When the House adjourned on the last occasion this Bill was under discussion I was endeavouring to induce the Minister to recognise that Section 3 does not go sufficiently far and that under the section, as at present drawn, large numbers of persons who are existing on low wages or, in fact, who are endeavouring to exist with no wage income whatever, will be very severely penalised. I quoted for the information of the Minister cases of widows with two or three children where no children's allowance whatever will be payable. I also quoted for the Minister the case of a widow with three children whose ages are, say, 12, 14 and 16. That widow might have a non-contributory widow's pension of 8/- per week but, although she had three children who, in her circumstances, will be a very heavy liability on her, there is no provision whatever in the Bill which would enable such a woman to secure a children's allowance.
I was pleading with the Minister that the Bill should be amended by Ministerial action as it cannot be amended by an amendment from a private Deputy, so that, in circumstances of that kind, consideration would be given to the matter and steps taken to remedy what I think, in that respect, is a very serious blemish on the Bill. The Minister, in attempting to defend the section as at present drawn, quoted the types of relief granted to widows and to unemployed persons. But the Minister must be aware of the fact that in the rural areas—and that does not just mean in the townland districts of the country, but also the small towns which are not urbanised—widows with two or three children, who have widows' pensions under the non-contributory scheme, get no food vouchers whatever and do not get allowances of the kind to which the Minister referred on the last occasion that, in fact, they are driven to subsist on the small amount which they receive under the non-contributory section of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, supplemented by such small sums as they receive in the form of home assistance.
I pointed out on previous occasions, and I want to do it again in the hope of enlisting the Minister's sympathy, that under this Bill it will be possible for relatively well-off people to get a children's allowance, while agricultural workers and other lowly-paid workers will get no allowance whatever, that they will be penalised, notwithstanding their low wages, owing to the incidence of the ages of their children. I have a letter here which is probably typical of many that other Deputies have received and which is typical of a number which I have received, and I ask the indulgence of the House to read it so as to express the point of view of the ordinary person in the country who is expecting to get benefit under this Bill, but who will get no benefit whatever. This woman, who is a widow, writes:—
"With reference to the Children's Allowances Bill, it seems very unfair that the rich and well-to-do people will get this allowance. I am a widow with two children, aged nine and ten years, trying to exist on 15/6 per week. My children are very under-nourished, also myself, so much so that I am very much rundown in health from want and worry. I am never able to pay for meat, as it is. It is very little that one can get for 15/6 per week for three people, much less buy firing and clothing, etc. Now butter has gone up by 4d. per lb. The rich will get some benefit under this Bill, but why should I not get some benefit for my poor, hungry, fatherless little children? Such treatment is very unfair. If something is not done I do not know what will become of us. Why are such poor people like us, through no fault of our own, deprived of getting any allowance under the Bill?"
This woman tells just the naked truth—that so far as this Bill is concerned, though she has got two children, aged nine and ten, and the total income is 15/6 per week—she will get nothing at all. And yet, under the Bill, it is possible for a person with £6, £7 or £8 per week to get a child's allowance if that person has a third child, whereas a woman with 15/6 and two children and no bread-winner gets nothing. The Minister may say that it will cost a certain amount of money to bring in people of that kind. I think the House will be prepared to face up to the responsibility of bringing in cases of that kind. Our sympathy in a matter of that kind is to make that person eligible even if somebody has to be deprived of an allowance at some other end of the scale. The Minister, however, makes no provision to cover cases of that kind in the Bill.
As I said previously, that is a serious blemish in the Bill, and the thought that that poor person will be taxed through the medium of tea and sugar, and in other ways, to provide a children's allowance for fairly well-to-do people, makes it unfair in operation and conception. I would again appeal to the Minister, notwithstanding the urgency with which he wants the Bill, to take it back to the Government and endeavour to ensure that it will be drawn in such a way as to make specific arrangements for people who are in receipt of low wages and whose economic plight at the present time is simply appalling.