Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 1959

Vol. 178 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare Benefits—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That in view of the increase in the cost of living since present scales of benefits were fixed, and the general inadequacy of the rates of benefits now paid, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that old age, blind and widows' and orphans' pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits and unemployment assistance should be increased immediately.

In asking that the House accept this motion, which has been put down in the name of the Labour Party, I wish briefly again to bring to the attention of the members of the House the plight of the various groups of individuals who are mentioned in it. I do not propose to deal with these groups on the basis of so many shillings per week which they receive in social welfare benefits because, for too long in this country has the position of the old aged, the widows and orphans, and the man with a family on unemployment assistance, been debated in terms of 15/-, 18/- or 25/- a week. Surely it is time that the underlying proposition of this motion should be the subject of examination in this House, and the subject of decision by this House? That is the examination of what amount of money, by way of assistance, by way of gratuity, and by way of pension would be required to ensure at least that these groups of individuals can combat hunger and live on something better than existence level.

The present rates of benefit under all headings bring about a situation under which, at all times, each and every one of these groups suffer severe hardship. For a moment does anyone have the hardihood to suggest that the family of a man in receipt of assistance, under our present code, does not suffer hardship by way of their inability to provide themselves with reasonable housing accommodation, their inability to provide clothing, to protect their bodies against the cold, the rain and the wet of winter, and do not suffer hardship by reason of the fact that their diet is a most meagre one? What applies to those in receipt of unemployment assistance, and even to those in receipt of unemployment benefit, applies equally to the case of the old aged, the widows and the orphans.

The Minister, or some of the representatives of his Party, may tell us that the cost of making adequate provision under these headings for that section of our community would take a considerable amount of money. It is true that to make adequate provision for these people will cost very substantial sums of money, but is the House and the Party forming the Government not under the obligation, accepted in a democratic body such as ours, to make adequate provision for the less well-off sections of the community? It must be a source of embarrassment and a source of shame to each and every one of us to meet members of unemployed families, members of families in receipt of assistance, and particularly the aged and the widows, and to realise that the allowances made to them are of so meagre a nature, and are so miserable, that no single day of their lives can they enjoy a minute's peace or a minute's genuine comfort.

How long does it take the family in receipt of unemployment assistance to get rid of the munificent sum the father gets in the unemployment exchange? Do we all not know that before that father leaves the unemployment exchange the amount he draws has gone because he has had to obtain credit, of some form or another, to obtain some of the necessaries of life for his family? The amount he draws at the employment exchange is in pawn ten times over for bread, tea, rent. From the very day on which he draws that money he is only sure of one thing that the following day he will have nothing and his family will be in the same way. They will again either have to go to sympathetic traders or go to neighbours or relatives in order to obtain food possibly. Most likely while they are under the hardship of having to obtain clothing for their families they will have to depend upon the generosity of charitable societies, the members of their families or their friends.

The old age pensioner relies solely on the old age pension to eke out a miserable existence. How long does that pension last? What value is it to him as far as providing shelter, clothing and a little food are concerned? There is not a Deputy in this House; there is not a public representative anywhere in the country and there is not a single person who has any contact with this section of the community—too many of the families of this nation have such contact—but must be aware that within hours of drawing that pension the pensioner concerned is waiting anxiously and hopelessly for the next few days to pass so that he can draw the pension again.

I recommend that the House should adopt this motion. It expresses the opinion in no uncertain terms that the general rates of benefits now paid are completely inadequate. I wonder whether the consideration in this matter should not be a consideration as to what extent the benefits or assistance now provided will ensure that the recipients under each heading will be enabled to have at least some little comfort in life.

I am afraid that for too many years in this country the only approach has been what it is going to cost. We can at times make money available for many forms of activity. We can make money available and have done so down the years in support of many speculative enterprises, but surely if it is possible to make any money available, the section that should get first consideration should be that section of our community named in the motion now before the House.

Cold and wet are no respecters of persons. I think reference was made in the course of the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis to the statement that some people had died of hardship in this country. I understand that the statement has been challenged and is being examined, but there can be no challenge and no denial of the fact that practically every individual, man, woman, boy, girl or infant in the sections of the community covered by this motion are living with hardship every hour of every day throughout every week of their lives.

Their homes are inadequately furnished, if furnished at all. Their bodies, if clothed, are clothed inadequately. Their diet is insufficient and also inadequate. It is certainly not the type of diet which any representative of the rural community would agree would be adequate for the animals in our countryside. But this is the diet upon which men and women, boys and girls are required to subsist to-day. I ask that this motion be adopted by the House.

Mar gheall ar an Rún seo atá curtha síos ag an Lucht Oibre ar chlár na Dála, ba mhaith liom a rá go raibh an cheist fá scrúdú dhá uair cheana féin ó tháinig siad isteach.

There were two rises in social welfare in the past 2½ years. That more than covered the rise in the cost of living to the particular cadres of people mentioned in the motion put down by the Labour Party. Listening to the debate so far, one would conclude that every old age pensioner in this State was absolutely and entirely dependent on the old age pension. The fact is—and statistics prove it— that only 15 per cent. of the total number who receive old age pensions are solely dependent upon the old age pension. Deputy Corish took me to task about my statement on two occasions in this House that it was a contribution in aid. That is all it is. That was the original definition when the Old Age Pension Act was brought in and it is still the approach to the subject. I shall not pontificate on this but there is a duty on the members of a family to sustain one another, to help one another. That is assumed by every Party in this House and was referred to by Deputy Larkin. Deputy Larkin said that when a recipient of one of these services had not enough he had to go to his relatives or friends. Is not that as it should be? Is not that our conception of a State? Are we going to have a digital examination of each member of a family and say that Jack has so much, Tom has so much, Mary has so much and the father has so much and that each of them should live on that amount and that there is not a joint family responsibility to share the earnings of the family and provide for the family which has been the concept of things up to now in democracies all over the world outside the iron curtain?

What about the Six Counties?

That has been the concept in the Six Counties and still is.

The Taoiseach will have to change his views, if so. He will have to get a different speech for Oxford the next time.

We have been told that when a reply would come from this side of the House we would ask where is the money to come from. Is there anything more reasonable than that we should ask where is the money to come from?

I do not want to misquote Deputy Corish but he referred to the sum being spent on the eradication of bovine T.B. and quoted the Minister for Finance as saying that in the present year £5,500,000 will have to be spent on that and that more will have to be spent. Then Deputy O'Sullivan talked about a project in the South of Ireland, about which exact figures could not be given, on which £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 would be spent.

Surely the granting of social welfare benefits springs from a good economy here. Unless we have a sound economy and sound earnings by the community we cannot give any social welfare benefits. Therefore, it depends on the economy being good that we can provide for the weaker sections of the community and I think we have done fairly well over the past few years.

In 1949/50 we gave 4.9 per cent. of our national income in social welfare. In 1958-59 we gave 6.8 per cent. That is a 50 per cent. jump. It is one-third of the total revenue of the State. Is it suggested that the things that make that possible, our cattle trade, our exports of cattle, should be neglected and thrown aside and that we should spend nothing on them and let farming go to pieces, or that the development of our dockyards, the development of Rushbrooke should be let fall by the wayside, with damaging effect on our whole economy, and yet go on and give more and more and more?

We can only give out of what we earn and we can only have a sound economy by bringing production up to date. We must live by our exports. That is the reason why these expenditures are incurred. If we do not, in addition to agriculture, set the wheels of industry going and give our workers the chance to earn and tax them on their earnings in order to give the social welfare benefits, the whole economy will collapse. It is fallacious, therefore, to talk about what we spend on this, that and the other. The two things must be related.

Deputy Corish made certain statements. At column 1035 of the Official Report of last Wednesday he said:

We may have regard to the cost of living and try to delude or "kid" ourselves by saying that old age pensioners and others have got proportional increases.

At column 1039 he said:

There may be quoted to me the cost of living index. The cost of living index has no bearing on the cost of living to such as an old age pensioner... because in that cost of living figure, there are not alone food and rent but various other things.

The old age pensioner, the blind person, the widow and the orphan and the unfortunate man on the dole are concerned with only three things. They are concerned with the price of food, with the cost of their rent and with the cost of clothing. ...The last time I spoke on a similar motion I said that while the ordinary cost of living had gone up by 12 per cent., at the same period, the cost of food, rent and clothing had gone up something like 20 per cent.

The tendency, in fact, has been for increases in pensions to outstrip rises in the cost of living. The consumer price index at mid-August, 1947, was 100——

The Parliamentary Secretary is not quoting me now, I think.

No, I am replying. The consumer price index at mid-August, 1947, was 100. In mid-August, 1959, it was 144, an increase of 44 per cent. On August, 1947, the maximum old age pension was 15/- weekly. In August, 1959, it was 27/6 weekly, an increase of 83 per cent.

Do you think that is enough for a person to live on?

I am not arguing that at the moment. I am answering Deputy Corish. The contributory pension for a widow has increased from 24/- in 1952, to 30/- at present, an increase of 25 per cent. The non-contributory pension for a widow has increased from 20/- in 1952, to 26/- at present, an increase of 30 per cent.

Deputy McQuillan is very anxious about the British system. The British non-contributory old age pensions range from a minimum payment of 4/4 weekly, by increments of 2/-, to a maximum of 28/4 weekly. This compares with weekly payments of 12/6, 17/6d, 22/6d and 27/6d in this country. In December of last year there were 205,000 of these people in Britain who had non-contributory old age pensions. Our old age pension, when you take rent into account, compares very favourably with that.

Again, going back to Deputy Corish, where he was referring to certain items like food——

Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that the old age pensioner is better off here?

I never interrupted Deputy Dr. Browne in this House. I want to make my speech.

The Parliamentary Secretary, without interruption.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary trying to prove that the old age pensioner here is better off?

Deputy Corish's argument does not hold any force because the old age pensioner, the blind and the widow are concerned only with food, rent and clothing. If he examines the figures he will see that his argument has no force. Between mid-August, 1953, and mid-August, 1959, the consumer price index increased by 15.6 per cent. In the same period, the percentage increase for food was 15.7; for clothing 4.2 and for housing 19.8. Thus, the increase for food was almost exactly the same as the increase in the cost of living index as a whole. The increase for clothing was very much below the general increase and the increase for housing was slightly above the general increase.

In the argument advanced from the Labour benches and from Deputy O'Sullivan one would think that the single individual in receipt of unemployment assistance was living by himself or by herself and had responsibility for the rent of a house and the upkeep of a house. In more than 90 per cent. of these cases, they are not living by themselves and rural Deputies know this. Furthermore, rural Deputies know that the majority of people in receipt of unemployment assistance are uneconomic landowners and that everyone of £4 valuation or under is in receipt of unemployment assistance the whole year round and that, at a particular period, from now to the Spring, men on £10, £12 valuation, according to their family circumstances, come in and receive unemployment assistance, in addition to what they may knock out of their holdings. Therefore, the argument that people in receipt of unemployment assistance are all destitute and have nothing else coming in is completely wrong. Deputy O'Sullivan spoke about the means test.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any breakdown of the unemployment assistance figures with regard to those who receive it on the basis of valuation?

That would be a very elaborate breakdown. You would have the £4, £5, £5 10s. and £6——

I mean all valuations, not segregating them.

I could not do that.

The Parliamentary Secretary made a very broad statement.

I stand by that statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary has no figures to substantiate it.

I do not want a reply from Deputy O'Sullivan now but I will put this question to him in connection with this debate. Would he be satisfied and would his constituents be satisfied if, under the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme, the value of cows were put as low in West Cork or in any part of Cork or Westmeath as when the old age pension officer is examining them or the widow is being examined for her means? Is Deputy O'Sullivan aware that some of these values are in existence for going on 20 years and that they are ridiculously low? Is he aware that the value of a calf is put down as low as 5/- in certain parts of the country. On a reexamination in the case of the recipient of unemployment assistance who was valued 19 years ago, if there is a change in valuation there is a big outcry because we have advanced a little in 20 years. Would the same individual, if unfortunately his cows proved subject to tuberculosis be prepared to take the value of 20 years ago, namely, 40/- for a yearling, 5/- for a pig, 7/6d. for a sheep, 15/- for a dozen fowl.

A dozen fowl are a liability now.

It would be a bad hen at present that would not lay 15/- worth of eggs. If you go in and buy eggs in any shop at the moment, even in West Cork, you will not get many dozens of eggs for 15/-.

They are not laying at all now.

Nor in Galway either. In my opening statement I said that in the past two and a half years the position of the recipients of social welfare assistance has been examined. Two or three increases were given to old age pensioners. The same happened the widows and orphans. Recipients of unemployment assistance and the other benefits all got increases.

Deputy Corish asked me to quote him the total amount required to give 2/6d., 5/-, 10/- or 15/-. He also said that every three or four years we would become bountiful and say: "Here is another 2/6d. for the old age pensioners." At column 1041 of the Official Report, Volume 177, Deputy Corish is reported as saying: "We are paying £17 million for health services and £24.5 million for social assistance and social welfare benefits." I will take his last statement first. In 1949-50 we spent £16,571,000 in social welfare schemes. In the present year we are spending £33,258,000. That is more than double. We have stepped up the tax on our national income from 4.9 to 6.7—an increase of 50 per cent.

What was the contribution increase?

We allow for the contributions.

The Parliamentary Secretary is giving only one side.

We are dealing with pensions. We are not talking about contributions in that respect. A weekly increase of 2/6d. would cost £1,046,000; of 5/-, £2,092,103; of 10/-, £4,184,206; of 15/-, £6,276,000. When you increase one social welfare service you must increase every other social welfare service.

The terms of the motion submitted by the Labour Party and which have been debated are:

...and the general inadequacy of the rates of benefits now paid, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that old age, blind, widows' and orphans' pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits and unemployment assistance should be increased immediately.

That is only a proportion of the total amount that would be required if we were to increase them all. When Deputy Kyne asks what about the contributions, that is only dealing with social assistance. In relation to the figures I was dealing with, the State would also have to come in on the contributory pension so that Deputies would be faced with a bill——

I asked about the increased contributions only when the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned from £16 million to the other figure. That was before he quoted those to Deputy Corish at all.

Deputy Davern dealt with the number of people in receipt of old age pensions and I want to quote the point he made. He asked about the increase in the number of people in receipt of old age pensions to date as a result of the alterations in the means test. Following the introduction of the new means scale on the 2nd January, 1953, the number of pensioners increased to 164,696 and the amount spent on old age pensions increased from £7,509,000 on the 31st March, 1952, to an estimated £11,094,000 this year.

What was the increase in numbers?

The number was 163,058 on the 2nd January, 1953, and was increased to 164,696 on the 27th March, 1953, as a result of the easing of the means test. In connection with that, a person can have £1,000 in investments and receive 12/6d. a week. A person can have £78 of an income and receive 12/6d. a week, and the man's wife can have a £1,000 in investments and also receive 12/6d. a week. Therefore the hardship referred to is contrary to the facts. As I said, the number of people who are in complete want and who have to depend on the old age pension is 15 per cent of the total, and the Poor Law authority have a duty to come to their aid. Deputy Corish referred to this matter but that is really a problem for the local authority and it is for each local authority to interpret their duty as they think fit.

The elected members of the local council or the local manager?

In consultation.

Consultation, that is a good way of getting out of it.

If I were putting up a case to the manager I would say to him that it would be much cheaper to give a fairly good sum to that person than to pay the cost of maintaining that person in the county home.

He would not take the slightest notice of you.

He may in certain circumstances.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if a person has an income of £78 what pension is he entitled to?

So then an income of £78 is deemed to be equivalent to £1,000 invested.

Where will the ordinary old age pensioner have £1,000 invested to make £78 a year?

It is extraordinary the number of people who have that.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that it is invested at two per cent or one per cent. It is ridiculous to suggest it is earning seven per cent or eight per cent in investments.

In connection with unemployment assistance I have dealt with the point in relation to the number of £4 valuations——

On a point of order, is there a new Standing Order that limits the period of speech of any speaker on a motion to a particular time?

The time is not up yet.

What is the time?

Acting Chairman

Roughly two minutes more.

Deputy Corish made a number of references to unemployment benefit in the debates. Unemployment benefit is a short-term benefit which is designed to tide the worker over what is normally a short spell of unemployment and it was never intended to substitute for regular, wage earning employment. As to the Deputy's reference to the increase in the cost of living since 1949, the rate of unemployment benefit has increased by 33 1/3 per cent in the case of a single man, 50 per cent in the case of a man with a wife, 63 per cent in the case of a man, his wife and one child, and 74 per cent in the case of a man with a wife and two children. Since 1949 the rise in the consumer price index has been 44 per cent. Since 1952 there has been an increase of 18 per cent in the consumer price index, whereas the rate of unemployment benefit has been increased by 25 per cent. By and large I think the Government in their short period of office have ably and well met this problem at great cost to the taxpayer.

The movers of this motion have made an unanswerable case. I was appalled at the speech just made by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the attitude of the Government towards this motion. I could understand if the Government showed a great deal of sympathy in the situation and had argued against the motion on economic or financial grounds.

Apparently the Government are complacent and satisfied about the situation; apparently the Government think the old age pensioners have been more than adequately compensated by the increase in the pensions for the rise in the cost of living; apparently the Government think we are doing fairly well in this matter. I do not think anybody in this House or in the country can say we are doing fairly well for the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans or the blind pensioners. The situation in which many of them find themselves is a disgrace to a Christian community. There is, to my knowledge, and to the knowledge of many Deputies, real hunger in the city of Dublin. I am not conversant with conditions outside the city but it is not an exaggeration to say that there is real hunger in the city of Dublin, hunger which is alleviated from time to time by charitable organisations. If these organisations were not in existence conditions of very real and grave hardship would obtain in this city.

That is the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time. People are suffering from malnutrition arising as a result of inadequate incomes. I do not accept the proposition, and I do not believe anybody in this House accepts it, that we are doing fairly well by the persons mentioned in this motion. The situation calls for the immediate attention of the Government. The argument, as I say, might have been made that we cannot afford it on economic or financial grounds, that although it is most desirable it cannot be done. If that argument had been put forward we could have met it and debated it but it has not been the approach of the Government. Instead, the Government appear to be satisfied with the existing situation.

I want to deal briefly with the suggestion that we cannot afford at the present time to raise the incomes of people to whom this society owes a duty. I may, perhaps, be in a minority in this House but I was against the reduction in income tax which was proposed by the recent Budget. I would have been in favour of increasing social welfare benefits instead of reducing income tax. I may say that there are people paying income tax who require relief but relief could have been given without giving omnibus and blanket relief to the whole community. I am not impressed by economic arguments and I feel the income which derives from that tax should have been used to increase social welfare benefits.

Recently, the Government issued a White Paper in which it is again proposed that there will be income tax reductions arising out of the introduction of the pay-as-you-earn system. That system is an extremely good one and will bring to the Exchequer an estimated increase of £900,800—nearly £1,000,000—but the Government will give away in tax reliefs over £1,000,000. Again, I know there are people on whom the tax burden is very heavy, and I agree there are people to whom reliefs should be given, but the extraordinary thing about the reliefs which are proposed to be given in this White Paper is that the people who will get the most reliefs are the people who least need them—people in the higher income brackets earning up to £1,800 a year. People with smaller incomes who pay tax on £500 and £600 are to get minimal reliefs of about £3, £4 or £5 per annum, and the people who are to get reliefs under this proposed scheme are the people with incomes of from £1,200 to £1,800.

I should like, if possible, the State to relieve people of the burden they have to bear but there is a list of priorities. Priority should be given to the people who need the relief and the people named in this motion. There is, at the present time, poverty, need and hardship. That is unjust because it is avoidable. That belief should be put on record in an attempt to bring the Government to a realisation of the position.

As a city Deputy I want to say that I do not represent many of those people who have £1,000 investments. I meet a lot of paupers. I want to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that there is now a demand for an increase in wages by persons who are in employment. These demands are made because of a rise in the cost of living. These people seem to have succeeded in proving their point because they are to get the increase. If all the employed persons have made their case, and if they are getting the increase, surely then there must be a corresponding case for the people in receipt of social benefits. If they have made their case surely the other fellow has also made his, because one makes it for the other. Surely as a result of this general increase, there will now be a further increase in the cost of living. If those people are to get an increase the publicans will put up the price of beer. We cannot say who is responsible for that. The fact remains that there will be increases all round as a result of the demands which are being accepted. Surely that makes the case for this motion. If the case has been accepted by the employers that is a case for the people in receipt of social benefits.

I do not think there is any need for me to say anything more but there is one point which I should like to raise before I sit down. The Minister has made a practice of cutting people off unemployment assistance. Hundreds have been cut off in the past few weeks. If there is any increase in crime the Minister must take some responsibility for it. In fact, there is a miserable and mean practice of telling people on a Thursday—the day they are expecting their miserable few shillings—that they are cut off. They are told on the day they are to receive the money. That happened in hundreds of cases last Thursday and the previous Thursday. Having signed up and having turned up to get the miserable few bob they are handed a notice to say they are cut off and their wives are standing around the corner waiting for the money. Surely they could have been granted the money they had already signed for.

It would be better if the Deputy got back to the terms of the motion.

The Minister indicated when he spoke here before that some of these people might be swindlers. I have a Question down on the subject and I hope the Minister will answer it tomorrow.

I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary giving figures in order to reassure himself that the old age pensioner is well cared for. I nearly congratulated him on his use or misuse of figures. As I said, you can do anything with figures except eat them. I found it difficult to believe that he would support or defend the suggestion that the old age pensioners, the recipients of unemployment assistance, widows and orphans, but particularly the first, are paid anything like an amount of money which they must have in order to feed and clothe and house themselves with the present living costs, and in relation to the unemployment assistance classes in particular, that they should be expected, in addition, to feed, clothe, house and educate their families. It is quite clearly completely impossible to do so on the couple of pounds offered by the Minister to them when they are on the dole, and we must remember there is something like a constant 8 to 10 per cent. of unemployed persons who are in this position of having—I think it is perfectly legitimate to say—to half-starve their families and themselves on the unemployment assistance which we grant them.

I was surprised to hear the Minister trying to make a case suggesting that there was any comparison between the lot of old age pensioners and unemployed persons here with the lot of similar classes in the Six Counties or Great Britain. We have the picture of a Tory Government bringing in propositions to allow a means test which would let the old age pensioners earn something in the region of £3 10s. a week, without affecting their pensions. That is the proposition of the Conservative Government in Great Britain.

There is no doubt that the Government Party here can defend themselves to some extent, in pointing back to their records in relation to old age pensioners. The fact is that the Fianna Fáil Party, in its early radical days, made probably the most outstanding contribution to attempting to deal with the underpriviledged classes in our society. Nobody, I think, can contradict that, but they have developed this completely new attitude in regard to these dependent classes in recent years, and their early radicalism has given place to the most ultra conservatism in relation to these people. It is quite clear now that their primary interest is best shown by the proposition before the House the other day to give a ten per cent. increase in salary to people who are getting £4,000 or £5,000 a year.

A further illustration of this curious ambivalence to the needs of justice, the calls of justice, in relation to these different classes is the retrospective clause in relation to the Judiciary, retrospective for eight, nine, or ten months, while the old age pensioners had to wait seven, eight, or nine months for their half-crown increase.

I was interested in figures of a nutritional survey in relation to the Household Budget of 1951/52. In that Budget it was assessed that in a household of one or two persons, whose income was 30/- per week per person, the total outgoings were 45/- a week per person. That was as far back as 1951 for expenses on food, clothing, fuel, light, housing and sundries. Of course, that figure would not go near to meeting the demands, the needs, of an old age pensioner under the present cost of living figures, or against the present cost of living figures. It seems to me that this is just one further indictment of the economic system which has been followed here for the last 40 years. We are told that we can only give this amount to old age pensioners, to widows and orphans, and to the unemployed, and equally, when we make suggestions about giving their children a better education we are told that we cannot afford to do that either. The answer is the same when we ask to try and give our people better health services.

As I said before in this House, nobody minds a Government having made mistakes but what is so disturbing is that the politicians in control of our affairs have failed to learn from their mistakes. Instead of accepting the failure on these fronts, the social front, the educational front, the health front, the care of old people, widows and orphans and the unemployed, as an indictment of the economic system, it is taken as an excuse for not making better payments to this section of our society. Instead of accepting that the capitalistic private enterprise system, used by these politicians over the years, has failed to provide for social justice in what could be called a Christian society, a Christian order, they continue to cling to this economic system in spite of the hardship it imposes upon our old people, the most dependent section of all, on widows and orphans, on the children of the unemployed, on persons who are trying to give their children an education, and on the sick. They retain this system merely because it provides a good living for a minority at the expense of the vast majority of the rest of our people.

The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that it was the responsibility of the family to care for their elders. We are told it is the responsibility of the family to provide for education and better health services, and the fact of the matter is that 70 per cent. of our people, approximately 70 per cent., get £9 a week or less in order to feed, clothe, educate, find shelter, find housing, pay rates, and provide health services in addition to providing for their aged and for their own old age as well.

Is it not so much cant and hypocrisy to suggest that people in that low income bracket—that is, the vast majority of our people—can find for these fundamental demands of any family? Is it not a simple hypocritical attempt on the part of the politicians of this Government to escape from their responsibility to so order our society that the whole resources of the society would be mobilised in order to try to see that either directly, in the form of better wages, or indirectly in the form of better social services, a certain modicum of social justice is provided for the vast majority of our people? We have it on the undertaking of the Taoiseach at the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis, as reported in the Irish Independent on 11th October, that it is only as the national wealth expands that progress can be made in social conditions of the poor. Nobody knows better than the present, very intelligent Taoiseach, that our national wealth is practically static, has been so for a number of years, and will be for a number of years to come, and he proposes to take no remedial steps, steps that he knows could solve our present problems. As before, this House is providing the self-same remedies which year after year, decade after decade for 30, 40, nearly 50 years, have left our people in the state of decay and misery in which they now find themselves.

I do not give two damns what figures the Parliamentary Secretary provides in order to show that our old age pensioners and our people on unemployment assistance are doing all right. I offer him an invitation, here and now, to come with me to my constituency in Dublin, in Ringsend, Mountpleasant or anywhere like that, and I ask my junior colleague to come with me too and I shall show him children suffering from malnutrition children who are hungry, children who are under-sized, children who are ill-fed, old age pensioners who spend the winter in bed without light or fire and have little or no food because they cannot afford to buy it.

I would show him men on the dole with four, five and six hungry children, hungry fathers and mothers living in this so-called Christian society. Some people wonder whether a particular society is a so-and-so one or whether another country is a communist society. I believe that one of the greatest hallucinations commonly held in this country is that this is a Christian society. If this is a Christian society, I should like here and now, fully conscious of what I say, to repudiate the Christian way of life if it means hunger, starvation. malnutrition, emigration, unemployment, decadence and decay. You all know that as well as I do. You are as close to your constituencies as I am and you know the hungry.

You should be ashamed of yourself coming into this House and making any attempt to suggest that these people receive anything like the care, attention and consideration which they should get in a proper Christian society. If you want to know what Christianity is, go to the Protestant North of Ireland; go to the Protestant Church of England in Great Britain; go to irreligious Sweden, New Zealand or Denmark. Go to any of these countries and they will teach you about Christianity—not the kind you mouth about on Sundays and forget on Mondays and Tuesdays but the type that permeates down through their lives, the way they live and the way they care for their dependent classes.

You have got away with this humbug too long in this society. There is no doubt that the system you people believe in is the system in which there is a conflict—a war between the classes who have and the classes who have not. You people stand for the classes who have, the wealthy and the privileged and you intend to defend their wealth and their privilege. Against whom?

The Deputy should address the Chair.

Against the widows, the children, the blind, the old age pensioner and the sick and the needy —valiant soldiers! Those are your opponents! All we can hope is that the have nots are beginning to come into their heritage in most of the countries of the world. They are intelligent in our country too. The conflict will go on and they will understand that under your system— the capitalist system—the conflict is for profits.

The employer believes that wages, old age pensions, unemployment benefits and unemployment assistance are all profits gone astray. He does not want to see them going astray. He puts you in here in order to see that they do not go astray. You are the guardian, the keeper of his way of life in the defence of that system.

The Deputy should address the chair.

As long as I am in public life I hope to explain to the worker that profits, dividends and unearned income are wages gone astray. They are old age pensions gone astray. They are sickness benefits gone astray. It is the right to a just wage gone astray. That is the conflict which the mumbling explanations of the Parliamentary Secretary will not be proof against when, as in so many other countries, the workers come into their own and there is an end to that.

The Deputy who has just sat down has told the members of this House that they ought to be ashamed of themselves. I should be ashamed of myself if I came in here and made a speech so utterly insincere, though so carefully rehearsed, as I know this to be. The Deputy has been talking about showering privileges and benefits upon the haves. I am a successor of the Deputy, as Minister for Health. When he first took office, he was very careful to look after his own; and they were well up among the haves.

That is not the purpose for which I am discussing this motion. I should like to bring the House back to it and refer to the terms of it. The motion reads:

"That in view of the increase in the cost of living since present scales of benefits were fixed, and the general inadequacy of the rates of benefits now paid, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that old age, blind and widows' and orphans' pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits and unemployment assistance should be increased immediately."

That motion, I submit, is one of the least responsible ever to be submitted for consideration in this House. It has been advocated by its sponsor with even greater irresponsibity. Take its terms. It begins with a falsehood. It refers to increases in the cost of living. There has been no increase in the cost of living.

What are all the wage increases for now?

And the Labour Court's 10/- a week?

Has the price of bread gone up today or not?

There has been no increase of any significance in the cost of living. There has been no increase in the cost of living figure; on the contrary there has been a decline.

(Interruptions.)

I shall have to sit down if I am not to be permitted to speak. I listened with great patience to some of the speakers.

The time on a Private Member's motion is limited. The Minister should not be interrupted.

I said there has been no increase in the cost of living figure. The mover of the motion, Deputy Corish, and one of the supporters of the motion, Deputy O'Sullivan, admitted that by implication when both of them ran away from their own motion, when Deputy Corish—I am quoting from column 1035—said:

...we talk not only about the increase in the cost of living...

He did not speak about the increase in the cost of living. He was careful to get away from it.

Because it has fallen.

Who says? Has it fallen since 1956?

It has fallen since there was an increase in old age pensions and in the general social welfare benefits in August last.

It went up by 12 per cent. since they last got an increase in social welfare benefits.

I did not interrupt Deputy Corish. I know his technique. He interrupts here with the utmost irrelevancy in order to throw the speaker off the course of his remarks.

That is new.

So, the cost of living justification for this motion has been abandoned.

It is there.

The cost of living justification for this motion has been abandoned. The cost of living index was lower in mid-August last than it was before.

Before what? What is the use of kidding yourself?

Before the increases were granted in old age pensions.

Deputy Corish will have 15 minutes in which to reply.

The benefits, the motion then goes on to say, should be increased immediately. By how much? Has anybody told us that? The motion says nothing on that point and the mover of the motion and those who have supported it have been even more dumb in regard to it. But, again I ask, by how much are all these social welfare benefits to be increased? Is it to be by a shilling a week per person or is to be by 20/-?

What would you settle for?

Is it a shilling a week per person or 20/-?

Five bob would be reasonable.

You might settle it now.

If the motion were genuine, if there were any sincerity behind this motion, the mover of it, at least, when he was moving it, would have given us something tangible to discuss. He would have mentioned what he thought the increase would have been and then we could have asked Deputy O'Sullivan whether he and his Party were going to stand for the increased taxation which their support of this motion might involve. Oh, no. We hear nothing about as to whether it is going to be a shilling a week or 20/- a week.

There have been references to the situation in Great Britain, the situation in the Six Counties. That implies that we must raise our social welfare benefits over the whole gamut, over the whole range, to the same level as the British. What is that going to cost us?

Ask the Taoiseach. He is going to guarantee it.

A shilling a week will cost us over £1,000,000; 20/- a week will cost £20,000,000.

Five bob would cost £5,000,000.

What, therefore, is the increased burden on the taxpayer going to be? Is it going to be £1,000,000 or £20,000,000? Who can take seriously a motion which is silent upon this vital, essential, salient point?

The fact of the matter is that this motion has been put down to play politics and that the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party are playing a political game and using the old age pensioner as their pawn.

Will the Minister give way?

The Deputy might have manners. Deputy Costello came in here and made a speech obviously prepared for the newspapers at breakneck speed. Where is he now?

A Deputy

Where were you last week?

The Minister has just come in.

I was engaged on business last week.

So was the Deputy.

If the Deputy wants to know, I was fulfilling a public engagement last week but I am here now and, if I may say so, I have had the advantage of reading Deputy Corish's speech. It does not do him much credit, as I hope to show before I am finished.

You will want to hurry up.

Deputy Costello said that the case made for this motion is unanswerable. What case was made for it? Deputy Corish said: "We specifically stress the general inadequacy of the rates of benefit paid at present." They are less inadequate —that is the word he used in relation to them—less inadequate now than they ever were, much less inadequate than they were when Deputy Corish was Minister for Social Welfare in the Government which was headed by Deputy Declan Costello's father. Why did not Deputy Corish use his power as one of the keymen in the late Coalition Government to make these social welfare benefits adequate? He held that Government together—at least we have been told that it was the Labour Party that kept that Coaliion together, that they were the cement which bound the whole fabric. Why did not the Labour Ministers do what they now term justice to the old age pensioner when they were in a position to do so?

We had the subsidies.

We had the subsidies.

The subsidies meant the equivalent of a shilling a week in cash. That is what they meant. And you Labour Deputies are now telling me that your idea of social justice for the old age pensioner when you were in the Coalition Government—when you were in the Coalition Government, remember—was a shilling a week?

On a point of order, to the knowledge of the House, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was never in the Coalition Government.

That is scarcely a point of order.

I did not say that to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the sense which Deputy O'Sullivan implies. I shall put the question again, through the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I am supposed to address the Chair, which the Deputy very seldom does. I am putting now to Deputy Corish, through the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, why did not Deputy Corish, when he was Minister for Social Welfare, announce to the people that his idea of social justice for the old age pensioner could be measured in terms of a shilling a week?

That is smart.

When you get down to Wexford and elsewhere, you can answer that question.

When "he" gets down to Wexford.

You can explain to your constituents how it is that you came to think the retention of food subsidies, amounting in value to a shilling a week per person, was a sufficient justification for maintaining the old age pension——

Is that all?

——at 24/- a week, when you were Minister for Social Welfare.

Let us hear the Minister's interpretation of social justice?

Of course, Deputy Corish had to get out and he gave us his "get out" in the course of his speech. In column 1036 he said this:—

"In all fairness to the Department and to the officials it should be said the blind person has some little extra."

The significant words in that statement are, "In all fairness to the Department and to the officials." The Minister for Social Welfare is responsible for his Department. He is the man who, in conjunction with his colleagues in the Government, determines what social welfare benefits will be paid. If—and the implication of Deputy Corish's statement is that they were—the social welfare benefits were inadequate even when he was in office, it is he and not the officials of his Department who has to carry the responsibility. It is on his shoulders the blame rests. He should, at least, in honour, not try as he tries to do here, to push the blame over to those persons who were his officers and who were bound to carry out his policy, and Deputy Corish's policy was manifested in the figure 24/- a week basic for the old age pension for the basic old age pension is 27/6 a week.

The cost of living went up 12 points.

If you turn back over the years, you will find that since 1949 the old age pension was increased once by the Coalition but it has been increased twice or three times—three times—by the Fianna Fáil administration.

That is not true.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn