asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider introducing interim relief measures to tide persons in receipt of social welfare pensions over the winter months, in view of the hardship they are suffering as a result of unprecedented increases in the prices of essential household goods and in the cost of living generally.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Winter Relief.
35.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave to a somewhat similar question on 24th October, 1974, in which I indicated that the increases in the rates of social welfare payments provided in the last two budgets outstripped by a long way the rise in the cost of living since the present Government took office. Since then, the Government in the recently published White Paper have announced their intention of further increasing social welfare payments in the forthcoming January budget and revising them during the course of the year in order to ensure that those who are dependent on social welfare payments, including pensioners, will be cushioned against price rises and will also be assured of, at least, the maintenance of their position compared with other sections of the community brought about by the last two budgets.
In the circumstances, interim measures in anticipation of the budget proposals would not be appropriate.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the benefits and other assistance given to social welfare beneficiaries were eroded month by month from the time it was given? For example, the old age pension of £7.20 granted in July, 1973, had the purchasing power of £6 in July, 1974, and the increases went nowhere near giving back the purchasing power to social welfare beneficiaries.
I do not agree with the Deputy. It is not a matter of speculation but of established fact. There is no doubt that some of the benefits derived from the last two increases have been eroded by price increases but it is wrong to suggest they have been completely eroded. There is no doubt that people in receipt of social welfare payments are considerably better off.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that he is not comparing like with like when he refers to what was granted during the period of Fianna Fáil administration? Further, will he not agree that the cost of living has far outstripped in real terms the increases granted by the Government in July, 1973, and July, 1974?
I do not agree with the Deputy.
Social welfare beneficiaries, particularly those who are totally dependent on such payments, are unable to exist on the money available to them and, as a result, their health is being undermined.
I am not for a moment suggesting that the rate of old age pensions, whether contributory or non-contributory, is satisfactory. I am not trying to sell that because I do not believe it, but it is damaging to make statements that are not accurate. There is no doubt that the percentage increases granted, 18 per cent in the last budget, have more than compensated for the increase in the cost of living. The people concerned are somewhat better off than they were but I am not suggesting for one moment that the payments are adequate.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give one instance of a benefit granted in the last budget where it could now be stated, after inflation at the rate of 18 per cent, to have left the people better off than they were before the last budget? I am only asking for one instance.
It is not a question of giving one instance, it is a question of going right across the board.
One instance will do.
It is not merely a question of what I say; the information is available from independent sources. The fact is that the people we are discussing are somewhat better off. For instance, widows and their children are substantially better off but old persons living on their own are not as well off. There has been some improvement but comparatively speaking the latter are not as well off as people with child dependents.
Is it not a fact that the increases granted in social welfare payments in last year's budget were to provide for increases in the cost of living in the previous 12-month period and that the increase in the cost of living since then has meant that in real terms these people are worse off?
That is not so.
There was no provision in the social welfare increases in last year's budget for the expected increase in the cost of living in the oncoming year.
The Deputy is not correct in stating that the increases in last year's budget were to compensate for what had taken place before that time. There was a contemplated increase in the cost of living and there was also an element to improve the standard of living of these people. There is no doubt that the cost of living has risen considerably more than was anticipated. These people are not as well off as we had hoped they would be when the increases were granted. However, the fact remains that they are better off than before the last budget and the benefits given have not been eroded completely, as was suggested by Deputies opposite. Surely some of the Deputies on the other side could find some other area where they could criticise the Government that would do less damage to the people concerned. Deputies oppossite are not being helpful by distorting what I have already admitted is an unsatisfactory situation.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary state the cost to the Exchequer of giving an additional week's payment at Christmas to old age pensioners?
I cannot give the Deputy an overall figure but it would be quite substantial.
When the Parliamentary Secretary was answering Question No. 34 he told Deputy Fitzpatrick who had tabled the question that his supplementary was more suited to Question No. 35. However, Question No. 34 directly asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he intended to grant an additional week's payment for Christmas to old age pensioners and the Parliamentary Secretary said he did not. If he does not know the cost, what was the basis for his answer? Is he ashamed to tell us? Does he not want to tell us? Is he not interested enough?
No, if the Deputy had read the question and had been listening to the full reply instead of quoting it out of context he would see the reasons why.
May I have the permission of the House to deal with the last remaining question to the Parliamentary Secretary? Question No. 36.
In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's refusal to answer I will have a separate question for him next week.
I will look forward to that.