I move:
That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that, in view of the recent steep rise in the cost of living, and in particular in the prices of essential foodstuffs, and in view of the resulting hardship inflicted on those in receipt of unemployment, sickness and disability benefits and social welfare benefits and assistance generally, the amounts payable in these benefits and assistance should be reviewed immediately with a view to granting equitable increases.
This motion is in the names of members of the Labour Party and our reason for putting it down some months ago was the very steep increase in prices which apparently was being ignored by the Government. No attempt was made to control prices. When questions were directed to the responsible Minister in this House, he made the excuse that there was no increase. Then he said he was having spot checks carried out throughout the country. Finally, he said that the increases which had taken place were justified.
If trade unions want increases for their members, which are disputed, they must go before the Labour Court and make a case publicly. Apparently it is now the policy of the Government that manufacturers or retailers are not required to do anything like that as far as prices are concerned: they can, at their whim, decide to increase prices. The resultant hardship on people on fixed incomes and those in receipt of the various benefits and assistance under the Department of Social Welfare is evident to anybody who wants to see it.
As far as the administration of social welfare is concerned, I always have been and still am a great admirer of the way in which the Department handle that particular aspect of its activities. While individual cases of hardship arise from time to time and things happen which just should not happen because of certain set regulations, or for other reasons, taken by and large the Department of Social Welfare administer the benefits or assistance they have to administer very well. I include the Minister in this when I say that the people who administer this aspect of the Department's activities seem to be very humane and try to do everything possible to alleviate hardship.
People who apply for social welfare benefit and particularly those who apply for social welfare assistance are in extreme hardship. We should never lose sight of that fact. It is the duty of everybody to do anything that can be done to ensure that those people will get at least enough to have a frugal living. At the present time, can we say that that is so?
For instance, can we say that the single man in this country who has been working all his life and who is unfortunate enough to fall ill can have a living on the amount of money he gets at the present time, 42/6d per week? What is he expected to do with that? Suppose he has a sister or a mother who is not old enough to draw the old age pension or a father who is unable to work or draw the old age pension and who has no income at all, is the single man expected to keep one or any or all of them on 42/6d per week?
When the social welfare laws were being framed I suppose they were framed to a special set of circumstances. For years, it has been quite evident that the circumstances under which they were framed have altered very considerably but the Social Welfare Acts affecting them have not been altered.
I notice that the Minister has an amendment down to our motion. I am quite sure that the next evening we are discussing this matter, he will recount, as he has done so often before, the periods when a previous Government were in office and the amount of increase they gave or did not give. I am quite sure he will recount the period the present Government have been in office and the amount of assistance or increases given over the period and that he will feel he is making a very good case for his Government. No matter what case the Minister may make for his Government, he cannot take away from the fact that people on social welfare benefit and on social welfare assistance are not getting sufficient money on which to live in even frugal comfort. If the Minister wants to castigate those who went before him and to say they did not do certain things, he is entitled to say so but that does not help.
In present circumstances, prices have been allowed to rise unbridled and social welfare benefits have not kept step with them. Some time ago an Independent Deputy brought in a motion about increases that should be given in certain types of assistance administered by local authorities. His suggestion was that the increases should be in some way tied to increases given to workers. The Minister and the Government accepted that motion. There may be different points of view about why they did so, but it is a fact that the motion was accepted. If the Minister and the Government want to be truthful they cannot say today: "We think it is right that every time there is a 12 per cent increase in wages there should be consequent 12 per cent increase in incomes for those on disability benefit or, in this case, in disabled persons' allowances" and say at the same time that those on unemployment benefit or assistance should get a niggardly increase. That is the only way I can describe the last increase given by the Department.
Comparisons are odious and perhaps it is not a fair comparison, but we had a question here during the week following the publication in the newspapers of the views of somebody who thought the cost of living in Dublin was higher than in London or Belfast. In today's Evening Herald we find that the amount of increases in social welfare benefit in Britain is higher than here and that the minimum amount which can be given to a single unemployed person in England will now be £4 per week. Here we give £2 2s. 6d. Yet the newspapers say the cost of living in Dublin is higher than in England. A married man with a wife to support here gets £3 12s. 6d. According to the Herald this evening, a married man supporting a wife in London will get £6 10s. and we are told the cost of living is higher here than in London, and I presume in other parts of England where it is at least as low as, if not lower than, it is in other parts of Ireland.
I do not say the comparison is fair: there are certain things affecting payments there which would not affect them here but however we look at it we must face the fact that those on assistance or benefit from the Department of Social Welfare in Ireland are not getting enough to live on. If proof of that is required you can check with the local authorities throughout the country, who are responsible for home assistance, and find how many of those people have to get supplementary grants of home assistance to enable them just to exist.
I am well aware, as is the Minister, that the ordinary decent working man or woman wants to avoid, if at all possible, asking for home assistance. They feel it is a kind of slur and that somebody afterwards may say they had to get home help, as it is called. Yet, a tremendous number of those on social benefits and practically every one on unemployment assistance are in receipt of one type or other of supplementary amount from the local authority or the health authority or whoever is responsible for these payments. Perhaps it is unfair to castigate the Minister for this but I am quite sure he appreciates that it is the setup in the Department that I am trying to rectify. He has an amendment down with which I do not agree: he could not expect me to agree and I hope the House will not agree. Yet, I believe he will be prepared to say that something must be done and done quickly for those who are the responsibility of his Department.
The whole question of social benefits seems to be tied up with the idea that what was right 20 years ago must still be right. For instance, in the case of the non-contributory old age pension we find that those who have an income not exceeding £52 10s., slightly over £1 a week, are entitled to 35/- a week and the scale goes down from that. If they have an income under £65 10s. they get 30/- per week up to £78 when they get 25/-; up to £104 15s. when they get £1; up to £117 15s. when they get 15/-; up to £130 15s. when they get 10/- and up to £143 15s. when they get 5/-.
That is the 5/- the Minister introduced in his last Budget. He may not remember, but at the time I pointed out that it was absolutely ridiculous to introduce this type of benefit because with present money values, 5/- is no use to anybody. People would want to be in dire poverty before 5/- would be of any significance to them. Even if they got it what could they do with it? People who already have £3 per week are entitled to this extra 5/-. I suggest the administration costs involved far outweigh the value of that payment.
The whole non-contributory pension scheme suggests that there is no advertence to real values. Persons with £117 15s. are entitled to 15/- while those with £130 15s. are entitled to 10/-, a case where there is a difference of £13 per year and there is a reduction of 5/- a week. If the Minister takes the trouble—I know he is very busy—to try to analyse the basis on which those benefits are fixed he will realise immediately that they are ridiculous in relation to present values. The amounts specified in them are very small and of little use to anybody.
I am prepared to give, and on many occasions I have given, credit to the Government responsible for introducing contributory old age pension but the non-contributory old age pension scheme is, I think, ridiculous. Even those who are entitled to the full amount of 35/- a week cannot be expected to live on it. The Minister should remember that if somebody can qualify for 35/- a week and is expected to live on that sum in his own home, if it is necessary to move him into the local county home or the old folks' home run by the local authority, as far as I can discover, the very least amount required to keep him there is £3 10s. per week and frequently the figure is much higher than that. Surely that example alone should prove to the Department that it is necessary to bring up the figure paid to non-contributory old age pensioners to something nearer to what will allow them a frugal existence. They are not looking for anything wonderful but they are entitled to simple comforts in their own homes.
I am very sure the Minister knows as well as I do that these are the circumstances which could surround those people and I feel he would do well if only he takes this excellent booklet, SW4, in which he will find there more evidence than I could give him in the one and a quarter hours which I will have left, le cúnamh Dé, when the debate is resumed in the Dáil next week, to make a case on this motion. I believe the evidence in this booklet is such that the Minister, after he has considered and heard the arguments made in favour of this motion, must back it and realise that the time has come, not when the next Budget comes next April, but now, to give an increase to the people who are dependent on his Department for their existence.