I move:—
That, in view of the distress existing among many families in Eire, both in rural as well as in urban areas, Seanad Eireann is of the opinion that the Government should immediately introduce a scheme of family allowances.
It is not my intention to delay very long on this motion, as the principle of it has been accepted already by the Minister and passed by the House. This motion goes somewhat further than the last one before the House, which dealt more with those who are employed at agriculture and everything pertaining to agriculture. The idea Senator Cummins and myself have in proposing this motion is that it goes the whole way, that family allowances be granted to every family deserving of it within the nation, whether they reside in a rural or an urban area.
We have been told that there is a commission sitting to bring forward certain recommendations to the Government. I am afraid a commission would be too slow, that it does not realise the seriousness of the job. I would like the Minister to tell us how long the commission has sat, how far it has got, who the members are, and whether they are people interested in the question of family allowances. A commission was set up recently to inquire into agriculture, and there were meetings all over the country of different farmers' organisations, protesting that there were no practical farmers on the commission. I would like to know if there are any fathers and mothers with hungry children on it. If there were, I am sure its findings would not be delayed so long. I believe in commissions for certain things—the Banking Commission, the Racing Commission, the Agricultural Commission—but when it is a question of dealing with hungry children a commission is too slow.
As far back as the 26th May, 1926, Eamon de Valera stated in Dublin that it was his desire that there would be no starving men, women or children in this nation. As one who has supported the policy of Eamon de Valera, I am satisfied that he and his colleagues here have done a good deal to carry out that policy. I will not say that there are starving children, but I defy contradiction on the statement that there are thousands and thousands of children within this nation hungry to-night. There are hungry children in Dublin City, in Cavan, in Kerry, in Mayo and Donegal. There are hungry children amongst those who do not come within the classification of labourer, that is, the children of the small struggling man living on an acre or so of bad land. His children are equally as hungry as those of the labourer living in Whitehall.
The scheme I would like to see put forward is one that would apply to every one of those people, that would embrace the children of every person from Gardiner Street to the hills of Mayo, as I feel that the same want applies in all cases. Take, for instance, the houses built in Whitehall. One of the conditions for an applicant to get one of those houses was that he should have a large family, and preference was given to a man with seven or eight children. These people are out in Whitehall, with families of seven or eight, the oldest being sometimes about 13, with only the head of the house bringing in a small wage. Out of that, they have to pay 15/- for rent and light. Does any Senator not say that those children must be hungry? I would like to know if the members of this commission have gone around amongst these people and seen for themselves the want that exists, how hard it is to live, when the cost of firing has trebled, when bread, milk, oatmeal and everything else are dearer, and when there is nothing extra coming in to meet it. I, for one, am satisfied that the members of the commission, if they were really serious, have been too slow in presenting their findings. That is the second principal reason why I am bringing forward this motion. I heard the Minister's speech on the Bill which has just been passed, and I know that the Minister understands the social conditions and is a charitable and Christian man. We are not looking for charity in this case but for justice. For a long time, the association of which I happen to be a member and which I represent in this House has been advocating this idea of family allowances. When we put it forward first, some people said it was insane. These people are now trying to make a little propaganda out of it. I am glad that such a change has taken place. The principle of family allowances has been accepted by the Government, but I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will put that principle into practice and bring forward a scheme to relieve the sufferings of the people to whom I have referred.
No matter what may be said, children amongst us are hungry. Take a farm worker with ten of a family the youngest of whom is four months. He has an income of 30/- a week. His rent is 2/- and 12 people have to live on 28/- a week. Nobody can say that these children are not hungry, seeing that it takes that amount to maintain two inmates of the Dublin Union. That man has been working all his life on the land. Take the case of a road worker in County Dublin. His job is looked upon as a good job by other labourers in County Dublin. He has 48/- a week. I know one of these men who has 11 young children, the eldest being 14 years. That means that 13 persons have to live on 46/- odd a week, when insurance is deducted from the wages. His rent is 6/-, and that leaves him with £2. These children must be hungry, too. Take the case which I mentioned of a worker with an average wage of £3 per week living in one of the houses built by the Minister. The children in that case must also be hungry.
Church and State favour large families, but it is too bad that children brought into the world should be hungry. It is poor consolation to parents, after a hard day's work, to see their children hungry. You have the case of the family of five. They are finding it hard to live and have difficulty in making ends meet. Another child comes along. It is not wanted. It is very sad in a Christian country to hear parents say, as I have often heard them say, that they would not like to have as many children as So-and-so down the road, because they are starving. That is sad, but true. I am sure that Senators have heard the remark on many occasions. Another reason for the motion is furnished by the number of those who joined the Local Defence Forces for the protection of this country. Nobody will contradict me when I say that the working classes fully contributed their quota. The fathers of families volunteered for the different protective organisations. They were prepared to lay down their lives when the country was in danger. Surely the children of people of that class have a claim on the country and deserve something from the country. These men are giving their labour. I am not referring to the unemployed. In the case of the unemployed, the principle of family allowances is recognised, though the allowances are very scanty. I am referring to people who are working and who are not getting sufficient out of their labour to make ends meet. After a hard day's work, they go into an organisation to make themselves ready to defend their country and to give their lives for it, if necessary. There is a public demand for family allowances. I believe that the principle is supported by practically every section within the nation. The wishes of the majority of the people should be put into practice and I hope that no member of the House will vote against the motion. I shall reserve a few other points for my concluding remarks.
