here. We gave up, during the emergency, the sovereignty of this Parliament. We gave up the sovereign power of the Oireachtas, and put it in the hands of the Executive. We did so with great reluctance, and not because we are not wed to the principle of the sovereignty of this Assembly. No doubt in financial matters the present administration did give away the sovereignty of the Oireachtas. As far as tariffs are concerned no doubt we cannot introduce all the tariffs we want. Our legislation as regards tariffs is subject to appeal. Apart from that, and from the power which the House gave to the Ministry, the sovereignty of this Parliament has not been challenged. This is the first time in the history of this House in which a piece of ordinary legislation embodies a principle like that laid down in Section 19. I shall read that section. (Section quoted.)
Therefore, for one year, it lies in the power of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to set aside, to modify, or to alter what we in this House and in the Seanad may decide to be the law. We have set up, and are setting up for the first time in the history of this State——
No; it is not the first time.
When before was it done?
Exactly the same section appears in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act.
If it appears in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, I regret that it passed my notice, but it has certainly come to my notice now, and I strongly protest against any Minister or any two Ministers haying the power to alter, by a stroke of the pen, any legislation passed by the Oireachtas. I sincerely hope that Section 19 will be deleted from the Bill, for it is a bad principle. One of the dangers of democracy in this and wery other country is the danger of bureaucracy usurping its place, and this is certainly the most bureaucratic section I have seen in any Bill.
There are other matters to which I should like to refer, but they are possibly more points for Committee Stage than for a Second Reading discussion. I think, however, that on Committee Stage the words in sub-section (3) of Section 3, "The child lives with, and is in the custody, care and control of, that person" are words which will probably have to be modified. I can visualise, for example, a case in which a child is boarded out with a foster-parent—not necessarily by a board of guardians, although possibly the same thing would happen in that case but paid for by a parent. That child would live with and be in the custody, care and control of that person. I am, of course, visualising a case in which the foster-parent has two children under 16 of his own. In that case, the father might be paying 10/- a week for the maintenance of his child, and he ought to get the money, and not, the foster-parent.
Surely that is a matter for adjustment in individual cases?
Yes; I merely mention it as one case. Take the case of a widow with children who marries. The husband might be supporting the entire four children, but yet he could hardly be said to have the custody, care and control of the children who are living there because they are his step-children. Certainly if there were any question about it, the court would regard the custody as being with the mother. I am putting that to the Minister in order that he may consider whether these words do not require modification. I should like the Minister to explain sub-section (6) of Section 3 which reads:
"A person shall not be entitled to payment of more than one children's allowance during any week."
I do not know what that means at all.
It does not mean that a person will not be entitled to allowances in respect of more than one child. The children's allowance is determined on the basis of the number of children.
If I were to interpret that sub-section, I would say that a person could not receive two half-crowns in the same week for the same child.
The children's allowance is not a half-crown. It is an allowance to a particular family, calculated on the basis of the number of children. That is what the allowance is, and a person will not be entitled to two allowances in one week. Do not mix up children's allowances with the half-crown.
Does it mean that it must be drawn weekly?
That he cannot cash the cheque twice?
Yes, or, by any other device, draw two allowances.
I may be very dull, but I do not follow the Minister. "A person shall not be entitled to payment of more than one children's allowance during any week"—that means, as I would think, that the parent is entitled to payment in respect of one child but shall get only one actual payment during any one week.
The children's allowance need not necessarily be half-a-crown—it could be 10/-, or whatever amount is appropriate to the particular family. It is not "a child's" allowance but "children's". It is the total amount payable.
If a parent does not cash it one week, he cannot cash two the following week?
Is it a dumsy way of saying that all sums shall be put into one written instrument for payment?
All sums are put into onu written instrument.
How does that work in relation to Section 18, which says, at the end of three months. the instruments cannot be cashed at all? It looks to me that it a person once got into arrears, failed to lodge for one week what he had received, he would not be able to get anything. However, as I say, it is more a point for Committee Stage than for this stage, but I must frankly confess that I do not understand it, even at this moment. A point has been put forward by Deputy Dillon, and I suppose there will be a difference of opinion about it, as to whether payment should be made to the mother or the father. So far as my personal view is concerned. I would regard the father as the head of the family unit, and, although the point is not of very great importance, I should rather see payment nude to the head of the family than to the mother. We should not have let us say, revolutions in families or disputes as to headship.
Mr. Larkin
I was very interested in the Minister's remarks when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and, like Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, I welcome his explanatory statement, but I do suggest that there was a spirit of negation in it and a sort of bitterness expressed for which I hope, before we reach the Committee Stage, the Minister and the Government will express their regret. A Bill like this of which, as has been stated from all sides of the House, the principle is accepted, surely should have come into the House in an atmosphere of contentment and an atmosphere of adjustment, and not in an atmosphere, after an explanatory statement of the different sections, in which a challenge if thrown out to the House to the effect: "This is a matter of confidence, and if you do not accept it in the way we formulate it, the Government will stand behind it and challenge the House on it." I do not think a Bill of this character should be introduced in that spirit at all. I think it was quite uncalled for, and if the Government wants to make this the main plank of their platform in an appeal to the country, I am afraid it will not be a very sound platform. The plank would be a bit shaky.
I think that one or two Deputies said that it was a matter that nobody should challenge. But the Government really have not been responsible for tho introduction of this Bill. The Minister explained that the general consensus of opinion in this country, apart from political Parties—the opinion of the man in the street, the woman in the house, and sociologists of all schools of thought—was that something should be done in this direction. Then why make this challenge?—more particularly when Deputy Dillon has claimed that he is the father of the child. There seems to be quite a number of fathers or stepfathers. I know that not only the official Labour Party, but labour generally, have advocated this idea for a generation. As a matter of fact, the Minister referred to two particular countries where this has been made the ordinary domestic policy of the Government, namely, Australia and New Zealand. The Minister was on good ground when quoting these countries. But remember what the basis of the family allowance is in Australia and New Zealand. The minimum wage required to bring up a family has been worked out and, in any court of law in Australia or in New Zealand, when an argument is raised in connection with wages or workmen's compensation, that minimum wage is always brought in as the basis of the judgment—that a man with a wife and two children shall be allowed a fixed wage of £4 per week. I wonder what would happen in this country if we set down that a man with a wife and two children would be entitled to £4 as a week's wages. But that has been in force in these countries. There is, of course, an allowance for additional children.
Then the Minister went from the sublime to the ridiculous and quoted Italy. There is a lot of talk about Italy. For two years I have had to listen to a lot of intelligent people stating that in Italy all kinds of social legislation were in force. Now, of course, the veil has been drawn back, and it has been shown that all this was only on paper, that the workers there were not enjoying these social security benefits at all. They had no labour courts. They had no family allowances or other social security allowances. They were only all on paper. A certain loud-mouthed gentleman used to say what he was going to do, but he did not do it.
Then the Minister brought us to that other sublime paradise, Portugal. I suggest to the Minister and to Deputies that they should never mention Portugal when talking about social conditions or social justice. Some day we will open your eyes when we get rid of the Censor, and will be able to tell the truth about that particular paradisaical portion of the earth. Then, of course, the Caudillo in Spain gives all kinds of benefits, generally in conditions under which the people are not able to enjoy them or even enjoy life. However, there are other countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, that have taken up this matter. Then we have the elaborate report which was quoted from both sides of the House—the Beveridge Report. I suggest that Deputies should be supplied with a copy of that report—not the brief extracts that the Minister quoted or that Deputy Cosgrave touched upon. There are a certain number of copies of that report in Dublin. We should also get the considered opinion of those associated with Beveridge. One of the men who drafted the scheme is a fellow-countryman—a brother of Lord Longford. In that document, of course, there is a great deal that might be called idealistic from the point of view of Deputy Dillon. To me it is brutally practical, and will become practical politics in the near future. There can be no question about that. This Government will have to move from one stage to another, as we drive them from outside. I do not mean to suggest that the Government brought in this Bill of their own initiative, just because they loved the common people. Although nearly all of them come from the common people, some of them are trying to get away from the common people, so far as tail-coats can distinguish them. There was a time when if they were found wearing a tail-coat or a white shirt they would be despised. But now, of course, they are getting as far removed as they can from the working classes.
The Deputy has got away from the Bill.
Mr. Larkin
I am only suggesting that there is a certain atmosphere around this Bill. I may be going outside the ordinary lines of the debate, but I will soon get within them. I notice, without any reflection on you, Sir, that sometimes other people can suggest colourful ideas which seem to pass. Deputy Dillon on many occasions gets outside the lines of the debate, and he gets a certain amount of sympathy. Of course I am like the Ishmaelite—I do not get that amount of sympathy. I am asking you, Sir, to give me a certain amount of room to spread myself out. I am not reflecting on you. Sir, because I know very well that you are always very careful in regard to this matter. But I sugscst that this Hill is not introduced because of love, but because of political drive and urge. How does that urge function? There are certain people in this country who are living in uncomfortable conditions of life. The Government wish to take the hard edge off that and to try to keep these people reconciled to the miserable conditions in which they are forced to live by throwing them a sop here and a sop there. One day you give them turf at a shilling a bag. The next week you roll them that they will have to pay 2/-. Then you give the poor widow a bag of turf at 1/-. You give the blind man a bag of turf, which costs him 6d. to get delivered. Then you give somebody else 1 lb. of butter and afterwards take it off him. Why not give them a real measure of life? Why not give them what they have a God-given right to, namely, a measure of life equal to that of any other man or woman in the community? The earth is bountiful. During the last few months we have arguments put forward here that certain people will not produce foodstuffs unless they get the equivalent in hard cash. It is said that they are not being paid for the work they do. Yet their deposits in the banks have increased from £25,000,000 to £61,000,000.
The Deputy must get down to the measure under consideration.
Mr. Larkin
This is a measure of social security.
Yes, on one definite aspect—children's allowances.
Mr. Larkin
I am dealing with where you are to get the money. This is a Money Bill as well as a Bill for social security, because at a later stage we will have to vote the money to meet the expenditure under this Bill. I want to draw the attention of the House to where this money is. I believe Deputy Larkin (Junior) in my absence referred to some of these matters. I suggest that the principle of the Bill is all right but that the application of the principle in the Bill is all wrong and I think it ought to be modified. I was having tea in the House the other evening when Deputy Dillon came along. I never spoke to him before. He said that the Children's Allowances Bill was to be introduced and the allowance was to be 5/- per week. I went home overjoyed thinking that at last we were to have real life in this country—that this was the first step to the enlargement of life. Then, of course, I woke up the following day and found that the allowance was to be 2/6 subject to certain conditions. My suggestion is that a family allowance is not the right and proper way to approach this matter. I suggest that every child born into this country has got a property right in this country. The child itself should get this value. The child should get thia money, whether it be 2/6 or 5/- a week, as part of its inheritance. It is not a question of helping the father. God only knows why some of the fathers are called fathers. They do not accept their responsibilities. That applies to some of the mothers also, who are careless and reckless of their offspring. Having brought the children into the world, many of them think other people should carry their burden. But, if the child itself, being born a citizen into this nation, has this right recognised, then there can be no quarrel between any of the parties. During childhood and adolescence, the father or mother, as the case may be—in my opinion, the father—should have that child's allowance given to him for the purpose of giving the child a larger measure of life. It is not a question of giving the father who has four children or five children another 2/6 a week which he may go and spend in the public house or which he can spend on something else, perhaps backing horses. It is that any child— my child or your child—shall have a guarantee that a measure of life shall be granted to it and in recognising this principle, we grant the child so much a week. Then we would not have this quarrel between the mathematicians in the House on every side as to whether two goes into three or three into five, or whether the fact that Charlie has come to 16 years of age should debar Mickie from having another 2/6 a week. Is not that kind of argument absurd and illogical? It could very easily be dealt with by saying that every child born into any family in this nation shall be entitled —in this case—to 2/6 a week. Somebody caring for tha child should he entitled to draw that 2/6, until it reaches the age which the law itself lays down as altering it from a child to an adult man.
The Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, lays, it down definitely and clearly that a boy or girl is a child until the age of 18, when he or she becomes an adult. In this city alone there are 8,000 children, boys and girls, between the ages of 14 and 20, who have never worked, who have never had an opportunity to work. It is estimated that there are some 70,000 between the ages of 14 and 20 in this country of less than 3,000,000 people, who have never worked, but in the City of Dublin, we know—we have had the figures checked up; there has been a difference of opinion as to an odd 500 or so—that 8,000 have never had an opportunity of getting employment. Is not that a fearful problem? The Minister has risen to the occasion. He set up a committee to deal with that matter. It is a dreadful thing to think of these families. There are men and women— I know many of them; many Deputies know them—who have four and five children, some of them in their teens, and there is not a chance in the world for those boys between the ages of 15 and 16, up to 18 years of age, getting a job as a result of another Act that was passed. This is the awful difficulty those of us engaged in industrial organisation are placed in. The Minister introduced certain remedial measures, intending to do good. The trade unions approved them. But they are availed of by directors. The minimum age, under certain conditions of employment, was raiaed to 18. Another Act lays it down that a boy or girl under 18 years of age could not work longer than 40 hours a week. Immediately, the bulk of the employers, who are distinguished for a wonderful feeling of responsibility towards their directors and the dividend mongers, said,: "We are not going to pay anybody a week's wages for 40 hours' work; we will employ no more at 14 to 16 years of age"— although many people believe it is far better for a boy or girl to be at work, at 14 to 18 years of age, than running the street. The employers said: "We used to pay 10/- a week to a boy or girl, but the Fianna Fáil Government, having brought in certain remedial measures in connection with industrial life, have now given us an opportunity to get the boy or girl at 18 years of age as cheap as formerly got the bey or girl of 14 years of age."
What about children's allowances?
Mr. Larkin
I am dealing with the Bill. I am pointing out that children between the ages of one and 16 come under this Bill. Under particular measures that have been passed, such children now have no chance of working in industry until they are 18 years of age, and I am arguing along the line along which another Deputy argued, that we ought to increase the age to 18 years of age, so as to cover those boys and girls who are being denied work in practically all the factories in the City of Dublin, because of the 40 hours' limitation in the 1936 Act. These are practical matters that we are dealing with every hour of the day and when we make these suggestions, naturally, someone resents it.
I want to remind the House that the Minister is somewhat fearful of putting heavy taxes upon the community to provide this sum, which is a little less than £2,250,000. For every child, in excess of two, the family gets an allowance of £6 5s. That is a little less than £2,250,000. The Minister is somewhat fearful that he will have difficulty in impressing upon the community the necessity for putting up the money for this very wholesome piece of legislation. I suggest he ought not be fearful of that at all. We have seen enough money spent in this country on things that were not going to be as healthy in their effects upon the nation. After all, we spend £10,000,000 here upon the Army. What about this army that the Minister is dealing with now—the army of the young? They are the real army of this nation. They are the coming, nation. If we give £10,000,000 to organise an armed force to protect this nation, these children and their parents, why should we not spend £10,000,000 on the coming army of the nation, the coming nation itself? Is not that an idea that the Minister might take home and think out?
This £2,250,000 is for a good social work, improving the conditions of boys and girls with a view to making them good men and women, with courage and strength; it is to care for them in their formative years. The Minister anticipates all kinds of difficulties. Who are the people who are going to make the difficulties? The taxpayers? We suggest that there are many henhouses and roosts in this country that might be raided, where you could very easily get this £2,250,000.
Deputy Dillon was somewhat fearful because Deputy Larkin (Junior) sug-. gested that there should be a levelling up of incomes—a levelling up. not a levelling down. He asks is the poor professor with £1,000 or £1,200 a year going to be driven out of this country because of this suggestion by Deputy Norton? Never mind the professors. Never mind the technicians. I think, with Deputy Dillon, that the professor, the scientific research worker, the technician, are entitled to a full measure of life. Deputy Dillon then drew a contrast between the professor and the technician and the common labourer. I did not know there was such a differentiation between the common labourer, the technician or professor. I thought that in the sight of God we were all equal, but now it seems that there are classes in this country. Deputy Dillon is concerned about these classes and class differentiation. I suggest that a child of a labourer has as much right to a full measure of life as Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon never did a hard day's work in his life although he told someone the other day he dug more ground in some particular part of this country than any man on the Farmers' Benches. I doubt that, however. I doubt it altogether. I doubt whether a great many of those people who claim that they would be able to do labouring work would be able to do it if they were actually called upon to undertake it. I venture 16 say that if the Deputy and I wow to go out together some morning with a pick and shovel in order to cut a certain measure of ground, he would be a very sad man before noon. However, that is by the way. I do not like this differentiation in the case of men or women who give away their service to the nation, so to speak, or who give their service according to the measure of its value.
In that connection I should like to call the attention of the House to a number of people, who are in receipt of large incomes, in return for which they do not give any service. Let us bring these people out into the light, according to Government figures—and everybody knows, of course, that Government figures do not lie, and that figures provided by the Government are as near to the truth as you can get in this life. Now, according to the Department of Finance—and, above all, if any Government Department might, make a mistake, I am sure we will all agree that the Department of Finance could not make one—in the year 1938-39, there were no less than 1,093 persons in receipt of yearly incomes of from £1,500 to £2,000; 936 people in receipt of incomes from £2,000 to £3,000 per year; 350 people in receipt of incomes from £3,000 to £4,000 per year. The list goes down from the number of people in receipt of that minimum of £1,500 per year, to no less than 81 people in this country who are enjoying an income of £10,000 a year, I think it will be found, on examination, that most of those particular ladies or gentlemen do not contribute any scientific or technical knowledge, and, certainly, no manual labour, towards the development of this country, because the majority of these people are living on rents, interest or profits. The total income assessed in regard to all these people in 1938-39 amounted to almost £10,000,000, of which the Government took, by way of income-tax, surtax, and so on, the sum of £736,000.
Nonsense.
Mr. Larkin
Less than £1,000,000.
Does not that figure represent the net tax assessed?
Mr. Larkin
Yes, based upon income-tax at the rate of 5/6 in the £.
That is not the correct figure.
Mr. Larkin
I think we ought to examine those figures with a view to seeing that no people in the community will escape the ordinary measure of fair taxation. Of course, we are hot going into the question of the financial arrangements of this country as compared with other countries, or with the question of our economy. What we wish to know is whether there is anybody in this country who has got accumulated wealth and who is not contributing his fair ,share to the existence of this State. Examine the position for yourselves; Go down to any of the auction sales that are held from time to time here in the city or down to the country, and you will see some old lady or gentleman bidding thousands of pounds for pieces of bric-a-brac that are not even worth carrying home. I have gone to some of these auction sales and have been astounded to see people paying very big prices for pictures that no decent man would hang on the walls of his home. Now, somebody mast have the money to enable them to buy these things. I remember even an auctioneer himself being astounded at the money that was being offered for all kinds of rubbish—even from an artistic point of view it was really rubbish—and yet these people were quite willing to throw their money away on such rubbish. Some of these ladies and gentlemen must have the money. In that connection, I noticed the case of two brothers in the Cooley area in County Louth who had some money hoarded away and, while they were out one day, some wise guy came along and gathered something like £500 which these two men had stored away.
These reminiscences may be interesting, but they have no bearing on the Bill.
Mr. Larkin
My point is that these two men were not putting their money in the banks, and that many other people have unearned increment hoarded away.
The Deputy is again wandering from the Bill, making a Budget speech, in fact.
Mr. Larkin
The Taoiseach suggested that 1/- in the £ on income-tax would be sufficient.
The Deputy must get down to this Bill. He can make those remarks when we come to discuss the Budget.
Mr. Larkin
Very well, Sir, I shall reserve those remarks until then, but might I suggest to the Minister that it would be well to find out who those ladies and gentlemen are? In conclusion, however, I want to say that I think that everybody in this country, without distinction, will welcome this approach to a measure of social justice, and I believe that we ought to approach this new form of legislation in a different spirit altogether: a spirit of adjusting and improving any particular Bill so that no mistakes will be made and so that we will not be too harsh on any particular sections of the community, but try to be just to all sections of the community. In that connection, I would say that if I, personally, had to pay even 1/- a pound more for tobacco, and if by doing so a child would be enabled to have a better kind of life than at present, then I, and, I am sure, anybody else, would not grudge it, and I can certainly say that if any man thinks of coining to me to complain of having to pay an extra 1d. for his pint of beer, he had better not do so, because I would throw him out.
In tho same way, if any other gentleman, in the income-tax paying class, were to come to me with a complaint of that kind, and if, as a result of the increase in his income-tax, a child would be provided with a better way of life, then the child, certainly, would have first claim on my sympathy. I do not pay income-tax, as a member of the Dáil. As a matter of fact, I have never paid income-tax, either inside or outside the Dáil. Many of the people who do pay income-tax are always grumbling about it; but think of the people who have never had an opportunity in their lives of paying income-tax, because they never had a sufficient income on which to be charged a tax.
Mr. Byrne
I, with other members of the House, welcome this Bill, but I wish the Minister had gone somewhat further, because I am very much afraid that this Bill is going to be a cause of very grave disappointment to many people. I should like to put a question to him to-night, and to the House senerally, having heard other speakers. Is it correct to assume that in the case of a family where there are four children of the ages of nine, 11, 16 and 17 years of age, that family will get nothing at all? I listened to the questioning that went back and forward between the Minister and Deputy Dillon, and I ask again whether parents, with children of the ages of nine, 11, 16 and 17, will get nothing under this Bill, although the parents of those four children will be called upon to pay their share of the suggested increase in taxes on certain commodities, such as 1/- a lb. on tobacco, ½d. a lb. on sugar, a ½d. a pint on beer, and 2d. a lb. on tea and also, according to this morning's papers, an extra ½d. on a 4 lb. loaf of bread? It would appear, if so, that as A result of this measure being brought in, the kind of family to which I have referred will get nothing at all but will have to pay for the increased taxation on commodities mentioned by the Minister to-day. Is that the position?
I welcome tho Bill because, it is the first measure that has been brought into this House, to which, apparently, no means test is attached. It does not involve the application of a means test, but I should like to know whether, say, a widow, who has been gaining benefits under the Widows and Orphans' Pensions Act, will lose under this Bill. If she has been getting, let us say, 2/6 a week already under that Act, will she lose anything under this Bill?
Not at all.
Mr. Byrne
Will they charge this against what she has been receiving?
No. That is specifically provided for in the Bill, and I suggest that the Deputy should read the Bill.
Mr. Byrne
I have read it, and I did not see it stated there.
It does say so. It is specifically provided for in the Bill.
Mr. Byrne
It is provided for in the Bill?
Yes.
Mr. Byrne
Well, I am glad to know that that is so, and that a widow or orphan will not be deprived of even one sixpence under this measure. I have already made reference to the fact that all people will have to pay this increased taxation, but I welcome the Bill as a step forward. Mind you, I am not complaining. I am not asking you to give with both hands, or demanding that you should provide reforms for our people, and then objecting to certain forms of taxation. that may be necessary in order to implement these reforms.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m., on Wednesday, 24th November.