Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1943

Vol. 92 No. 2

Private Deputies' Business. - Allowances to Members of the Defence Forces—Motion.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

I move motion No. 2:—

That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the present rates of marriage and children's allowances payable to members of the Defence Forces are inadequate to meet the cost of living, and that these rates should be increased accordingly.

I am rather taken by surprise. I have not my case ready. I had no notice that this motion would be taken to-night and I have not my papers with me. In any event, as this matter has been fairly well thrashed out in a recent debate on the Minister's Estimate, I hope the Minister has come back to the House, having considered the case, to announce that he proposes to increase all the marriage allowances by at least 50 per cent. before Christmas. On the occasion of the discussion of the Minister's Estimate he gave us a litany of various small increases which had been given during the previous two or three years. I submit that those increases were totally inadequate, that the vast majority of the wives of soldiers are feeling the pinch greatly to-day. They are not able to provide that measure of comfort for their families that a soldier's family is entitled to. In the past four years the cost of living has risen by nearly 100 per cent. With respect to some articles which they have to buy from day to day, they find that the price has increased, not 100 per cent., but 200 and 300 per cent. The scale of allowances now paid to soldiers' wives does not at all permit of a reasonable standard of comfort. I have not the exact amounts here. The Minister gave them to us some few weeks ago and I am sure every member of the House will remember on that occasion thinking to himself that it was disgraceful that such small sums should be allowed for the purpose of providing for the families of men who are serving in the Forces, some of whom gave up very good jobs to join the Forces. It is appropriate that this motion comes before the House to-night after the lengthy debate regarding children's allowances, and after the very cordial welcome accorded by all sides of the House to the principle in the Children's Allowances Bill that our first consideration must be for the children. The cost of living is not something which I propose to elaborate on to-night, as everybody knows very well that it has gone up to a great extent. The probability is that, for a wife and four children, £2 10s. would be the very minimum that should be offered to keep the home going, with at least 5/- for every additional child.

One of the Minister's great arguments was the cost to the State. We have just heard an elaborate discourse from the Minister for Industry and Commerce about the cost to the State of the new children's allowances scheme. Every Minister who comes in here to oppose any progressive measure always has a sad frown and is worried very much about the cost to the State. I think of a famous expression of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health when speaking on, I think, the old age pensions—that we should give the maximum which the resources of the State can afford. That seems to be always the guiding line in these matters—the maximum which the resources of the State can afford, and no more. I suggest that that is putting the cart before the horse. If a certain piece of social reform is necessary, the State must and can afford it. If those more fortunate citizens really knew the vital necessity for the particular piece of social reform, they would have no hesitation in saying:

"Go ahead, we will back it and support anything you can do for these lesa fortunate people; we will willingly pay an extra shilling or half-crown in income-tax and an extra sixpence in the pint on beer."

The Minister for Defence should go to the Minister for Finance, just as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has gone to him, and should say: "This thing is, essential, we must increase the rates of marriage allowances and children's allowances of our soldiers' wives and families. We must do it and must find the money somewhere." If the ease were put to him properly, the Minister tor Finance would see the necessity for finding the money—which, of course, would mean extra taxation. I submit that the Minister for Defence should not be bashful in coming forward and asking people who can afford to go to the greyhound racing every night in the week or to go dancing, card-playing and drinking as often as they please, to give a little more to help to see that the wives and children of our serving soldiers get a fair measure of comfort.

Speaking of comfort, I think of another famous expression used here by the Taoiseach on one occasion. He said, in effect, that if the system did not operate to give a measure of frugal comfort to everybody, we might have to go outside the system. I suggest that what the wives and children of our serving soldiers need, and what they are absolutely entitled to, is comfort—less of the frugality and far more of the comfort. I hope that the Minister will see that they get it.

Mr. Byrne

I desire to second this motion and, with the previous speaker, I may have been a little careless to-day when the Order of Business was decided upon, or I may not have paid sufficient attention to the announce' ment that No. 2 would be taken instead of No. 1. Like the previous speaker, I brought notes with me to deal with No. 1, showing the hardships which the blind were bearing in our city. I may not have definite cahes to put before the Minister now in regard to this motion, as we had on previous occasions, but the question of the allowances for soldiers' wives does not need many notes. Every day in the week, at least the Dublin members hear complaints about the hardships which soldiers' wives are bearing on account of the inadequate allowances they are receiving. In a street close to this House about a fortnight ago a woman with a new baby —I think it was her fifth—whose husband is a soldier, said to me:—

"Mr. Byrne, will you look at that, and they are giving me only 3d. a day, although a bottle of milk costs 4½d."

That is one of the many glaring cases of hardship that one comes across. When, after four children, another baby comes along, the allowance to the soldier's wife is increased by only 3d. I think the whole House, including the Minister, will agree that it is not desirable to see these people bearing such hardships and, if we were to sive them even that frugal comfort that has been referred to, it will mean ghing them only what is reasonable.

I have letters here in which I am asked to recommend a woman with six or eight children for a pair of boots. The children are so badly off that they cannot go to school. When I inquired about the father's occupation, I was told he waa a soldier. They are complaining of the price of boots. It may interest the Minister and Deputies here to know that wooden clogs with iron taps cost 14/- a pair. At one time they cost in any hhop in any part of Dublin only 3/6 a pair. I have seen children in school wearing them and I have eeen other children in school without boots. I have seen children very poorly clad, suffering from the cold. There was with me a member of the Labour Party on the last occasion I visited a school and one child, when privately questioned, stated that his father was a soldier, and his mother out of her meagre allowance could not afford any boots for her children. A woman with six or seven children has to buy boots or shoes every two months for at least one of the children. She cannot get a pair under 14/-. We all know how hard children are on boots or shoes, bow quickly they can get through them. The children do not think of the cost when they are playing in the streets or climbing or kicking stones about. It is because of these hardships that we appeal to the Minister to give some consideration to the claims of these people.

I once asked the Minister was he aware of the fact that soldiers' children were deprived of the benefits of free school books on the ground that the father was working for the State. I am aware that children are deprived of these books in the City of Dublin. If there are any concessions to be given, any benefits by way of tuberculin tested milk, which is given out under the infant aid scheme—a scheme that is working splendidly—or free school books, I suggest that the children of soldiers should not be disqualified.

As the last speaker pointed out, it is perhaps fortunate that this motion is being considered to-day. It has been on the Paper for a considerable time, and I consider it is a happy augury that it was taken to-day, following the discussion on children's allowances. I may be told by the Minister that soldiers' wives are going to benefit under the scheme of children's allowances, but if a soldier has four children, two of whom are over 16 years, while the other two may be nine and ten years old, that soldier will receive no benefit by way of children's allowances. No person, be he soldier or otherwise, who has two children over 16 and two children under 16 will get any benefit. But the soldier, out of his meagre allowance, will have the pleasure of paying taxation on the commodities that have been mentioned. Instead of giving the soldier something, you are really taking something from him, because the increased cost of living which will be brought about by the new taxation will bring a very heavy burden on him.

We read in the papers this week that bread will be increased by 1/2d. on the 4-lb loaf and 1/4d. on the 2-lb. loaf. A father, mother and foul; children will use at least 24 loaves in a week. That will mean 24 farthings off the soldiers allowance. The price of tea will be increased, according to the Minister who spoke on the Children's Allowances Bill. He said that to find the money for children's allowances tea and sugar will be increased in price. The soldier with four children will have to contribute in that way and will receive no corresponding benefit. I hope the Minister will follow the example given by his colleague who was congratulated by everybody for introducing a new standard for our people.

Mr. Corish

I should like to support the motion. I think there is a good deal to be said for the arguments put forward in its behalf. Of course, the Minister will tell the House about the different increases given from time to time, but I think it will be agreed that soldiers' families are still face to face with a very serious situation in trying to manage their households. Take the case of a soldier's wife with eight children under 15 years of age. The allowance is £2 3s. 9d. per week. The rent that that woman has to pay is 9/2 per week. If you take the value of the £ to-day as compared with prewar or pre-emergency, it will be found that the £2 3s. 9d. is now worth only £1 7s. Id. If you deduct 9/2 for rent, that leaves a little less than 18/- to enable a man and his family to live. I suggest that people who are prepared to join the Army in this emergency and give their lives, if neceasary, in defence of the country, deserve better treatment than what is meted out to them through the medium of the allowance paid to their families. The Minister may tell us about various increases, but the fact remains that the soldiers' dependents are unable to keep themselves properly on the meagre amount allowed them. We should remember the cost of food nowadays.

Deputy Byrne mentioned the price of boots. Apart from the fact that it is almost impossible to get children's boots, the leather is so scarce and so very inferior that it is necessary to buy boots more often now than in the past. If leather could be got, I understand that it was of an inferior quality. The price of potatoes is now 1/9 or 2/- per stone. The price of oatmeal is also very high, and the same applies to butter and milk. The price of all the absolute necessities of life for the poor has increased, and how the Minister expects people to live on this allowance I cannot understand. Great dissatisfaction prevails all over the country amongst the families of men serving in the Army because of the small allowances that-are being paid. There is no use in the Minister trying to hide that fact. Bebause of these small allowances, men are trying to get out of the Army and to go to England to work. I think something should be done to relieve a situation of that kind. If there is discontent in the Army, you cannot expect to get the best from the soldiers. I support the motion and the arguments put forward by the mover of it.

Mr. Larkin

I want to call attention to the fact that there has been no quorum since the motion was moved. Even the mover of it did not sit here to attend the debate. If we are not inclined to discuss the motion, I suggest that we adjourn. I move that we adjourn.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not accepting that motion at this stage of the debate.

Mr. Byrne

The mover of the motion has only gone to the telephone to do a message for me.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy formally call attention to the fact that there is no quorum?

Mr. Larkin

Yes.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Connolly

Before speaking on the motion, I think it would be only right to refer to the circumstances in which this motion is being taken. I think that most Deputies who are present here to-day will agree that we have taken Deputy Alfred Byrne (Junior) at a serious disadvantage in respect of this motion. He has stated for the benefit of new members that he did not receive word that his motion was to be taken this evening. Most of us who knew that motions in the names of Private Deputies were to be taken were of opinion that Motion No. 1 would be taken in its order, but suddenly, in the absence of Deputy Alfred Byrne (Junior) at Question Time, when we were deciding the order of business, it was agreed by those present; without reference to the mover of the motion, that Motion No. 1 should be dropped temporarily, I presume, and that Motion No. 2 be taken in its stead.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, as I stated to-day, who would be in attendance for the consideration of that motion is engaged in the Seanad, and consequently Motion No. 2 was taken. Motion No. 1 does not lose its place. It will be the next motion taken. It was not known much earlier, I presume, that his presence would be required in the Seanad.

Mr. Corish

One would think that in common courtesy the Minister would have let Deputy Byrne (Junior) know.

Mr. Connolly

That point arises, too, but does not thp other point of precedence arise?

An Ceann Comhairle

No. Motion No. 1 will be next in order for debate.

Mr. Connolly

There is the other question of the precedence of the Dáil and the Seanad. Has the Minister not the right to attend this House first rather than the Seanad?

An Ceann Comhairle

In that matter the Chair has no function. The Minister for Finance is in the Seanad for tlie Appropriation Bill. As the Minister for Finance could not be here it was decided to take the second motion I merely state the facts.

Mr. Larkin

The only point is that the mover of the second motion was not notified, and, from the point of view of courtesy, that was a mistake.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not my business.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I would like to explain that I am in a similar position to Deputy Alfred Byrne (Junior). I had to attend the Seanad to-day at very short notice, and like Deputy Byrne (Junior) I am taking this motion as it comes. The question of notification does not arise so far as I am concerned. I was not responsible for notifying anybody.

Mr. Connolly

I must say that I have made no attempt, and I am sure the Minister recognises the fact, to hold him culpable at all. In fact his statement reinforces my case, that the two persons principally concerned in this motion, the mover of it and the Minister, are at a disadvantage. The Minister who is to give us the Government's point of view on the matter is at a serious disadvantage as well as the mover of the motion. Through inefficiency in the working of the House, all the members here are at the same disadvantage, so that the motion is not getting the consideration it deserves. That is a serious question. I would like to know if this is to be taken as a precedent, because if so it will interfere seriously with the business of the House as well as with the serious attention that Deputies can give to business. Several of us had a considerable amount of data compiled in reference to this motion. We now find that we are unable to present our case owing to the way that the Order Paper stands. I suppose it may be 12 months or more before we will have another opportunity to present our case. I think that, as the Minister is in the same position as the rest of us, he might try to get some accommodation, so that this portion of the business might be adjourned to a more suitable time, but if he has no responsibility, it is evidently taken that the debate will go on.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair did not get notice of the change until shortly before the House met and I announced it immediately after Questions. No objection was then raised.

Mr. Corish

Was it not evident to the Government that motions in Private Members' time would be taken this evening? In those circumstances, would it not have been possible for the Minister ooncerned to send a note to Deputy Alfred Byrne (Junior) informing him that he would not be available this evening. From the point of view of common courtesy, it would not have been too much to ask to have that done.

Mr. Moran

Why were these points not raised after Question Time to-day, instead of now?

Mr. Corish

Because the Deputy was not here.

Mr. Moran

Other Deputies were.

Mr. Connolly

The point we are trying to make now is that the Deputy himself is under a disability in regard to this matter. Had he been prepared and had he been able to give us the facts we would have expected to have from him—if he had his brief with him, in other words—we would be quite willing to put up with the slight lack of accommodation due to the fact that we were not properly notified. That, however, is not the point we are stressing at all. It is a matter of the proper conduct of the business of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Byrne might, of course, have proposed that the motion be not proceeded with to-day.

Mr. Connolly

I thought be would have been well advised to do so. He was probably unfamiliar with the procedure of the House. The second point that arises is the question of precedence. It is a Constitutional point and, though you, Sir, may not be in a position to remedy it, or to give as definite information on it, it must surely arise some time. Is the-petition that Ministers can decide, at their own discretion, which House they wiH attend? Should there not be some rule in that regard? I quite admit that the Appropriation Bill is a more important matter from the point of view of the State as a whole, but it is a question of Constitutional procedure, Is it not correct that the Dáil has precedence over the Seanad?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair does not pronounce on Constitutional issues. Ministers may not have known how long their attendance would be required in the Seanad. More than one Minister was there. The Minister for Finance could not be in both Houses.

Mr. Connolly

Is the Seanad still sitting?

An Ceann Comhairle

I believe so.

Mr. Hughes

I am sure that if the Deputy had felt he was not prepared to go on with it at 10 minutes to eight, he could have said so, and the House would have adjourned consideration of the motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

That could have been done.

Mr. Larkin

Deputy Hughes knows that the mover did get up and ask the advice of the House.

Mr. Hughes

He could have asked.

Mr. Larkin

He did ask and he was put in the position of apologising to the House, and he was not guided. May I call attention to this fact, that Private Members' time has been taken by the Government, and now, when there is an opportunity of discussing matters which have been on the Order Paper for six months, whether by mistake or by intent, we are to be deprived of the opportunity of presenting these matters to the House for another long period, and possibly until the New Year?

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not in Committee. The Deputy has raised an objection already and will not be heard three or four times on the same point.

Mr. Hughes

My point is that once the House decided to go on with the motion, no useful purpose is served at this stage by discussing the position in relation to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy had his opportunity at the outset.

Mr. Connolly

My concern is not so much with the question of this motion but, as I have pointed out, with whether it is to be taken as a precedent and that the same thing can occur again. If so, we would all need to be well armed with our briefs in regard to every one of the 14 matters on the Order Paper, because we have no means of knowing in what order they will come. That is the only point I wish to make.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is, unlikely to arise frequently.

Mr. Connolly

I must turn then to the motion and I do so with the feeling that we could have impressed the Minister to a far greater extent than it is possible for us to impress him now. I, for instance, had prepared quite a long list of residents in the town of Drogheda whose husbands are in the Army and who receive very inadequate allowances. I proposed, were I given the opportunity, to show the House by reference to each example that these allowances were inadequate and to make a case for their increase. However, I think the general statement made by the mover and the remarks of Deputy Oorish are sufficient to give us a general picture of the inadequacy of these allowances.

The cost of living has, undoubtedly, gone up and workers in various other spheres of industry have been compensated in some way or other for that rise in the cost of living. The Minister has mentioned that there has been an improvement to some slight extent in these allowances to the Army, but I do not think the Minister held, at the time he mentioned that fact, or would hold now, that these allowances are adequate, in view of the rise in the cost of living, or adequate to put the relatives of soldiers in a position similar to that of their next-door neighbours whose husbands may be ordinary industrial workers. It is a peculiar commentary on capitalistic society that the soldier who takes up an occupation most fraught with the likelihood of death should be at the lowest level of the wage scale. It appears that the more dangerous the occupation, the lower the wage returned for that occupation. Miners are a notorious example of that, and soldiers evidently come into the same category and receive the same treatment.

We know that soldiers are not what they were of old, when Dr. Johnson was able to give the definition of a soldier as "a hired assassin," that they have long passed out of that category and are now honoured citizens in their country, doing useful service for the nation, but they are being paid not in a manner worthy of that distinction, and their dependents are not treated in ,the manner in which they should be treated as the dependents of men. in the most dangerous occupation known to the State. They are willing to forfeit life itself, and they join the Army with a realisation of that risk, and their hope, when they arc married, is that their dependents at least will be looked after by the State in a manner worthy of the traditions of the nation.

That is the hope of the soldier when he docs manage to get married, in spite of the restrictions and regulations against that happy state. Contrary to what he expects, he is inundated from week to week by complaints from his spouse in regard to the difficulties of living at present. He is worried; he is tormented; and he is wondering whether he would not, as Deputy Corish says, do better for himself, his wife and children, and possibly for the country, by deserting from the Army in order to take up another occupation giving better remuneration.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

Or to join the British' Army.

Mr. Connolly

Yes, or to join the British Army. That is a, deplorable state of affairs. It is a state of affairs which the Minister would not consciously countenance. I am sure his whole attitude, as a Minister with a national record, would be to look after in the best possible way the interests of the dependents of the country's fighting forces. I am sure he will give every sympathy to this motion, and I trust that the pleas made from these benches, and from the other benches, will not go unheeded by him.

The Minister made the complaint that the funds at his disposal are not sufficient to enable him to give any iurther increases in this allowance. He may talk about the high taxation and the extraordinary development of the Army and the emergency forces during this period, but, even so, surely there might be some concession obtained from the hard-hearted Department of Finance. Surely something might be wrung out of them. Surely, as the leader of the fighting services of this nation, he might put up a better case and, if he would-put up that case, he would receive the enthusiastic endorsement and support of probably every Deputy, even, I am sure, those on his own benches. They, too, must be aware of the privations the families of these soldiers are suffering. They must be aware of the inadequacy of these allowances. They must know how welcome it would be if any of these allowances were improved, even to a small extent. Should he take that course of action, I feel sure that he would win applause, not only from this House, but from every section of the Army and every section of the Defence Forces which he represents.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I rise to support the motion. I do so despite the castigation I received from the Minister in the last debate, even though lie gave it to me in a somewhat kindly manner. My temerity is strengthened,, despite what the Minister may say either in regard to the adequacy of the allowance or the possibility of the national Exchequer meeting the increased cost, by the fact that those wives and children of soldiers in the National Army are required to exist on a standard of living that is not a compliment to this nation and is an actual disgrace to those who accept responsibility for, it. It is not necessary, I thinik, for Deputy Connolly to bring into this House a long list of individual oases to prove the hardships these women and children are going through. I do not think that anybody in this House is more familiar with the actual position than the Minister. I think that the very personal interest he takes in the men committed to his charge is sufficient to imbue him with a desire to know how and in what manner these human beings who are depending on the charity of his Department, depending on their breadwinners in the Army, are managing to live under present conditions. As this knowledge is so widespread, and as every Deputy would support this motion, there is little or no need to go into the actual details of the lack of food, clothing, boots and shoes, the difficulty of paying rent, and the evictions of soldiers' families from houses in this city. These are ever-pressing burdens that weigh on these women and children.

I suggested in the previous debate-that we should have regard to this problem, not as one of ordinary finance, but as an emergency problem, and that we should have recourse to borrowing. Following the lines of Deputy Dillon and all those who claim the credit of having the Children's Allowances Bill introduced, if a number of Deputies continue to press this matter we may eventually, by the time we are old and grey, get some results. We will not quarrel as to who can claim the credit. We will be willing to forgo any credit and give it to the Minister if he will carry with him into the Chamber of the Executive Government a little more of that martial ardour which he tries to impart to the Army and make a more effective fight to get a larger financial equipment in order to give a larger amount to these women and children.

In the course of the debate on the Children's Allowances Bill, we came up against the same problem that we always seem to meet with when it is a question of presenting a demand of this character to Ministers—that no matter how good Deputies' intentions may be, and how much they plead for the children or the parents who have to maintain them, they are always tied down and circumscribed by the cost of this burden that we are told is always being placed on the general taxpayer. It is an amazing thing, however, that when the Government actually come to allocating the burden they take very good care to see that the biggest share of that burden is placed on the shoulders of those taxpayers who are least able to bear it, and placed in such a fashion that the average man and woman in the street do not realise that they are carrying the burden. As I said the other day, I estimate that the ordinary man or woman completely depending for a livelihood on remuneration in the way of wages, is carrying 70 per cent. of the taxes imposed by the State.

I listened to the Minister for Industry and Commerce indignantly repudiating the suggestion that the cost of the children's allowances should be met out of borrowing. He said that he was legislating, not for to-day or tomorrow, but for a permanent feature of our social services and therefore the cost could not be met by borrowing, that we must regard it as being part of our normal commitments, and put it on that basis. I suggest to the Minister for Defence, that whatever case the Minister for Industry and Commerce may be able to make against the suggestion of his borrowing to meet his commitments, at least in this particular field of defence there is an entirely different situation. At least 70 per cent. of the expenditure on defence that we are committed to at present is abnormal expenditure flowing purely out of emergency conditions which may end within a reasonable or short time. Surely, it there is any case to be made for borrowing, here is a case. Even the Minister will agree, I think, that the scale of allowances given to these women and children is not adequate, even though at the same time he may argue that he cannot obtain any more for them. If we are agreed upon the need, if we realise that, we are dealing with the wives and children of men who are giving front-line service to the nation, not just men who joined the Army because they were unemployed, because they could not obtain work, because they could not leave the country —thousands of them actually walked out of good jobs, with good wages, with good prospects of promotion and security, and took on themselves the duty and the burden of serving as privates in the National Army—surely we must recognise that there is something more than the question of cost, that there is a human factor to be considered. There is a claim upon our national dignity and honour to meet, to give to these women and children who have been thrown on our good and human feelings by their bread winners who have gone into the Army at least a measure of life that will make it unnecessary for them to suffer the hardships that they have at present to bear.

Therefore, I would urge that, if we quarrel about whether there should be an increased income-tax or whether the fellow with £30,000 a year should pay more than the fellow with £250 a year, we could agree that, if this is an emergency situation, if our swollen expenditure on the Army and all that is incidental to it is emergency expenditure that may end within a reasonably short time, and if there is this real need on the part of these women and children, it could be met in an emergency manner by borrowing to tide us over this immediate period. We have borrowed for other purposes. We have carried our Budget in an unbalanced state. We have, in the case of the Electricity Supply Board, advanced money to the amount of £12,000,000 and for years we did not look for a penny back from them. That is an ordinary commercial undertaking. The Electricity Supply Board has always boasted that it is a commercial undertaking, yet they were not dealt with in a commercial way. The subject with which we are dealing to-night is not commerce. We are dealing with human flesh and blood and we are seeing harm done to the bodies of, these children that neither we nor anybody coming after us in this generation can ever remedy because many of these children will carry the scars produced by deficient food and clothing, not only during their formative years but, in many cases, down through the years of their lives. That is the price we are asking them to pay because in a great many cases—I am not saying in all cases-- but in a great many cases, their fathers answered the call of this Assembly and this nation, and undertook a duty for which they received much less recompense than they would have received if they had ignored that call and carried on in their normal occupations and continued to enjoy the good wages that many of them did enjoy before they joined the National Army.

There has been a suggestion made— and it is not a suggestion that has originated in this House; it has actually come from the soldiers themselves—that this deferred pay of 6d. a day to which, the Minister referred in replying to the debate on the Army Vote, should not be held over until after the war. The soldiers do not want to wait for it until after the war because on those who are married and have families the burden is so great to-day that the entire value of receiving the accumulated money at the end of the war will be nullified in their case if they have to continue under their present conditions. Regardless of what may be the conditions after the war, their problem is a present-day problem, not even a problem of year to year but of day to day and hour to hour, and they require all of the income, all the financial support, they can gather together from any source. They have suggested—and many of them have told me—that they would far prefer to receive that payment now in the form of an extra 6d. per day so as to have it going into their homes, rather than have it accumulating and put to their credit when the war ends.

I suggest that is a point that might be considered, at least in the case of married men with families. In the case of single men it may be an argument that it should be held and given to them as a means of tiding them over the immediate period of transition when they are demobilised. But, if as I say—and I doubt if even the Minister will deny, it—there is thi real need existing, and if we do recognise it, surely we should respond to the men whose money this 6d. a day really is and, if they want it now and want it passed over to their wives and children, surely we should not be the people to stand in the way.

In the course of the previous debate on this matter the Minister took me to task because, as he said, I was not as careful in getting my facts as I should have been. I am always glad to be corrected by the Minister, but it seems to me we have different conceptions in this particular matter. When I was referring to the amount. given to a particular individual in the National Army and mentioned the sum of £2 3s. Od. being given to his wife and nine children, I was speaking specifically of the dependents' allowances, and nothing else. The actual words I used were: "When we consider that, in the City of Dublin, the Department of Defence and the Minister responsible require the wife and nine children of a sergeant in the National Army to exist on a sum of £2 3s. Od. per week." I accept the correction of the Minister, that the rate is £2 5s. 6d., and give him the credit of the other half-crown, but it still does not alter the fact that, so far as the Department of Defence and the Government are concerned, the amount they lay down for the support of that wife and nine children is £2 5s. 6d. a week and all the argument and all the quotation of additional sums docs not get away from that fact. The Minister aays that I have ignored the fact that the sergeant Hots 28/- a week. Agreed. But the sergeant would get 28/- a week if he never had a family.

Mr. Traynor

Surely he has some obligations to his family.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Agreed; he has an obligation, but the point is this, that you have a man in the Army and you measure his pay at the rate of 28/- per week, whether he has any family commitments or not; you then bring in a wife and nine children and the additional sum you pay to that man is £2 5s. 6d. a week. Let us go further. The Minister also adds the fact that if the man is in receipt of ration money there will be a further sum of 14/- a week, making a total of £4 7s. 6d. a week. First of all, if the man is receiving ration money, I take it he will be at home during the period that he is receiving it. Personally, I should not like to have the problem of having to find food for seven days in the week on a sum of 14/-. Certainly, I could not do it in the Dáil Restaurant.

The suggestion that has been put to me by women who are concerned with this problem is that in many cases where the man is at home for the week the amount of money allowed as ration money does not compensate for the additional cost thrown on the family. We have to allow for the fact that this ration money is not based on prices that any member of an ordinary family in the city would have to pay for goods. It is baaed on contract prices to the Army.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might move the adjournment. I have three Messages from the Seanad.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until Friday next.