The Minister has an amendment to this motion and if he had phrased his amendment so that the word "continue" was not included in it, it might nearly meet our wishes. While I am quite sure we shall be told, when the Minister speaks to his amendment, about the increases which have been given over the past few years, I have some evidence here which will show that though it may not be the Minister's responsibility over the years, the social welfare benefit and the assistance sections, in particular, have not got their fair share of the national wealth and that, from the period when old age pensions were first introduced in 1909 by the British Government to the present day, the value of pensions vis-à-vis wages being paid has dropped very considerably.
When I started doing some research into this recently, I was rather amazed at what I found. At the present time an applicant over 70 years of age cannot obtain the full non-contributory pension of 35/- per week if his means exceeds £1 Os. 6d. per week, and he cannot get any pension at all if his means exceeds £2 15s. 4d. per week. What was the position when the pension was first introduced in 1909? At that time, 55 years ago, the basic farm wages—it is better to take farm workers' wages because they are reasonably traceable right up to the present day—ranged from 8/- to 10/per week. In places like Dublin, Carlow, Kilkenny, Wicklow, Cork and Tipperary, the basic wage amounted to 10/- per week. The average was about 9s. 3d.
At that time a farm worker retiring at the age of 70 could obtain a full old age pension of 5/- per week; in other words, he could get more than 50 per cent of his basic rate by way of non-contributory old age pension, and if he was married he could get more than he was earning because he could get 10/- a week, and I stated a few minutes ago that the average wage over the whole country for that type of worker was only 9/3d.
If the Minister tells us now that the pensioners have been fairly treated, the arguments will sound very hollow in this House because, as we know, the minimum rate for farm workers is an average of £7 12s. per week and the non-contributory old age pension is only 35/- for a single man. A sum of 35/- is a small amount to live on. The Minister may claim that it is adequate, but if he does, his colleagues at the Árd Fheis yesterday did not consider it was adequate. The following comments were reported in today's Irish Press. One gentleman from the Lucan-Finglas Ceanntair said:
There was an urgent need for increases in old age pensions. By the world standard Ireland's population is extremely old and many of the old people live lonely lives and sometimes are forgotten.
Forgotten even by the State, let me add. Another man from Dublin North East is reported as saying that an adult dependant's allowance should be provided with the non-contributory old-age pension. Somebody else spoke about all the money the teenagers could spend and about the old age pensioners not being able to get enough money to live on. The final comment is: "This pension is quite inadequate by 20th century standards." I know the Minister replied to that and possibly we shall have another version of his reply here tonight but surely if we need any evidence, apart from that given by the Labour Party, that the pension is inadequate, then we have got it from the Minister's own colleagues who were not afraid, apparently, to tell the Minister that they considered he was not doing enough for these people.
The years move on and we find that in 1935 the average farm wage was 21s. 3d. a week and even then a farm worker could retire and get an amount equal to half his wages and a married couple could have the equivalent of almost a full week's wages by means of a non-contributory old-age pension if they retired at 70 years of age. The Minister should not now try to say that the State has done as much as it could be expected to do in cases like this because it should be evident to everybody that these old people are not getting enough to live on.
I do know, as was mentioned today during Question Time, that recently the old-age pensioners have had added children's allowances to their pensions both for contributory and non-contributory pensions. We are very glad to see that being done and the Minister was less than gracious when he claimed during Question Time today that the idea was the brainchild of himself and the Fianna Fáil Party. If he cares to get someone to trace back over the Official Report for the past two or three years, he will find question after question directed to him and to his predecessor asking that this should be done. He may recollect that he told me personally that, because of the pressure that was being put on, he had looked into the matter and decided it was the right thing to do. Surely he should not now be ashamed to admit that he was influenced by the facts and surely he should not be ashamed to admit that the idea was put into his head by somebody else and that he was man enough, and Minister enough, to implement it.
We will give him all the credit he wants for doing it. It is something which might have been done much earlier. I am sure the Minister will have the blessing of the old age pensioners affected. Many of them have young families and these have been trying to exist on a non-contributory pension of 35/- each for man and wife and on a pension of something over £4 per week in the case of a contributory pension. They are all delighted to get this increase by way of children's allowances. The Minister should, I think, have been a little more gracious when replying at Question Time today.
For the information of the Minister, if we take one particular section of the community, statistics prove that in 1961 there were only 3,693 farm workers between the ages of 65 and 70, or six per cent of the working force. If that is true also of the others, I am sure the Minister will appreciate the very strong argument there is for granting the old age pension at 65 years of age.
It is easy, of course, to find many defects in the old age pension code when dealing with social welfare benefits. Now, those defects apply equally to other types of social welfare benefit and assistance. One thing I find it hard to understand—obviously one of the gentlemen at the Árd Fheis found it hard to understand also—is why some effort has not been made to give benefits of some kind to adult dependants other than the husband, wife or children. I am sure the Minister knows many people are living with a brother or some sisters—an invalid brother, a father or a mother not old enough to qualify for pension. There is no other source of income except that earned by, perhaps, a son. Now, if the son should fall ill, the only income available is the miserly £2 2s. 6d. given to a single man by way of sickness or unemployment benefit. Surely there is good reason why that amount should be increased and surely there is a good argument for including more people than are included at the moment in these benefits?
The motion deals with the necessity for alteration now rather than waiting for some later date. It is evident to everybody that over the past five or six months prices have increased for practically every commodity bought by the ordinary individual. I was amazed when, a few days ago, an employer defending a case before the Labour Court gave concrete evidence that the workers concerned in the claim for increased wages had received an increase of 16 per cent in their commission, not because more goods were being bought —that was freely admitted—but because of the increase in the prices of the goods they were selling.
We have heard arguments here over the past few months about the increase in the prices of various items following the 2½ per cent turnover tax and the ninth round of wage increases. We were told that one reputable firm had increased the price of its wares by ten per cent from 1st February and that another had increased its prices by 12 per cent from the first week in February. That was the pattern all round, but it now becomes evident that these were the small boys and other people have been cashing in to a much greater extent.
A motion by an Independent Deputy to have the disabled persons allowance increased because of the factors to which I have referred was accepted by the Government. The motion was that the increases should be proportionate to increases in wages. Can the Minister explain why, following the increase in wages and following the increase in prices generally, no attempt has been made to bring up the incomes of those people dependent on social welfare benefit and assistance? Rather than put down a meaningless amendment suggesting that everybody is quite happy with what he is getting, might I suggest to the Minister that he should do what can be done and what he has already done in relation to children's allowances in order to alleviate to some extent the distress these people suffer?
I meet a great many more of these people, perhaps, than the Minister does. I have been checking with some of them as to their personal position and I am told by the majority that, if they try to live on their non-contributory pensions, they cannot last, and, after a short time, they find no alternative except illness, a visit to the hospital and transfer to the county home. I do not think people should be put in that position. Remember, this is a position with which the Minister can deal. The Minister is not a member of a local authority, and never was, but I am sure he is aware that these people cost very much more when they go to the county home than they would cost the State if they were receiving a decent amount of assistance in their own homes. I understand the average cost per week in the county home is about £3 10s. Compare that with the miserly amount given to these people outside the county home and one can appreciate immediately the strength of the argument behind this Labour Party motion.
Finally, I would ask the Minister when replying, not to depend just on the old clichés which he has used time and again in regard to how much he gave in certain years and what the inter-Party Government or, as he prefers to call them, the Coalition Government, gave in certain years. That does not put any food on the tables of the old person, the unemployed person, or the sick person. Can he tell us whether or not the Government are making any attempt to restore the position which operated when the old age pension was first introduced and which will give these people enough to live on in frugal comfort?