In Committee on Finance. - Vote 76—Food Allowances. – Dáil Éireann (10th Dáil) – Tuesday, 22 Jul 1941

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 76—Food Allowances.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £325,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1942, le haghaidh Liúntaisí i bhfuirm Abhair do thabhairt do dhaoine áirithe is Tairbheoirí fé sna hAchtanna um Chongnamh Dhíomhaointis, 1933 go 1940, na hAchtanna Pinsean Sean-Aoise, 1908 go 1933, na hAchtanna um Pinsin do Bhaintreacha agus do Dhílleachtaithe, 1935 go 1940, agus na hAchtanna um Arachas Sláinte Náisiúnta, 1911 go 1936.

That a sum not exceeding £325,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1942, for Allowances in Kind to certain Beneficiaries under the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1940, the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1938, the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1940, and the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1936.

The scheme of food allowances will come into operation in the case of unemployment assistance recipients on the 4th September next and in the case of other classes on the 5th September next. The amount of the allowance in kind to be granted to or in respect of every eligible person will be as follows —three and a half pints of milk a week, a quarter lb. of butter a week, two lbs. of bread a week. The cost is estimated at 1/9 a week. Details of the provision of £325,000 required to defray the cost of food allowances in the current financial year to certain necessitous classes are as follows: Sub-head A— dependents of unemployment assistance recipients, £1,37,000. It is estimated that the scheme will extend to about 50,000 dependents of recipients of unemployment assistance. Sub-head B—Beneficiaries under the Old Age Pensions Act, £75,000. It is estimated that 24,300 old age pensioners, 2,000 blind pensioners and 700 dependent children of blind pensioners will benefit under the scheme. Sub-head C—Beneficiaries under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts— £63,000. The number of widows, dependent children of widows and orphan children who will be eligible for allowances is estimated at a total of 23,000. Sub-head D—Recipients of disablement benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts. The number of persons under this sub-head who will benefit under the scheme is estimated at 19,000.

Mr. Cosgrave

On the occasion of the Minister's speech on the Budget, it was put to him that he might consider giving this assistance in cash rather than in kind. Since then various representations have been put to me that it would be more acceptable to the people concerned if the allowances were paid in cash rather than in kind. Would the Minister say whether that matter has been reviewed since by him or by the Government or whether it will be reconsidered in the period between now and when the allowances come to be made?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The matter has been discussed and some representations were received that payments should be in cash rather than in kind. The object of the Government, however, in deciding to give this relief was to secure that these people, who were regarded as entitled to these special allowances, should receive the actual milk, butter and bread which is being provided. So far as it is possible for the Government so to arrange, it is intended that these items of food will be made available for this type of people. It is realised that in some cases, unquestionably, individuals might be better pleased to get cash. It is further realised that in some cases cash would be properly used, but it is also known to members of the House that it is possible that in other cases the cash might not be used for the purchase of foodstuffs, if cash were made available.

Of course, I know that even in cases where organisations of a charitable type have issued relief in kind, persons who desire to do so have been able to sell their coupons or tickets for cash, and it is possible there will be a certain amount of that procedure in relation to these coupons also, but it will probably be small. People who know now that they are entitled to a certain quantity of milk, butter and bread will probably be anxious to receive it. They will put in their claims and receive their allowances, and it is the Government's desire to see that where food is available, it will be made specially available for those people who will be given these relief coupons.

Mr. Dillon

If it is decided to make this additional allowance in the form of goods rather than cash, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to one aspect of importance. Let me take the provision of bread for old age pensioners. There are many parts of the country in which pensioners do not buy bread; they buy flour and bake it at home. Is there going to be a proviso in the docket that they can get so much bread or flour, whichever they choose to buy? This additional relief is being provided for persons to whom every 1/4d. counts and, therefore, it should be our concern to make available to them the maximum food value as distinguished from the maximum amenity value of the allowance. Anybody who is interested in dietetics knows that, from the point of view strictly of food value, vitaminised margarine is equal to butter. It is quite true that lots of people do not like margarine and cannot eat it, and it would be foolish to trust it on them in those circumstances. But you can get eight ounces of margarine for the price of four ounces of butter.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Probably margarine will not be available.

Mr. Dillon

Possibly not; if it were, it might not be right to thrust it on the people, but to give them the alternative of buying margarine or butter, whichever they please. Some women who might use it for cooking and would not care to eat it, as thousands of others do, might prefer to have eight ounces of margarine instead of four ounces of butter.

I want to renew to the Minister for Finance a most important aspect of the question of feeding the people. We have now, thank God, advanced to the point where we are going to distribute food to the people to ensure that they will not go hungry. I am delighted to hear we have reached that stage, because it means we are truly facing the problem in an effective way. But, what does feeding mean? I am putting it to the House that feeding means something over and above filling stomachs. You could fill the stomachs of our people with sand, but it could not be said that you had fed them.

When we come to examine the problem of feeding the people, we discover that it is a highly technical problem, and that we have in our midst excellent technicians to help us. Those are men and women who have made a study of the science of dietetics. During the last war one of the greatest difficulties in most of the countries which found themselves short of food was that the health of the children declined rapidly and their liability to disease rose proportionately. At that time nobody really knew the explanation. It was only post-war research that established that that was due to a deficiency of vitamins in the diets provided.

With the example before the Minister of the Oslo breakfast, and with the American dietetic work it involved, the giving to persons whose normal diet was unsatisfactory of a vitamin biscuit containing a full ration of vitamins for an individual, ought to be considered here. If we could ensure by the consumption of a simple biscuit that each individual would be given the necessary complement of vitamins, we might then proceed to distribute a restricted variety of foodstuffs to these people which could not be contemplated if we were concerned to provide them with vitamins in their foodstuff ration. The most important thing that the Minister could give, far more important than bread, butter or milk, is a certain minimum ration of essential vitamins. If he can get that to the people, particularly to the children, then our principal concern in regard to the other commodities supplied will be one of bulk rather than of food value.

I do not expect the Minister for Finance to deal with a matter of that kind, because he has not the expert advice at his disposal adequately to cover it. But our present Minister for Finance has been Minister for Local Government and Public Health and he knows the resources of that Department. I will ask him to address a representation to the Department of Local Government and Public Health saying that his mind is not easy in distributing this large sum of money without an intimation from the dietetics division of the Department of Local Government and Public Health that the money is being spent to the best advantage. He should ask them to investigate (1) whether the three commodities here proposed are the best commodities in all the circumstances— and I think they are—and (2) whether the use of these commodities could not be immensely increased in value if this distribution were supplemented, especially in the case of children, by the provision of a vitamin biscuit for each individual in receipt of the relief envisaged here.

Mr. Hickey

I have already stated that in giving this increase to the unemployed and the old age pensioners it would be much more economic for them to have it by way of cash rather than vouchers. I am speaking with some experience of how the voucher system operates, particularly under boards of assistance. I have seen women who get vouchers pleading with the Cork Board of Assistance to give them cash instead and they gave good reasons why they believe it would be better for them to get cash rather than vouchers. Those women have to try and make ends meet on the miserable allowance they are in receipt of at present. If they were given this extra 2/6 in cash, they could put it to much better use than a food voucher. Old-age pensioners, I understand, will be entitled to a pair of bread on the voucher. They would not require that much bread in the week. Apart from anything else, the women in receipt of unemployment assistance are, in my opinion, just as capable of spending 2/6 or a £1 as the members of any other section of the community, and hence I urge that they should be given this allowance in cash. I often wonder at the marvellous way those people manage to carry on on their present miserable allowances. I should like to know if this voucher system is going to mean extra expenditure for administration. If so, it cannot be justified at all. If the allowance were given in cash at the labour exchanges or old age pension offices there need be no extra charge for administration.

Another serious objection that I have to this proposal is that those in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit and of unemployment assistance in the rural areas, as well as in the small towns which are outside city boundaries, are to get nothing. The maximum amount that a man with a wife and five or more children can get at the moment is 14/- a week. That means a total of £36 8s. per year, or 2/- per week per person, or 1d. per meal per day for each man, woman and child in receipt of the allowance. In the larger cities an unemployed man with a wife and five or more children will now receive 33/- a week, including this special allowance. That works out at £85 16s. a year, or an average of 8d. per day per person, or 2¼d. per meal per day for each member of that household, taking into account the cost of food alone. But such a man has also to provide something to cover his own body and the bodies of those dependent on him and to pay rent. I am at a loss to know why in a Catholic country like this with a Catholic Government we should have such a situation as that prevailing. As a member of the House I am in receipt of £480 a year, free of tax from the State. Therefore, I have no right to say to any other section of the community, since I find that sum necessary to support my wife, family, and myself that the members of it should only get 2/- per week per person for their support. I say that is contrary to justice, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, and to all moral law. While that condition of affairs prevails, this House, in my opinion, is not functioning in the way it should, and I want to say that to every member of the House. Is it any wonder that democracy is being challenged to-day?

We are in this House making speeches while certain sections of the community cannot get more than 2/6 a week extra to enable them to feed and clothe themselves and their children. I do not know how some of those women carry on on the present allowance of 14/- a week. That is the maximum for a man, a wife and five or more children. Some have eight or nine children. There is this increase of 2/6 for the dependents of an unemployed man. Why is no provision made to give an increase to the unemployed man himself? There is another aspect of this question to which I desire to draw attention, and I wonder if Deputy Dillon would care to stand for what is being done under the regulations. Take the case of a man who has been in regular employment for 20 years, and has had the misfortune to lose his job. Because of the amount of stamps to his credit he is enabled to draw unemployment insurance benefit for six months and is allowed 7/6 for his wife and 2/6 for each child. As I have said, he has been paying into the Unemployment Insurance Fund for 20 years, but at the end of the six months he is transferred to unemployment assistance. Why should that man and his wife and family be punished because of the fact that he is getting less now than when he was in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has departed far from the Estimate.

Mr. Hickey

I just want to stress one point. As I have said, in the case of the man entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefit, there is an allowance of 7/6 a week for his wife. Let me bring one case—I could bring several—to the notice of the House. In this case a man's wife died recently. He had a family of eight children. After the mother's death the eldest daughter, who was over 16 years of age, acted as housekeeper. She received the allowance of 7/6 while so acting. A fortnight ago the stamps to the credit of that man became exhausted and he was transferred to unemployment assistance. The result was that he is allowed only 1/- a week now for the daughter who is acting as housekeeper. Why should not that man be still allowed the 7/6 a week for that daughter?

An Ceann Comhairle

Neither unemployment insurance benefit nor unemployment assistance arises on this Estimate.

Mr. Hickey

I again want to put it to the Minister that this supplementary allowance should be paid to the recipients in cash and not be given by way of voucher. I think if the Minister were to consult the various local authorities and their home assistance officers he would find that the recipients could make much better use of the allowance if it were given to them in cash. They do not always get full value for vouchers when they take them to the shops. I think it is rather a blot on the Constitution and on ourselves as legislators that the most we are able to give those people is 2/6 a week. Is it any wonder that we have people disgruntled and discontented? In certain cities we have people buying meat and chocolate for dogs, and in certain cases, while the owners are away enjoying themselves on holidays, they have their dogs and cats in dogs' homes at 5/- and 3/- a week. Here we are expecting human beings to live on less than 1/- a week. In view of that, I say that we are not worthy of being legislators and should not call ourselves a Christian Government.

General Mulcahy

I agree with Deputy Hickey that this is a wasteful and unsatisfactory way of dealing with this question—of seeing that those people will actually provide themselves with a certain amount of food. I do not know whether, in connection with this, the Minister is looking for ideas that may affect a rationing scheme later on. If so, I do not think his experience under it will be of much help. If shopkeepers have limited stocks, they may have great difficulty in refusing to sell to those who want to buy for cash and of giving out food to those who come along with vouchers. In actual practice the possession of a voucher is not, I think, going to be the security that the Minister thinks. If those provided with vouchers desire to take their vitamins in some other form than that which the voucher would ordinarily provide, I think one may say that their wits will not be beyond rising to the occasion sometimes. The Minister, apparently, has decided to deal with the matter in this particular way. Will he say when the first supply of vouchers, for the additional assistance that is being provided, will be available for the classes in question? I should also like to ask how the vouchers are to be distributed?

Mr. Davin

Listening to the speeches that were made in this House a couple of years ago in connection with the provision of free meat by the voucher system, I thought that we would not have any more schemes of this kind presented for the approval of the House. The cost of administering this scheme will deprive the classes of persons concerned of additional cash benefits; if the Minister could see his way to alter the present proposal, additional cash benefits could be provided out of the money which would otherwise be spent on administering this scheme. I should be surprised to hear even now from the Minister for Finance that he approves of a scheme for the provision of food by voucher in the light of the experience and knowledge that he must have of the methods of administering the free meat scheme by way of voucher. That scheme was suspended and eventually done away with altogether as a result of the dishonest way in which it was administered, and the cost to the State of that dishonest type of administration. Is it too late to ask the Minister to review the whole position, and thereby save the taxpayers from the heavy cost of administration, which cannot be justified under the circumstances? The average housewife who looks after the needs of her family is in a far better position to get what she thinks is best for herself and her family by the additional cash benefits which could be provided, instead of by a voucher system which compels her to go into certain shops and take whatever is given to her without having any means of checking it up.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I had some experience of administering relief, and I know the arguments which can be advanced in favour of the giving of cash as well as those in favour of the giving in kind. I know there are arguments, and good arguments, which can be used on both sides. I have had experience of administering both, and, generally speaking, I am sure I could say with truth that the people were more pleased to get the cash. But here we are dealing with a peculiar situation. Those people will have cash from other sources. This is an additional allowance, an additional food allowance. It is made available at a time when there may be a food shortage, and the effort is to try to secure that that amount of food, bread and butter, will be available for those people. They can have their cash, whatever amount they get from other sources, to buy the vitamins of which Deputy Dillon and Deputy Mulcahy spoke, if they feel that way inclined, but here we want to make an effort at any rate to ensure that this amount of valuable food—the most valuable kind of food, I think—will be at their disposal, and that, irrespective of the increasing price of that food, this much will be available for them. It does not matter whether the price goes up or not, we hope that that much will be available for them at any rate, and I can hardly imagine that there is any more valuable type of food that could be made available for them.

Comparisons have been made between the food voucher here and the food voucher that was used at the time of the meat scheme. Well, they are not comparable. That again was a scheme organised at a particular time to get over a particular problem. I admit that things happened in regard to the quantities of beef that were made available that it was not intended should happen. Some of the people did not like beef, and would not eat it; others had no way of cooking it when they did get it, and they disposed of it. The scheme ceased because the problem ceased; the surplus beef that the Government was anxious to dispose of was no longer there. As I say, in reply to Deputy Dillon and in reply also, I think, to Deputy Mulcahy, those people will have money from other sources with which to purchase, as far as that money goes, other kinds of food that they prefer. As to the dietetics of which Deputy Dillon spoke, that does not come within my purview as Minister for Finance, but I think no dietician could find fault with the items of food which it is proposed to give. For adults as well as for children, milk is a valuable food. Of course it is particularly valuable in the case of children. The trouble is that, small as the sum is, if the 1/9 per week were given in cash, there might be a few of the old age pensioners who would think that if they could get a glass of whiskey for the 1/9 there might be more vitamins in it than in what we propose to give them. There would be no way of stopping that type of person if they wanted to buy that kind of food instead of what we propose to give them. If they want to get rid of their food voucher, they will find somebody to take it from them at a price. The food which we propose to give is as good a food as can be got. Deputy Dillon mentioned margarine. I think, from the information I had recently, that it is possible that margarine may not be available much longer, whether it be vitaminised margarine or not. Margarine of all sorts is, I think, scarce at present, and will probably be nonexistent before long.

One last word on the question of vouchers rather than cash. While it is true, as Deputy Hickey said, that some of those thrifty women with families might be able—I am not agreeing that they would—to buy better value than we are giving them in the way of food, they may not be able to get it if the food is scarce, and that is the main point in my argument at this moment in favour of the food voucher instead of cash.

Mr. Brennan

Is it the Minister's intention to give priority to food vouchers as against cash?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It may be necessary to do that if food is scarce.

Mr. Brennan

I hope the Minister realises what he is up against there. You may have a person just on the border line.

Vote reported and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 22 Jul 1941