asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the considerable rise in prices during the past two and a half years and, therefore, of the total inadequacy of the provision made under the Unemployment Assistance Acts for unemployed men and their dependents, he will introduce proposals for the purpose of securing a substantial increase in the benefits payable to such persons under these Acts.

Since September last food vouchers have been issued as a supplement to the unemployment assistance payable to applicants with dependents resident in cities or towns having local government. The cash value of these vouchers varies with variations in the cost of the food commodities for which they are exchangeable and represents an addition to the appropriate scheduled rates of unemployment assistance proportionately greater than the increase that has taken place in the cost of living since the outbreak of the war. Provision is being made in the current year for £400,000 to meet the cost of food vouchers, including a sum of £168,000 for food vouchers to be issued to eligible recipients of unemployment assistance. In addition, a sum of £200,000 is being provided to meet the cost of special food allowances which boards of assistance may grant to such necessitous persons as are approved by them over and above the amount of home assistance normally granted to such persons.

These arrangements, in so far as they affect applicants for unemployment assistance, have been adopted as an alternative to increasing the scheduled rates of unemployment assistance. I do not, therefore, intend to introduce the proposals suggested by the Deputy.

Will that apply to male applicants for unemployment assistance? I am aware that vouchers are given to the wives and the dependent children, but not to the men. Will it now apply to the men?

There is no change.

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that there is no need for a change? The position is that six years ago these men in the cities got 10/6 a week to feed and clothe themselves, and in the country towns and villages they got 6/-. Does the Minister now suggest that no increase will be given to these unfortunate men, who are unemployed through no fault of their own? Does he think that they will endure such a situation patiently? Does the Minister think that we should continue to maintain certain institutions in this country while such conditions prevail?

The food vouchers are given in respect of the dependents of unemployed people.

Within the city areas.

And in all towns with local government. The net increase in the receipts of persons benefiting under this scheme is proportionately greater than the increase in the cost of living.

I am concerned about the men who got no increase on 10/6 for six years. Is it not intended to give those men some increase, some consideration?

I have nothing to add to my reply.

It is little wonder that there is such contempt for democratic institutions.

I am not aware that there is, outside the ranks of the Labour Party?

I know there is.

Has the Minister turned down the idea of removing the restriction on the number of children in respect of whom unemployment assistance payments and food vouchers may be issued?

I have not completely turned down any idea. It is not proposed at the present time to make any change.

Is the Minister aware that there is a considerable shortage of labour in several of the Leinster counties?

The Minister can rely on getting any labour he wants if he pays reasonable wages.

They should get 10/6 a week for doing nothing—is that the idea?