I wish to raise the subject matter of Question No. 8 which was put down in the name of Deputy Faulkner:
To ask the Minister for Local Government the rent paid to a local authority by a tenant on differential rent who was in receipt of unemployment or disability benefit of £29.40 per week prior to 17th September, 1976; and the rent paid to a local authority by a tenant on differential rent who became entitled to unemployment or disability benefit of £29.40 subsequent to 17th September, 1976.
Tonight we listened to a discussion which dealt with violence, a violence that is not easy to pinpoint. Here we have institutional violence where we can pinpoint the situation and point the finger at the Minister for Local Government and the Government for this savage increase that has been inflicted on the unemployed.
The Minister told local authorities they could increase rents to meet some of the maintenance charges. These rent increases will to a large extent hit the unemployed or the person on disability benefit. A husband with a wife and four children who was on unemployment or disability benefit prior to 17th September paid 53p rent and with pay-related benefit £1.95. A person in similar circumstances who became unemployed after the 17th September pays £3.44 and, on pay-related benefit paid £5.51. Now we have the situation of two unemployed neighbours, with the same number in family and the same outgoings and income, and one pays 53p rent and the other £3.44. This is victimising the unemployed person or the person on disability benefit. We are hitting the weaker sections of the community.
There is no employment for these people. Many people in my constituency, Ballyfermot, Drimnagh and elsewhere, would be glad to have employment so that they could meet their commitments and pay the higher rent. The unemployed person who did not get the recent increase in the social welfare benefits to meet the cost of living was the victim of this vicious attack by the Coalition. Now the Minister further increases the burden on the man who, through no fault of his own, became unemployed after the 17th September. I do not believe NATO were a party to this racket. When the unemployed examine this situation they will let the Minister know just what they think of this viscious assault.
Before 17th September a man with a wife and three children had an income of £26.80 and was paying a rent of 49p. A man in similar circumstances who became unemployed after that date pays £2.67 rent. Where is the equity there? When the Minister came to power we were told that the renting system was wrong and that he was the saviour of the people who paid rent. There was a rent strike at that time because 4p were imposed to meet maintenance costs. This is not a small increase. The difference for a man with a wife and three children, without pay-related benefit, is an increase of £2.18. If NATO agreed with this they should examine their consciences again. I do not believe any reasonable man would agree with the Minister about this. The Minister for Finance has been prodding and pushing the Minister for Local Government and he has yielded to this pressure. He probably does not like to do this but he has done it and inflicted this injury on the weaker section of the community. This is an appalling situation. We were asked the difference a man with four children who was unemployed on 17th and another who was unemployed on 18th would have to pay, and the answer is £2.91. If the Minister thinks that a man who became unemployed on 17th September has enough to live on with £29 less 53p rent, then justice was done in that rent scheme. How then does he expect his next door neighbour who is in the same circumstances and became unemployed on 18th September to live on £26? Even at this stage I ask the Minister to withdraw this rent scheme and introduce a scheme that will be fair and just to the unemployed. This is a deliberate attempt by the Government to inflict additional hardship on the people who did not get what they were entitled to in the recent social welfare increases. This is a very serious situation.
Let us look at the man whose family are working and whose family income is increased by £20 or £29 a week. He will be expected to pay an increase of 50p per week, yet the person on unemployment or disability benefit is expected to pay a further £3 a week. This is a social scandal, institutional violence at its worst and we can pinpoint the perpetrators. If a man can get employment he should not be on low rent. Give these people jobs. Let them earn a decent income. There is no point in the Minister saying that if a man is earning £29 a week he should pay the increase. There is no man earning £29 a week; the lowest pay for a labourer is approximately £40 a week.
This is one of the most savage attacks ever launched on the weaker section of this community by this or any other Government. They have tried to do one thing, to divide the tenants among themselves. What will a man say when he realises that he has to pay £3.44 rent each week when his next door neighbour, also unemployed, has to pay only 53p? There is no justice in this situation and the Minister must rectify it at the earliest possible moment.
The increases are higher as we go through this long list. For a husband with a wife and five children the difference is even greater. In some cases these tenants have already been charged 50p or 60p extra for central heating. Therefore, on top of the £3.44 this man had to pay an increase for central heating and last night's rates increase will cost some corporation tenants in recently built houses another 40p per week. This shows that the increase does not stop at £3.44.
The Minister's purpose seems to be to plunge local authorities into a state of utter confusion. One day he issues a circular to them asking them to do one thing and the next a reverse order is issued. Last week we had a nightrider from the Custom House to the corporation with instructions to the Minister's supporters there to jackboot the outrageous rate through all opposition.
