The time remaining to the Minister in possession is three minutes. The time remaining after that for debate on the motion is 15 minutes.
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 Eireann is of opinion that old age, blind and widows' and orphans' pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits and unemployment assistance should be increased immediately.
I do not intend to resume in view of the shortness of time.
There are 18 minutes left for this motion. The mover of the motion or some other member who has not already spoken is entitled to 15 minutes in which to reply.
Deputy Donnellan rose.
If Deputy Donnellan wishes to speak for three minutes, he may do so.
I simply say that I am supporting this motion. I believe there is a great necessity for the increases suggested. The people mentioned in this motion are the most needy sections of the community. Because of the rise in the cost of living and other factors, these people are entitled to increases. The Minister asked why did not the Labour Party say that there should be an increase of 1/- or £1. He said that 1/- increase would mean £1,000,000 increased taxation, that £1 increase would mean £20,000,000 increased taxation. In other words, he wanted to know from the movers of the motion where the money would come from. Since I came to this House in 1943, there was never a motion that was designed to help the needy but the question came up as to where the money would come from. Two weeks ago, when there was a proposal to grant increases to persons some of whom were drawing £4,000 and £5,000 a year, and making those increases retrospective for 12 months, there was no question as to where the money would come from. When it comes to an increase of a few paltry shillings for old age pensioners, unemployed persons, widows and orphans and blind persons, we are told that a shilling increase will cost £1,000,000 and asked where the money is to come from. That is the case the Minister has tried to put up. In connection with other increases to persons who could well do without it, the money was there for them to get.
Deputy Dr. Browne made a very sound speech in this House on Wednesday night. We are supposed to be Christians. We are supposed to be a great Catholic nation. I wonder? As Deputy Dr. Browne put it, do we deserve that reputation? Are we the great Christians that we play up to be? As was pointed out by Deputy Dr. Browne, other countries look after their needy. They look after their aged, their unemployed. We have the name of doing it in a paltry fashion. We give them something to keep body and soul together.
Other Deputies made the case for the City of Dublin. The same arguments apply in rural areas. I know old age pensioners and unemployed persons in rural areas who are in the same position as those in Dublin and I should like Dublin Deputies to understand that.
The mover of the motion is entitled to 15 minutes.
I shall not delay him a second. As far as I am concerned, I shall vote for this motion. I believe it is a good motion. It is a credit to the people who moved it. I am quite sure that many of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, if they had their way, would gladly support it.
It is difficult to know for what purpose the Minister for Social Welfare intervened in this debate at all because he did not make the slightest constructive contribution. I do not know whether it was an effort on his part to try to confuse the issues that up to then were fairly straightly discussed or if, indeed, he was trying to evade the issue with his usual well-rehearsed Churchillian rhetoric.
Do not be too hard on Churchill.
It is well rehearsed. Whether it is an imitation or not, I do not know. The issue is whether or not this House believes that the people referred to in the motion should get further assistance. The motion calls upon the House to express the opinion that social assistance and social welfare benefits should be increased.
When I made my introductory speech I thought, I was a little harsh on the Minister for Social Welfare in anticipating what his reactions to the motion would be, but I do not think I was at all. As a matter of fact, I was appalled at the attitude he displayed. To be kind to the Government, I am nearly certain it is not the Government's view but it is difficult for a Government to act in any generous way towards those in receipt of social welfare benefits when there is the atttiude as displayed by the Minister for Social Welfare here on Wednesday last. There was no attempt to deal in any responsible manner with the motion. It seems to me, therefore, that the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans, the sick, the unemployed and the blind have nothing facing them but a blank wall as far as the Minister for Social Welfare is concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary tried to make a case. He did not show a great deal of sympathy to these people. On the contrary, he endeavoured to prove that they were not as badly off as the majority of the people believe them to be. I do not want to misinterpret the Parliamentary Secretary but, as far as I could gather, he says that the people who receive the dole or unemployment assistance have other means, that they are not solely dependent on the dole. He went on to talk about those who had holdings of £4, £5 and up to £10 valuation. There may be some people in that position in the West of Ireland and certain parts of Southern Ireland, but I do not think there are any on the eastern seaboard. I do not know if there are many in the centre of Ireland who are in receipt of the dole and who have holdings of £4 or up to £10 valuation. It is not right for the Parliamentary Secretary to give the country the impression that there is a big number of people who are in receipt of the dole and who have other means derived from their holdings.
As far as old age pensioners are concerned, his attitude was that they had their people to keep them. I do not know what sort of attitude that is. It is true that the relatives of old age pensioners help them but many of them are not in a position to help. Those of them who are married and who have five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 children cannot afford to give a great deal to a relative who is in receipt of 27/6 a week. There again it is wrong to give the impression to other people or to try to persuade oneself that old age pensioners are not dependent solely on 27/6d. a week. There are tens of thousands of them who are dependent on the 27/6d. a week.
On other occasions we had the Minister for Social Welfare, in this House and in other places, saying there was a great number of those on sickness benefit who were malingerers. The Parliamentary Secretary himself said last week that unemployment benefit is merely a short term benefit. What does he mean by a short term benefit? The longest time during which one can draw unemployment benefit is six months. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to want to give the impression that people who are in receipt of unemployment benefit are people who are unemployed, say, for two, three, four, five or six weeks, but such is not the case. Again, tens of thousands of people who have to have recourse to unemployment benefit receive it for the full six months. They receive it for the full six months because they cannot get employment and after the six months, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, they must apply for the dole which is substantially less.
The Parliamentary Secretary also said last week that the case that people in receipt of unemployment assistance are destitute is all wrong. Let me repeat what he said: "The case that people in receipt of unemployment assistance or, as it is commonly known, the dole, are destitute is all wrong." A man with a wife and two children or six children under 16 years in an urban area has 41/- per week. Is that not near destitution? Will anyone say he has a luxurious life with 41/- per week having about eight in family to keep, including himself and his wife?
The man in the rural area who receives the dole and who has a wife and two or more children, has 31/- a week. In face of that, without going into any great details, I repeat that the Parliamentary Secretary says the case that people in receipt of unemployment assistance are destitute is all wrong.
The Parliamentary Secretary talks about the millions we are spending on social welfare. On health services and on social welfare, he says, we are spending something like £25 million and he says this in hushed tones as if everyone is to be surprised because we spend £25 million on people who are sick, on people for whom this country cannot provide employment, on people who are over 70 years of age and have no income, on people who are blind, on people who are widows or orphans. We spend £25 million on those people and on the health services and we are supposed to look astounded when that figure is mentioned. Social Welfare and social services do not extend only to the unemployed people, to the blind, to the sick and to the old age pensioners. They also extend to those who are engaged in the agricultural industry, to those who are engaged in industry generally, to those who are interested or engaged in fisheries. It is wrong to segregate the sick, the blind, the aged and the widowed as those only who are receiving State assistance.
The Minister for Social Welfare said on two occasions here that there has been no increase in the cost of living. At column 171 of Vol. 178 he said there was no significant increase in the cost of living. He said this was a frivolous motion because no amount was mentioned. Was it to be 5/-, 10/- or £1 increase? Did he say the same thing at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis? Some Cumann in the Fianna Fáil organisation put down a motion for the Mansion House Conference asking for an increase in old age pensions. There was no figure mentioned there. I do not take the Cumann to task for that. I wonder if the eloquence of the Minister for Social Welfare or the Parliamentary Secretary was as effective as they thought it would be because the sensible Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis passed a motion unanimously that old age pensioners should get an increase. Then the Minister for Social Welfare had the arrogance to come in and say they did not deserve it, that the cost of living has not increased.
He did not say they did not deserve it.
He did.
He did not say they did not deserve it.
He asked what did the inter-Party Government do about it? He asked what did I do about it during my term of office. We said we had the subsidies and then we had the Minister describing them as being worth 1/- to the people. Does anybody believe that the withdrawal of the subsidies meant 1/- per week per person? I do not want anybody to believe me. I want to quote the late Parliamentary Secretary, a spokesman of the Fianna Fáil Party, who, when he spoke in this House at col. 425 of Vol. 157, said that to a family of five the withdrawal of the butter subsidy meant 1/-½d. and that the withdrawal of the bread subsidy to a family of five meant a sum of 11/8d. per week, that is a total of 12/8½. It meant that when the Fianna Fáil Government withdrew the food subsidy a family of five suffered a loss of 12/8½ per week, the old age pensioner as an individual suffered a loss of 2/6½, still, the Minister for Social Welfare wanted us to believe last week that the retention of the food subsidies by the inter-Party Government meant only 1/- per week to the people about whom we speak tonight.
Apart from those figures I mentioned in respect of bread and butter, the price of sugar increased, the price of stout and tobacco also increased and, above all, the Minister for Social Welfare was responsible by his deliberate action for the health services increasing.
However, I did not base my arguments on the cost of living as far as old age pensioners are concerned. I did not base my arguments on the cost of living as far as social assistance recipients are concerned but I did say that, as far as insurance benefits are concerned, since the last increase was given the cost of living index figure had increased by 12 points. Again, as I said in my opening speech, there is the further point in respect of these people that the employer contributes one-third, the employee one-third and the State contributes one-third of the cost.
We must accept, however, that in a few moments the Government, through their spokesmen, will reject this motion which, I believe, is supported by general public opinion. In effect, the Government have said, through their spokesmen: "We do not believe these allowances are inadequate." What is worse still, there was not a gleam of hope from the Minister for Social Welfare that they were even considering giving these people an increase. There was the usual quip to Deputy O'Sullivan: "Where was the money to come from?" We are never consulted about the availability of money when it comes to other things. I remember in 1952 the Minister for Social Welfare, who was then the Minister for Finance, made a present of nearly £1 million to tobacco manufacturers, these people who are now proudly boasting in the newspapers to-day that they are able to give bonus shares.
That is completely inaccurate. He was helping native industries and helping workers to get employment in Ireland.
It cost £1 million to do that and if the Parliamentary Secretary read the paper last week, he would have discovered that one of these native firms about which he is so concerned are giving away bonus shares.
They are helping their workers as well.
We were never asked across the floor of the House where the £249,000 was to come from which the Minister for Finance proposed to give to the Master Bakers some two years ago. We were never asked how the Government were to dispose of the increased yield they would get from these new income tax proposals before the House tomorrow. As Deputy Costello said, they amount to approximately £1,000,000. Why could that not be given as a half-crown per week to the old-age pensioners? Why could it not be given to relieve some of the pensioners on whose behalf this motion is down? It is not given even in tax relief to people who would be considered to be in the middle-income group. This tax relief is to be given in the main to those people who have in the region of £1,500, £1,800 or £2,000 per year.
I do not think the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Social Welfare consulted us about the proposal to give the increases to the Judges of the High Court and Circuit Court and the District Justices. It was never asked across the House where that sort of money would come from. Some time last year I had a motion to provide an increase for certain people which would cost £1,000,000, a sizeable sum. It was desirable that these people should get this increase. Nobody asked where the £1,000,000 would come from. As far as the inter-Party Government were concerned—the Government in which I was Minister for Social Welfare—our first consideration in framing our Budget——
The Deputy will appreciate that the time has expired?
I shall finish in 30 seconds, Sir. Our primary consideration in the framing of our Budget was to provide money for that type of person. But it seems, as far as the Fianna Fáil Government are concerned, they frame their Budget, distribute their largesse and, if there is anything over, they give it to the old-age pensioners and to some of these other people.
It seems to me the Minister for Social Welfare still believes that the people in receipt of such welfare benefits do not deserve them. His attitude is well displayed, not alone in the speech he made in the House last week, but in a remark he made to Deputy Sherwin some months ago. Deputy Sherwin questioned him on the inadequacy of the disability allowance and the Minister retorted: "£1 out of somebody else's pocket is not too bad."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Richard.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerard.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and M.P. Murphy; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Question declared lost.