(Cavan): This is a Supplementary Estimate to provide £9,988,000 to carry the various services provided for in the subheads outlined in the document which has been circulated, up to the end of March. The Supplementary Estimate covers non-contributory old age pensions, children's allowances, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions and miscellaneous grants. There is involved in the Supplementary Estimate the benefit given to the weakest sections of the community in the form of non-contributory pensions and unemployment assistance.
I gladly support the voting of this money for this very worthy cause but I am convinced that never in the history of the State was the gap so wide between that section of the community who are existing on social welfare payments and the rest of the community. That gap is wide and it is horrifying.
I know I may be told by the Minister that the services are now better than they were. It is very easy, indeed, for a Minister for Social Welfare to fall into the trap of claiming that a number of years ago the non-contributory old age pensioner got £3 or less and he now gets £4.65. I would ask the Minister to direct his attention to the fact that we are living in the midst of a wild inflation and, in an inflationary atmosphere, the rich appear to get richer and the poor always get very much poorer.
The non-contributory old age pensioner living alone is in receipt of £4.65 per week, if he has no other means. Even if he is in unfurnished lodgings the amount is reduced. Having regard to the purchasing power of money, I am convinced that such a man is worse off than he was a few years ago. In round figures, a pint of stout costs 20 pence, which is one-fifth of £1 or 4/-in old money. That is one example. It may be suggested that it is not necessary for him to drink a pint of stout. He must live and he is entitled to some little luxury. When he goes to purchase the necessaries of life he finds that his £4.65 goes a very short distance.
A person of moderate means would not feel comfortable going out for a night to have a few drinks with some friends with only a £5 note in his pocket. It is generally accepted that a person of moderate means who hands £1 across the counter does not expect to get any change and puts very little weight on the change he does get. This emphasises the great gap between social welfare recipients and other sections of the community. It is very easy for a Minister for Social Welfare to fall into the trap of saying that it is £4.65 as against £3 and that he remembers the time when it was 10/-and the time when a shilling was taken off. That is no argument and it is no answer to the unfortunate person who has to depend on social welfare.
I would appeal to the Government and, indeed, to the taxpayers, the people who provide the money, to do a bit of social thinking and to consent to a fairer distribution of the wealth of the country so that the weakest section of the community may be cushioned against the inflation we are living in and may enjoy some sort of decent standard of living.
We are coming very near the time of the year when rates are struck. In many counties persons living in houses with a valuation of £4 or £5 and even up to £7 and living on social welfare are assesed with rates and are expected to pay rates because of the fact that when the enabling provisions were introduced to allow county councils to exempt persons from rates, the burden had to be borne by the rest of the rate-payers and not by the country as a whole. I ask the Minister, how can a person who is in receipt of £5, or £6 or £7 a week pay up to £30 a year rates? It is immoral to ask him to do so. In my constituency there is no scheme for exempting such persons from rates because the county council did not adopt it. My advice to these people living on that sort of income is not to pay rates and I am not indulging in a campaign to encourage people not to pay rates. I am telling them that they cannot afford to pay rates and they should say that to the rate collector and let the county manager write them off through the hardship clauses at his disposal. However, before the amount is written off the person must endure considerable harassment by the rate collector and an investigation by the county manager.
The same situation does not apply in England. A lady in Dublin gave me a leaflet which set out details of the scheme in operation in Britain. This person was nursing in England and she bought a house in Dublin. Now she is thinking of selling the house and returning to live in England because the rates are a very considerable burden on her. She will be faced with a rate demand of £120 or £130. I realise this may not be relevant on this Estimate but I shall try to relate my remarks to it.
In England those in the lower income group are exempt from rates. The system in that country has regard to the fact that some people cannot pay rates but in this country old age pensioners and those receiving social welfare, people who live on £4.65 per week, are assessed for amounts of £30 per year. They must endure several visits from the rate collector and they are lucky if the county manager regards them as hardship cases and writes off the amount. This system is unjust. Any suggestions made here which will be fair to the underprivileged in our community will have my full support and I shall make no apology to anyone inside or outside this House for advocating and supporting social justice.
With regard to payment of rates we are not administering social justice. This has become apparent in the last few years because people who are in a position to fend for themselves are getting rapid increases in wages and the self-employed and the farming community are making more money. Admittedly, it is not worth very much but a considerable amount of money is circulating among these people. People receiving social welfare benefit find themselves in the middle of a whirlpool of spending at a time when they have not enough for the necessaries of life. In the midst of apparent affluence the poorer sections of the community are barely able to exist.
I speak strongly about this matter but if any words that I say encourage the Minister and the Government to take steps in the next Budget to help the needy section in our society I shall be satisfied. Let the Government earmark a specified item of taxation for the purpose of helping this section and I shall vote for it. Let us not have confusion and smokescreens in the Budget. I do not think any self-respecting Member of the House would vote against an item of taxation whose purpose was to raise money to support those in need. If any Member votes against such taxation he should be ashamed of himself.
I have made the point about the rates exemption scheme in England and I am sure the Department of Social Welfare are aware of this. I have the leaflet regarding this scheme in my possession but I do not have it with me at the moment. I strongly recommend the scheme to the Minister for Social Welfare and I would ask him to use his influence with the Government to have the scheme put into operation here.
I realise that the Department deal with a vast number of people and I know delays are inevitable. Some people can afford to wait and it does not matter to them if they get a cheque for £20 this week or whether they wait another week. However, for a person on unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance it is a different matter. He is not credit-worthy, he will only get what he pays for. If he finds that his cheque does not arrive at the local exchange at a certain time it is a serious matter for him; if he expects to get it by post and if it does not come on time it is a great disappointment. I would urge the Minister to cut out the delays that occur; in some cases there are delays of three or four weeks.
I heard of a case today where a person was getting benefit under the Occupational Injuries Act and the last payment was made on 24th February. Perhaps there has been a change from benefit under this Act to some other type of benefit but at any rate the person has not received any money. I spoke to a courteous officer on the phone today and I hope the person concerned will receive the arrears due in the post tomorrow. There is only £16 involved and I realise that to many people in this House that amount might not matter. The person concerned in this case is a young girl whose parents are ill and she needs this money urgently. When we are dealing with the weak section of the community we should do our best to help them. I know that delays do not always take place but it would be good if they could be eliminated completely.
I gather that the number of applications received for the deserted wife allowance was greater than had been anticipated. I am glad that the scheme is not being administered very harshly but I think even more sympathetic consideration could be given. Sometimes the women are expected to pursue their legal claims against their husbands and this is not easy to do. In my constituency there was an instance of a couple who married about 30 years ago but I do not think they lived together for more than a couple of days. This scheme came in and the man was still somewhere in the locality. There was a good deal of coming and going before she was accepted as a deserted wife. Fairly and squarely, she was, and the Department did not insist on her taking legal proceedings against the husband because it would have been a wasteful exercise; he had nothing. I urge the Minister to adopt a realistic approach towards deserted wives.
I know of another case where a deserted wife had one child and when she was 48 the child reached the age of 18. The mother had enjoyed the deserted wife's allowance for a few years since it came in but when she reached 48 she lost it and will not again qualify for it until she is 50. This woman had been working as a char in a convent which ran a secondary school but the convent stamps were not accepted as industrial stamps, or whatever they are called, but only as domestic stamps. I do not see why this should have been the case because she was working in a school where a business was carried on and she was engaged in scrubbing floors and tidying up. She was one of the hard cases, I suppose, that do not make good law. She lost the deserted wife's allowance at age 48 and will not qualify for another two years. She did not qualify for unemployment assistance or sickness benefit because her stamps were not regarded as valid.
Recently at Question Time there was a question about a blind widow who got two pensions until she was 70. She had £8.80 until then but when she reached 70 she lost the widow's pension. The old age pension and the blind pension were amalgamated with the result that her pension was reduced to £4.40. That is another of these hard luck cases which I think the Minister should consider. I know these things cannot be all cleared up in a day but if we could direct ourselves to the proper type of thinking towards the weaker section of the community we would be doing a good job.
There are two types of employment exchanges in the country, the established social welfare office staffed by full-time, established civil servants and the other type of office run on a part-time basis by contractors, I think they are called. They are untrained people appointed on a political basis. There are many of them in every county. I think these offices should be manned by civil servants. I am only saying that in passing. I really stood up to express a point of view that I hold and which I believe the people would accept, that there is an appalling gap between the people for whom we are catering this evening and the better off section of the community. This gap has become more apparent in recent times and must be a source of great distress for these social welfare classes. If I may be pardoned for repeating what I said, I believe it should not be impossible for the Minister to come here and say: "Here is my Budget. I am putting Xp on this and Yp on that and this will be devoted entirely to the social welfare classes." If he does that he will have the support of the House and I believe that nobody will oppose him on it.