asked the Minister for Social Welfare the terms of the circular issued by his Department to local authorities in connection with the assisted footwear scheme.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Public Assistance Footwear Scheme.
5.
The Local Authorities were informed by Circular issued on 14th September, 1960, that the benefits of the Public Assistance Footwear Scheme, during the period from the 1st November, 1960, to the 31st March, 1961, should be confined to children whose parents or guardians are recipients of home assistance, social welfare benefits or assistance, disabled persons' or infectious diseases maintenance allowances or are casual workers who are unable to provide footwear for their children.
The Circular indicated that, in exceptional circumstances, such as low wages, illness or other misfortune or where there are more than six eligible children, regular wage earners might be assisted under the scheme and that, in deciding the eligibility of regular wage earners, the maximum qualifying weekly income should not exceed the appropriate road worker's wage (or, where appropriate, a rateable valuation of £8).
The Circular also indicated that home assistance recipients should continue to receive the footwear free of charge and that other persons within the categories I have mentioned, should pay minimum contributions as laid down in the Circular, ranging from as low as 2/6d. per pair for persons on social assistance to 22/6d. for regular wage earners in exceptional cases.
It was found necessary to issue this Circular because the operation of the scheme had been extended beyond its normal limits and because there was a lack of uniformity both in the classes of persons benefiting under the scheme and in the contributions charged. The public assistance authorities were left free to determine what persons within the categories mentioned should benefit under the scheme and the amount, subject to the minimum contribution, to be charged.
The remaining terms of the Circular were to the effect that the scheme would continue to operate as in previous years.
The amount allocated for the purposes of the scheme has not been reduced nor has there been any change in the principles governing recoupment to local authorities in respect of expenditure under it.
Can the Minister say how many protests he has received from local authorities regarding the amended scheme?
Five.
Will the Minister say when he intends to deal with these protests?
I do not intend to deal with them because I do not think the protests are well-founded.
Does the Minister realise that the terms of the circular which he has just read out to the House operate to exclude the small farmer of low valuation with seven or more children? Whereas there is an express exception made for an agricultural worker with a large family, the low valuation small farmer is excluded. Will he consider providing for the inclusion of the low valuation farmer with a large family who may require the benefits of this scheme?
Would the Minister say if people in receipt of disabled persons' maintenance allowance are eligible for free footwear?
Not for free footwear, for footwear at reduced prices.
Will the Minister look into the matter I have mentioned? Certain cases have come to my attention in County Monaghan.
I shall consider it but it has to be understood where we are trying to codify a scheme, which has been administered with great differences in various parts of the country, hard cases will inevitably arise. I shall be prepared to consider them.
Is the Minister aware that in some cases these footwear vouchers have not yet been sent out to these people and now it is the month of February? I know it is the responsibility of the local authority but perhaps the Minister would concern himself with that aspect of the matter, especially in view of the type of winter we have had this year?
I shall, but it must be remembered that the practice has grown up of trading in these vouchers for types of footwear other than those which are supposed to be provided under the scheme. That may be responsible for the delay in issuing the vouchers.
I do not think so.