Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1952

Vol. 129 No. 5

Supplementary Estimate, 1951-1952. - Vote 66—Miscellaneous Social Welfare Services.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £75,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for sundry Miscellaneous Social Welfare Services, including Grants.

There are three sub-heads under which this supplementary amount is necessary: Number one, grants under the School Meals (Gaeltacht) Acts; number two, the welfare of the blind, and number three, the supply of fuel to necessitous families. A State grant of £10,000 is provided in the Estimate for school meals in the Gaeltacht under the Acts passed in 1930 and 1933. The county councils of Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry and Mayo are recouped a portion of their expenditure on meals in the schools in the area set out in the Schedule to the Act of 1930. The amount allocated to each county is allocated on the basis of the aggregate attendance of pupils in the scheduled schools and it was estimated in the beginning of the year that £10,000 would cover this but it was found that £10,000 was not sufficient and hence I am asking the Dáil for an amount of £750. Donegal in particular has a higher expenditure than was anticipated.

With regard to the second subject, the welfare of the blind, grants are made to certain institutions which look after the blind. There are various institutions, seven in all, and in these institutions there are about 400 inmates. A certain capitation grant is made to these institutions according to the "attendance," as it is called, of the inmates. During the year it was found necessary to increase the grant in certain cases on account of the increased cost of these institutions and under that head I am asking £1,750.

The biggest amount, however, is required under the fuel scheme head. There is a free or subsidised fuel scheme for certain beneficiaries in cities or large towns. It applies to the following categories: first of all, those who are in receipt of home assistance; next, old age pensioners, blind pensioners and those in receipt of widows' and orphans' pensions; third, people in receipt of unemployment assistance, and fourth, people of low income. In summer time they get a half cwt. of turf per week and in winter one cwt. The benefits vary: in the case of home assistance they get the fuel free; in the case of old age pensioners, blind pensioners and widows and orphans they get it for 6d. per cwt.; the unemployment assistance class get it for 1/- per cwt. and those of low income have to pay 2/- for a cwt. of turf.

I, in my anxiety to balance the Budget, increased those prices early in the winter but I was persuaded after a few months to go back to the old charges which had been in operation since, I think, 1945 and these are the charges that will remain. The increase is due to many factors, the first being that turf is dearer than it was in previous winters—we use machine-won turf as far as possible—and the second that we had to go further away for the turf in some cases and therefore the haulage was increased. A third factor is that the scheme was availed of to a larger extent than was anticipated, the result being that it will cost £49,000 more than was anticipated. In addition Dublin Corporation would like to carry a stock of turf which will cost £31,000 and that £49,000 and £31,000 make a total of £80,000 which is the amount now asked. There is an Appropriation-in-Aid. When we were making out the Estimate for Gaeltacht meals we thought that bread, butter and other materials would cost more in the last year. They did cost more but not as much as we estimated and consequently there is a certain saving under that sub-head, the result being that the net amount required is £75,000.

I am sure that nobody will object to giving the Minister what he has asked. What surprises me is that he did not ask more to enable some relief to be given to people in receipt of national health, unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance benefits. We do not realise the straits these people are in. Take a man with 22/6 per week and 7/6 for his wife making 30/-. He falls ill and is unemployed. Work that sum out into meals; it makes 3/2 per day or about 1/- per meal. He cannot do without some firing, he must pay for light and surely he needs something to put on his body as clothing. We sit here without thinking that these people are in straits. They are. I am surprised that the Minister did not think of those people and of giving them sufficient to meet the increased cost of living. I am sure that nobody in this House would object to giving assistance to those people and I would suggest that the Minister consider the matter.

I support Deputy Hickey in that plea. He is quite justified in what he says. People have not sufficient in the money they are receiving.

I would like to compliment the Minister on the way he met the demands of public representatives when they asked him to reduce the charges to the different categories in the cheap fuel scheme. With very little hesitation he agreed to go back to the previous prices and I think that was only what we expected of him. He did an amount of good when he agreed to that.

The Minister and his Department should see that tenders are invited in all cases for the fuel scheme. We have trouble in Cork over this scheme. It would be as well, I think, for me not to say anything more at this time but his Department should always insist on getting tenders for those schemes.

Might I ask the Minister one question? I do not quite understand his reference to £31,000. Am I to take it that the £31,000 that is being now provided is. in fact, a provision in advance for 1952-53 and is not a 1951-52 provision except that it may happen to be actually paid before 31st March next and that, in fact, the fuel will be dispersed by Dublin Corpora tion next winter, not during the cur rent winter?

As far as the point made by Deputy McGrath is concerned am I correct in thinking that the charges now are the same as they were last summer?

Partly. I will explain it if I can.

I think that Deputy McGrath was congratulating the Minister for taking off something which the Minister himself had put on. If that is not the fact I would like to know that.

The price was increased.

By the Minister?

Yes, I agree.

That is the point on which I wanted to be clear.

With regard to the £31,000 the corporation thought that they should carry a stock. It is to be used by the end of this winter though it is quite possible that some may be carried over the end of the financial year. There will, I presume, be some stock there on 31st March. To that extent, of course, we are providing money in this Vote which we will have a saving against, perhaps, next year.

With regard to the price that Deputy McGrath spoke about, I tried to keep the grant the same as it was last year, that is, with the increasing price of turf, that the recipient would bear a certain higher proportion of it than he had been bearing. Then I found, when I met these softhearted Deputies from Dublin and Cork, that I had been too severe, if you like, on these recipients and I went back to the old price as far as they were concerned, which meant, of course, a much bigger burden on the local authorities which was passed on to the central Exchequer.

Deputy Hickey raised a point that it does not specifically apply—it is quite true—to the recipients of unemployment insurance or sickness benefit but it does indirectly apply, I should remind the Deputy, because, if they are, for instance, in receipt of home assistance, as many recipients of unemployment insurance and sickness benefit are, then they would be entitled to the free fuel or they could be even classed as persons of low income and then they would also be entitled to cheap fuel. However, I do hope that when we bring in our Social Welfare Bill in the near future we will do something substantial for these classes by giving them better benefits than they have at the moment, because we all recognise that the benefits they are receiving at the moment are not adequate to maintain them. I think it would be a better and more permanent way of dealing with the classes that Deputy Hickey and Deputy McGrath have in mind.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn