Any scheme of social welfare, particularly one that seeks to deal with unemployment, is an admission of the failure of our State and society to enable each family unit to earn an adequate family wage to enable the family to maintain itself in reasonable standards. Therefore, a scheme of social security, however well devised or however well-intentioned, is in reality but a patchwork quilt to conceal the failure of our State to organise its economic life in such a way as to enable every wage-earner in the country to secure work at a decent family wage.
Instead of seeing a measure of this kind introduced in the House, I should much rather see the State boldly assume responsibility for the provision of work for the whole population. I refer particularly to these portions of the scheme that deal with the accident of unemployment—an accident which, I am afraid, is far too common in this State.
Another difficulty which I see in regard to any scheme of social security that may be introduced in the House which depends on the payment of contributions and provides for the payment of cash benefits is that these benefits, having regard to the constant depreciation of money, cease to have any definite value. Benefits provided for in this Bill, however small and however inadequate they may be to-day, may be still smaller and quite useless this day 12 months by reason of the depreciation in the value of money and by reason of increased prices.
Indeed, the Government in this case has already made quite certain that it will reduce the value of these benefits by the fact that it has decided to do away with subsidies on essential foodstuffs and has also decided to impose additional taxation on commodities used by the population as a whole; so that already we know to-day that the benefits which are provided in this Bill will, in three months' time, have been considerably reduced by the action of the Government and, God knows, these benefits are already meagre and inadequate enough.
I feel that in relation to social security benefits and, indeed, in relation to wages, we will soon have to develop a completely new approach. Wages and social benefits are only worth the amount of goods which they can purchase. We are living in an era where the purchasing power of money is constantly depreciating and where prices are constantly fluctuating.
I think the time has come when we should seek a completely new approach to the wage structure and also to the payment of social security benefits. This could be done by determining a basic minimum wage that would be related to the cost of living—a basic minimum wage that would be anchored to a comprehensive cost-of-living index and which would fluctuate with the cost of living. In that way, I think, we could avoid a considerable amount of the constant industrial strife which occurs by reason of the fact that, owing to increasing prices, the value of real wages is constantly depreciated and has to be remedied by an increase in wages. We have a situation in which there is a constant spiral and a constant chasing of prices by wages. That is a situation which benefits nobody and which causes a considerable amount of friction in the industrial life of the country.
Likewise, there is no reason why a system should not be adopted whereby benefits payable under any scheme of social welfare should not be related to the cost of living and should not fluctuate automatically with the cost of living. It would obviate the constant agitation that naturally takes place when the value of money goes down or when the cost of living goes up, whichever way you like to put it, and would save this House a considerable amount of difficulty in dealing with the whole problem of social security. My view, therefore, is that there should be a basic minimum wage related to the cost of living and that that basic minimum wage should itself form the basis of the wage structure and of the benefits payable under any scheme of social welfare.
I also hold the view that there should be a separate social security Budget; that the expenditure of the State should be divided under three main heads; (1) a Capital Budget to deal with capital and national development schemes; (2) a Housekeeping Budget to deal with ordinary Government expenditure; and (3) a Social Security Budget. I feel it would be of considerable help if expenditure under the heading of social welfare was segregated and dealt with in one Budget and if the taxes for the social welfare Budget were dealt with separately so that people should know exactly the cost, first of all, of the social welfare scheme and also know what particular taxes were applicable to that. Such a system has been adopted in some other countries and I think it is a good system. I think the taxpayer will much more readily agree to the payment of a particular tax if he knows the purpose to which that tax is being applied, whether it is a tax on dancing, a tax on whiskey, or a tax on the importation of luxury motor cars. Whatever it be, that tax should be appropriated particularly to the cost of whatever social security scheme is in force in the State at the time.
In regard to old age, I would much rather have a scheme of general application which would enable everyone to live in the knowledge and in the security that at the age of 65 they would be automatically entitled to a retirement allowance and that this should be made available to everybody irrespective of means. A system of that kind would have several advantages, particularly in our particular society. It would have social effects which would be desirable in the country. People would have the knowledge that when they reach, say, the age of 65 they would be provided for and would receive a pension for the rest of their days irrespective of their means. The effect of that would, I think, be the transfer, at a much earlier date, of the control of farms to the younger generation who, in present circumstances, are often forced to emigrate before they can obtain control of the family farms.
For these reasons, I regard the scheme which is before the House or any scheme of this kind as merely a sort of stop-gap, as merely, as I said before, a patchwork quilt to hide many of the defects in our economic organisation. But, while it is a patchwork quilt, while it does conceal many defects in our economic organisation, it is nevertheless essential to have a scheme of this kind. My concern, therefore, is to make it as comprehensive and as inclusive as possible.
The development of industrialisation has rendered our economic structure much more complex and much more liable to sudden changes. We must, therefore, try to insulate, as far as we can, the population from the effects of sudden changes. We have had a recent example of how sudden these changes can be. In a very short period of time, we have had an increase of some 12,000 in the number of people unemployed. As I said, I would much rather see the State accepting responsibility for the provision of employment for these 12,000 people than to see it escape that responsibility by providing them with doles of one kind or another. The provision of doles, whether by way of unemployment benefits or home assistance, is really only a method of avoiding the responsibility which the State should shoulder.
I should like to see a position reached where the Department of Finance would have the responsibility of either providing work for the working population or of paying them a basic minimum wage. I think we might have a completely different approach to our economic problems if the Department of Finance found itself faced with that task instead of seeking to impose a policy of retrenchment and deflation. It would probably take a period of years, or possibly a generation, but the Department of Finance would become one of the most progressive Departments in the State.
I do not imagine that I shall convince the present Government that that is the right approach; but, in our case particularly, it is of vital importance to have a comprehensive scheme of social security at the moment for two reasons. In the first place, we suffer from chronic unemployment, unemployment which is relatively higher in this country than in most other countries in Europe. Our rate of unemployment is abnormally high. The published rate of unemployment is very far from giving an accurate picture of the real situation, because our unemployment figures here are always masked by the fact that a large section of the unemployed population are forced to emigrate. Therefore, we never really have a proper picture of the full extent of our unemployment problem. The figures we have merely indicate the balance of people who are unemployed after the others have emigrated.
Another reason which, in my view, makes it vital to have a comprehensive social security scheme is the fact that one of the arguments used with considerable effect to influence the population of the Six Counties is that they would suffer considerably if they were to unite with the rest of the country, by reason of the low rate of social benefits payable here. In the Six Counties during the last elections the main leaflet and poster used by the Partitionists was one setting out in one column the social benefits payable in the Six Counties — not by the Tory Government, but by the British Labour Government, but nevertheless fully exploited by the Partitionists — and in another column the social benefits payable in this part of Ireland. That was the chief piece of propaganda used in the Six Counties during the last elections, and it was a very effective one.
The Bill introduced by the present Government is a truncated copy of the Bill which was introduced by Deputy Norton. I regret that the present Government felt it necessary to introduce such an emaciated version of the Bill sponsored by the last Government, which secured its Second Reading in this House. I am inclined to ask myself why the Fianna Fáil Government decided to depart so radically from the provisions of the Norton Bill. It certainly was not because of any difference in principle and it certainly was not for the purpose of adopting a different structure, because the Bill now introduced is more or less identical with the Norton Bill save as regards certain cheeseparing and cutting down of benefits. I wonder whether it was done out of sheer perversity, in order to do something different, or whether it represents the ingrained conservatism of the Fianna Fáil Party. If it were done out of sheer perversity, one would have thought that Fianna Fáil would have adopted a more imaginative and a newer approach to social security. However, they did not do that. Instead they copied the Bill introduced by the last Government, practically word for word, in its main portions. I cannot help remembering that before the change of Government in 1948 the Fianna Fáil Government stoutly refused to increase the old age pensions by 1/-. They also refused to modify the means test any further, and I am driven to the conclusion that the principal reason why this Bill is introduced in its present form is the ingrained conservative outlook which most of the Fianna Fáil Ministers possess.
However, I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies and grateful that, in the course of the last three years, the Fianna Fáil Government should have been brought to the point of recognising that an old age pension of 10/- per week with a voucher valued at 2/6 was inadequate and that they are now prepared to accept the figure of 20/- set by the last Government. I am glad that that lesson has been learned by the Fianna Fáil Party. However, the lesson which they have learned in that respect is probably more apparent than real, because this Bill, taken in the context of the present Budget, is little short of a fraud on the public. The Minister for Social Welfare told us that he intends to spend something under £2,000,000 this year on social welfare; that is the additional amount which is to be spent on social security this year. On the other hand, the Minister for Finance is going to relieve the people of £15.1 million as a result of the removal of the subsidies and by imposing additional taxation. Therefore the net loss suffered by the people will be in the neighbourhood of something like £13,000,000.
This Bill has a vice which is possibly even greater than the vice of being completely inadequate. This Bill is probably one of the most flagrant examples we have had in recent times of bad faith in public life. I am afraid, a Chinn Chomhairle, that I shall have to deal with this in some detail here, as I heard some Deputies on the other side of the House the other day questioning various statements made by Deputy O'Higgins when attention was drawn to some of the promises made by the present Minister for Social Welfare when he was in opposition. I suppose election promises are inseparable from a democratic Government. It is unfortunate, however, that public men, with a sense of responsibility, should deliberately make, just for the sake of securing votes, promises which they, apparently, have no intention of carrying into effect. When the Norton Social Security Bill was under consideration by this House, just about a year ago, the present Minister for Social Welfare, then Deputy Dr. Ryan, criticised the Bill on a number of scores. He complained that it was not comprehensive enough and explained that he himself had the heads of a scheme which he proposed to put before the House on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. This was not just a casual election promise, and I would like to refer the House to what Deputy Dr. Ryan said on that occasion with, apparently, a full sense of his responsibility. At column 1109, Volume 124, No. 7, of the Dáil Debates of 2nd March, 1951, Deputy Dr. Ryan said:
"... I am going to state definitely a scheme that is workable and that will be worked by Fianna Fáil, not to state a scheme for the electors and then come back like the Minister, but to introduce a scheme that is workable. I say that old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions are needed by all classes except, of course, the very wealthy."
In that speech Deputy Dr. Ryan emphasised more than once that he was speaking with a full sense of his responsibilities of a scheme that he and his Party were to introduce in this House if they were returned to office. He specifically stated that he was not then making a speech in order to try to catch votes. At column 1112, Deputy Dr. Ryan went on to state:—
"I said that I was going to make certain proposals and that if the Minister did not implement them a Fianna Fáil Government would implement them. Keeping that in mind, I have to be careful."
Surely there has never been a clearer example of a responsible man, who had been for a great many years a Minister, making a statement which amounted to a complete pledge than the statement made by Deputy Dr. Ryan, now Minister for Social Welfare. He outlined a number of the provisions of his scheme to the Dáil on that occasion, on the 2nd March, 1951, about a year ago. He told us that all except the very rich should have old age pensions—not the rich, but "the very rich". He told us, indeed, that he did not see very much virtue in a contributory scheme; indeed that he did not see very much virtue in any means test. At column 1103, he told us in regard to the means test:—
"The Oireachtas can at any time abolish it if they want to. As Deputies of this House are aware, it was done in respect of the children's allowances. There is no reason why the Minister could not, if he wished, bring in a Bill at any moment to abolish the means test completely in respect of old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions."
In regard to the contributory scheme he said:—
"I do not think there is any great substance in the Minister's arguments in favour of the contributory system, and there are objections which would lead me, at any rate, to resist, as far as I could, any increase in contributions. I am not advocating that we should abolish contributions as they are—and I shall give reasons for that, too. However, I think that the arguments against the contributory system would make us hesitate before increasing the contributions on either the employer or the employee. It is an unfair system as between one employee and another; it is an unfair system as between one employer and another."
It is that system which the Minister described so eloquently as unfair then, which he now introduces into this House with a shameless disregard of the assurances which he gave this House, not casually but with a full sense of his responsibility, expressing to the House that he had to be careful because he was making proposals which he would implement if the people trusted him, if he was returned to sit on the Government Benches where he now sits.
That was bad enough but the Minister did not stop at that. On the next day, the Fianna Fáil Party published in detail their social welfare scheme. It was published in table form, comparing it with the Norton Social Security Bill. It was issued from Fianna Fáil headquarters and published in all the daily papers of that day. Deputy O'Higgins, the other day, referred the House to that table and to the statement issued by the Fianna Fáil Party on the 3rd March, the day after Deputy Dr. Ryan, as he then was, had given this solemn assurance to the House. When Deputy O'Higgins was addressing the House, he was subjected to a constant barrage of interruptions from Deputy Briscoe and some other Government Deputies who suggested, inferentially, that Deputy O'Higgins was not being fair because he was not quoting from the Irish Press and that the Irish Press might contain a different version of the Fianna Fáil Proposals. I have taken the trouble of getting the Irish Press of the 3rd March, 1951. We have on the front page, in panel form, under the heading “Fianna Fáil Proposals: Government Proposals” a table setting out Deputy Dr. Ryan's proposals. Let me read the paragraph that introduces that table:—
"Below in tabular form are Fianna Fáil's proposals on social welfare, as outlined by Dr. James Ryan in the Dáil yesterday, contrasted with the Government's proposals,"
and we have, one by one, their promises, not given casually, but given with a full sense of responsibility, not given, as Deputy Dr. Ryan then told the House, to deceive the electorate but given with the full sense of responsibility of an ex-Minister who intends to put them into operation if he secures the support of the people.
We were told that there would be no means test for farmers under £25 valuation or people with £100 cash income. Could there be a clearer undertaking to the people of the country than that? Yet, it is shamelessly broken in this House now.
We were told that there was to be no increase in contributions: that a scheme would be financed by additional revenue, estimated at £4.6 million. They even went to the trouble of calculating figures in order better to mislead the people. Surely there must be a limit to what can be done in public life?
The other day when Deputy Briscoe and some of his colleagues were suggesting that Deputy O'Higgins was not giving a correct version of the promises made at that time by Fianna Fáil it was also suggested that these were not election promises. I do not know what difference can be drawn between a promise given in the newspapers and an election promise.
I took the trouble of looking up the speech made by the present Taoiseach, then Deputy de Valera, at the G.P.O., O'Connell Street, on the night before the general election. It is seldom that the present Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, ever commits himself to anything. The House will know, and indeed the House will have suffered from it on numerous occasions, how Deputy de Valera, the present Taoiseach, is capable of making a speech lasting for a considerable period of time but of saying little or nothing in it. The whole country is aware of that failing of the present Taoiseach. However, on this occasion, he took his courage in both hands. He actually committed himself—and it very seldom happens that Deputy de Valera commits himself.
Less than a year ago—on the 29th May, 1951, the night before the general election—the Taoiseach, as reported in the Irish Press of Wednesday, the 30th May, 1951, said in the course of his speech:—
"That being their record"—the Fianna Fáil record—"how can anyone suggest, as their opponents were suggesting, that Fianna Fáil were opposed to the extension of social services? They wanted these social services to enable our people to live as happily as the community resources would permit. These were Fianna Fáil aims. It was Fianna Fáil who set up the Department of Health and Social Welfare in order that schemes might be devised to help the people and to give them greater social security than they had. How then could it be suggested that Fianna Fáil were against these things?"
Listen to the next sentence:—
"Their plan in regard to social services was before the Dáil a short time ago."
"The Fianna Fáil plan was before the Dáil a short time ago." Was that speech not made in order to deceive the electorate? Let us read a little further in the same speech:—
"They will only talk"—says the present Taoiseach, then Deputy de Valera—"of the pint but I would remind you that we brought down the price of tea from 4/10 to 2/8 a lb., the price of flour down by 1/- a stone or £1 a sack, and the price of a four lb. loaf from 1/1½d. to 1/-.
In brackets, and note the brackets—"(Applause)". I can well see the scene in O'Connell Street that night. I can visualise Deputy de Valera, the present Taoiseach, explaining to the assembled multitude how, by putting on subsidies, they had brought down the price of bread, tea, sugar and butter. Then —"(Applause)". The speech further continues:
"... and we brought down the price of sugar from 6d. to 4d. a lb. Butter was subsidised by us. So also was fuel. £15,000,000 was being provided by us in order to keep down the cost of living. We were not putting it in abeyance. I have too much regard for the people to think that they did not see the advantages and that they only thought of the disadvantages at that time."
That speech was made by the present Taoiseach less than a year ago. I can understand that sometimes a statesman or politician may change his view on a certain problem.
