I have not a great deal to say on this motion because, to use a hackeneyed phrase, the motion speaks for itself. I want, however, to add some little to what I said on the 5th March when the debate was adjourned. The Minister interjected at one stage and asked: Does the Deputy remember his speech on the 1952 Budget? I assume he was referring to my observations on the increase in the price of cigarettes and tobacco in that Budget. I want to clear the Minister's mind now because my remarks on that particular occasion were critical of the fact that the Government allowed the price of tobacco and cigarettes to be increased to such an extent that practically £1,000,000 was put into the pockets of the tobacco manufacturers.
In this debate, when I spoke about the tax on cigarettes, I made it quite clear that the Labour Party would consider supporting a tax on commodities such as those on the clear understanding that the money so gathered would be devoted to the relief of the people mentioned in this motion—the old-age pensioners, those in receipt of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit and contributory and non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions. In the course of my remarks on the last occasion I mentioned—the Parliamentary Secretary may correct me—that some £500,000 would provide an increase of approximately 5/- per week to those in receipt of unemployment assistance and of widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. I think that could be done. Mark you, I know how reluctant Governments and Ministers for Finance are to hand out money for what are now described as non-productive investments.
It is true that money devoted to agriculture, industry and afforestation, is productive and brings wealth to the nation, but that does not necessarily mean that we should abandon entirely those who are no longer in a position to add their quota to increased production and to those who are absolutely dependent on the State. No matter from what angle we look at it, whilst we have many very excellent charities, the fact is that these are not in a position to cater for all those who have no income. The St. Vincent de Paul Society, and other charitable organisations, do a tremendous amount of work but people are now inclined, and rightly so, to look to the State to a large extent for certain types of assistance. What struck me in the last few days, especially yesterday, was the fact that we were able to get money for certain things when we are put to it, so to speak.
Yesterday we considered here a Supplementary Estimate for £500,000. Mark you, that £500,000 would do a substantial amount of good to those on unemployment assistance and widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. The Dáil yesterday agreed to provide £500,000 to offset the loss on the sale of wheat. I venture to prophesy—I should like my prophecy to prove inaccurate—that the Government will say to-night that we cannot provide £500,000 to come to the aid of the people mentioned in this motion. Because the farmers overproduced, the taxpayer has to pay. I had no quarrel with the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he announced that to the House yesterday, but here we are confronted with people who are expected to live on a miserable pittance and we say that the country cannot afford any more.
I have an appreciation of the difficulties of Government when it comes to raising money. It cannot be said of these people that they received any increases in recent years. As far as unemployment assistance is concerned, it is a long time since recipients received any worth-while increase. They received 1/- per week to offset the increase in the cost of living consequent upon the budgetary provisions of last year. Yet, yesterday we could produce £500,000 to offset the losses on the enforced sale of surplus wheat.
Again, this year, we find in the Book of Estimates that we are in a position to increase the amount provided for the Department of Defence. True, it is not a large sum. It amounts to something like £37,000. There, we are confronted with a situation in which we are asked to provide more money to intern young men in the Curragh and, because we have to do it, we provide the money.
We want to give more encouragement to the agricultural industry in relation to marketing and other things and, therefore, the Government this year is providing something like £2,750,000 for agriculture. Granted that may be a good investment since the purpose is to increase production, but it is no excuse to offer for our neglect of certain people dependent upon the State for their weekly income. These people are in a far worse position to-day than they were five or six years ago. The economy drive which has been in force over the past two or three years has gone a little bit too far in my opinion in relation to certain sections of the community.
The Parliamentary Secretary may say that local authorities have a responsibility for these people, and I entirely agree with him in that. If the State is not doing its duty by these people, certainly the local authorities are not doing theirs because all the evidence is—and this has been brought home to us very forcibly in the last few weeks and even this week—that the local authorities, in order to reduce the rates or maintain them at their present level make the first cut in things like home assistance, disabled persons' maintenance allowances and certain other cash allowances arising under the Assistance Acts and the Health Act of 1953. It is pretty difficult now for certain people to get the assistance they deserve and need from local authorities. These people must produce certificates to say they are incapable of work. The allowance made to them is very, very meagre indeed. I was in the Department of Social Welfare for a number of years and nobody knows as well as I do the difficulty the Minister has in trying to extract money from the Minister for Finance and from the Government. I would urge the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to make an effort on this occasion to come to the relief, at least to some extent, of the people mentioned in the motion.
If we feel that if we must provide something like £500,000 for losses on the sale of wheat and if we ask the taxpayers to provide more money, I submit we also have a duty to those people who need State assistance. We should ensure that in this Budget they will receive something to compensate for the undoubted increase in the cost of living over the last five or six years.