Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Sep 1944

Vol. 94 No. 12

Private Deputies' Business. - Old Age Pensions—Motion.

Mr. Keyes

I move:—

That, taking note of the consider able increase in the prices of commodities and the consequent depreciation in the purchasing power of money during the past four years, Dáil Eireann requests the Government to introduce proposals for the purpose of providing for persons over 65 years of age, who have ceased being gainfully employed, old age pensions at the rate of 20/- per week; and providing further that, in computing the means of applicants under the old age pensions code, any net income not exceeding £52 per annum will not be taken into account.

I move this motion on behalf of a very deserving section of the community. The discussion of the motion is belated. It was set down originally almost two years ago, but because of incidents intervening and, I may say, owing to the general dilatoriness on the part of the Government in ordering their public business, to the detriment of Private Members' time, this motion and very many important matters have been an unduly long time on the Order Paper, with consequent hardship to the persons concerned. In that connection, the phrase in the motion "during the past four years" should read "during the past five years". During all that time this section of the community, old age pensioners, have suffered hardship. They have not belonged to any particular religion. They have not been associated with any political cult or creed. They are merely the citizens of this State, whose only claim to consideration by this House is the fact that they are citizens who have reached the allotted span, who have given service in this State and who, in fact, are the State and have made the State. They are asking the consideration of this Parliament. I am appealing on behalf of the old age pensioners to every section in this House. It is really not a matter to be considered from a political angle. We ought to examine ourselves as representatives here and apply to our claims and boasts of Christianity the acid test as to how we have treated the aged people. I think that is a very fair test to apply. I suggest, without fear of contradiction, that the stipend of 10/-, awarded to them by this generous State, was never sufficient to maintain body and soul together, but was a means of keeping them suffering and objects of public and private charity.

I do not think that that is the way, this nation ought to approach this matter. We ought to accept responsibility for the maintenance of our aged people in reasonable comfort, or else decide that we have nothing to do with them. They have been given a miserable allowance of 10/- a week. Whatever may have been their position prior to the outbreak of the world conflict in September 1939, their position since then has been much worse. Owing to the soaring prices of all commodities, the purchasing power of their 10/- has depreciated. During this war there was introduced in this country— to prevent soaring wages, as we were told—stand-still wage Orders and an alleged stand-still Order to prevent increased profits.

I shall not develop that point, because people know its history fairly well; but even after these Orders had been in operation for some time, the Government found it necessary to amend them and to allow increases to take place in the pay of certain workers in this country because, otherwise, they could not carry on the services of the State. These people, because of the importance of their work to the State, could not be pegged down to the bottom of the ladder, and some allowance had to be made as a result of the increased cost of living, but the old age pensioners were left at the bottom of the groove until, late in 1943, what I can only describe as a miserly and miserable attempt was made to remedy their position by granting an increase of half-a-crown. Now, that half-crown was not directly administered from the Government, but through the public authorities, and I think that that method of distributing the money is despicable, and the public authorities have been made the object of public odium because of the miserly sum that was allocated to each council. The effect of the present rules is that the relieving officer has to go around and make another means test in addition to the means test already existing. It would appear that no two persons in the one house can get that half-crown and, in fact, the relieving officer has to prove that there must be absolute destitution in the house concerned before these people are entitled to get that rate. I am saying that these people have a right to their old age pensions, not to save them form destitution but because they are entitled to it, having reached the age of 70.

Now, according to the cost-of-living figures, we find that, as compared with mid-August, 1939, the figure has gone up by 71 per cent., while the purchasing power of people in receipt of old age pensions of 10/- per week has been reduced to zero. What such a pensioner could buy in 1939, therefore, on his 10/- a week cannot be measured by what he requires at the moment. Apart from the fact that some of his requirements are out of his reach, those that can be bought have increased to such a price that they are definitely beyond his reach.

While that is happening in Ireland, where we have Christianity, other countries have been moving ahead. This morning, reading the paper, we can see the new scheme that is proposed to be put into operation in England. For instance, under the new English scheme, as published in today's papers, there are provided retirement pensions of 35/- for a man and wife, and 20/- for single people—the retiring age for men being 65 years, and for women 60 years. Their joint pension of 35/- is payable if the man retires at 65, even though the wife has not reached 60, provided that she is not working. Those who go on working draw no pension, but when they retire their pension will be increased by 2/-, jointly, and 1/5, singly, for every year's work after the retiring age.

Compare that with what has been done here in this country. See also what they have done in New Zealand. Under the New Zealand Social Security Act, superannuation is universal and is payable at 65. This benefit is payable irrespective of the applicant's income. The superannuation is independent of old age pensions. The same person may get both old age pension and superannuation benefit. In New Zealand, old age pensions are payable at 60. The basic rate is 32/6 per week, or £84 10s. per annum, but the Insurance Commission may increase it by 10/6 to 43/- in the following cases: In the case of a married man, whose wife is not entitled to receive benefit in her own right; in the case of a pensioner who has dependent children under 16, in which case 10/6 is paid in respect of each child. The old age pension in New Zealand is subject to a means test, but persons treated as single have the first £50 treated as free. For a married couple, only one of whom is entitled to a pension, the free allowance is £136 10s. Any friendly society benefit or pension to which the person concerned may be entitled is not used as a means test. In other words, the persons treated as single have the first £52 free, and that is what I am asking for in this motion. Under the New Zealand scheme there is a further allowance, amounting to £500, for the value of any annuity or matured insurance policy.

These concessions are valuable, and there are many others, and I want particularly to stress the following because, in the case of our country, I suggest that the means test imposed by our Government in the case of these old age pensions is a penalisation of thrift, and I regret to say that when, in 1927, I made my first speech in this House, which was on the question of old age pensions, nothing was done about the matter. Mr. Blythe was then Minister for Finance, and I want to draw the attention of the House now, as I did then, to the fact that the State is spending public money in advising people to be thrifty, to buy savings certificates, to make provision for the rainy day and for the up-growing of their children, while actually doing nothing to encourage thrift. I suggest that there should be a headline over all that kind of advice, in view of the treatment which the Government is meting out to our old people, to this effect: "When you have saved up your money and been thrifty, we shall duly penalise you when you reach 70 years of age." That, in effect, is what occurs under the old age pensions code. Any workman who joins a provident society and who pays 6d. a week into it, in the expectation that he can draw something from it in his old age, is penalised because of his thrift, and that is chalked up against him when he comes to apply for his old age pension. I think that the present old pensions code is an encouragement to thriftlessness. I have had a long experience of this question, and, as far as I can see, the only person who is entitled to the full old age pension when he reaches the age of 70 is the man who never worked in his life. He can come along and demand his 10/- a week, and the Department cannot refuse to give it to him. That is the code. But if a man has children and has done the best he can to educate these children and put something by for a rainy day, when he reaches the age of 70, and applies for an old age pension, he is penalised because of his thrift.

In New Zealand, as I have pointed out, any insurance or friendly society benefit to which a man may be entitled is not taken into account when it comes to the matter of an old age pension, and money received from the exchange or sale of property not exceeding £500, is not taken account of, and it should be also remembered that old age pensions in New Zealand are granted at the age of 65, whereas in our country we do not grant old age pensions until the person reaches the age of 70, and our old age pensioners are penalised, as I have pointed out, if they have any other means, no matter how small. I wonder why the age should be 70. The general age for retirement in this country is generally accepted as 65. That is accepted as the retiring age in the Civil Service and in the commercial community in this country. There may be exceptions, but I think it will be agreed that in the case of the vast majority of commercial undertakings in this country, such as the railways, or other big corporations, the retiring age is 65. Now, there is a gap of five years between 65 and 70, and I cannot understand why that gap could not be bridged. I think that there should be some inducement for these people to retire and get out of the way of younger people, but this idea of pushing them out at the age of 65 and asking them, in effect, to live as best they can, until they reach the age of 70, being cold-shouldered by the State in the meantime, I think, is all wrong. Not alone that, but if, through the employment exchange, the State has been decent enough to give them something to live on during those five years, that is deducted before they can qualify for the old age pension. I think that this whole thing is doing an injustice to the people concerned, and I suggest that it should be faced up to, not in any niggardly or miserly fashion, but in a generous way. Of course, I realise that the Minister may say that it is all right for Deputy Keyes or Deputy Corish to put down this question, and then ask, where is the money to come from. That is the usual thing. The extraordinary thing, however, is that when it comes to asking for money for certain necessary purposes such as the defence of this country, millions can be provided during the emergency—and, of course, nobody objects to that—but I suggest that money which, with God's help, will be available in the near future as the result of the approaching peace, should be diverted for providing peace and comfort for our old people so as to enable them to be paid back for the services that they have given to this State.

If I am asked where is the money to come from for this purpose, I may reply by asking, where will it go to? It certainly will not go to Timbuctoo. It will not go out of the country, but will circulate amongst the shopkeepers and others to meet the requirements of the old age pensioners. With this increase, the latter will be in a position to buy more of the country's produce. Therefore, I submit it cannot be said that the increase will be wasted. It will help to improve the social standards of the people. The case for this increase is so evident that it does not call for further argument from me. I appeal to the members of all Parties to give this question, which is not a political one, their sympathy and generous consideration.

Mr. Corish

I formally second the motion.

Dr. O'Higgins

With regard to this particular motion, we have four motions on the Order Paper to the same effect. One deals with old age pensions, another with blind pensions, and another with the position of unemployed persons. I remember that, at the beginning of the emergency, when the responsible Minister introduced his standstill Order, his defence of it before the House was this: "Put machinery into my hands to keep down the cost of living; if I do not get machinery in this form the cost of living will soar, and the poorest people in the land will be those who will be most severely hit." He got his machinery to peg down wages. The Government was put in the position to peg down every form of allowance, pension or other income derived directly from State services. Despite the fact that the Government had that machinery in their hands, with power under emergency Orders to fix the cost of every article bought and sold, the lid was taken off prices and the cost of living soared while the incomes of the poorest people remained fixed. It was, therefore, natural that crop upon crop of motions of this kind would be tabled and would have to be supported by every Deputy who believes that the humblest being is at least entitled to get fair maintenance. We on these benches urged the Government time and again to appoint some kind of commission to throughly investigate this whole question so as to arrive at a firm figure as to what is the minimum weekly cost of keeping alive one adult human being and one juvenile. We have never got such a figure although it should be within the reach of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. If we had been furnished with it we could then satisfy ourselves as to whether motions of this kind are reasonable or unreasonable.

There is no disputing this point, that when the old age pension stood at a certain figure in 1937 and 1938, and when the Minister for Finance was faced with appeals for more elasticity in the administration of that scheme, he said in the Dáil that he knew that what the old age pensioners were getting was not enough to provide a bare subsistence, but that it was the most that could be given. Therefore, the old age pension at that time was not enough to provide a bare subsistence costing approximately half what it is to-day. This question must be answered: what is the position of the old age pensioner to-day, with his pension fixed and the cost of living doubled? If we knew what the weekly cost of maintaining a human life is we would know how to approach motions of this kind. The position is that we have a whole set of different standards, all of them bearing the stamp of the State. Under the income-tax code, the cost of maintaining a wife before the war was estimated to be £100 a year, and of a child £60 a year. If we take old age pension standards, we find that the cost of maintenance is considerably lower, while under the Department of Industry and Commerce the 2/6 a week for a child is not supposed to represent the child's maintenance cost. That allowance is supposed to be augmented from other sources. We have that fantastic state of affairs in this little island populated with a handful of people.

In many cases we have the income of a humble home made up from seven or eight different sources, all with a different administration, different inspectors, different payees, and all visiting the home and investigating the circumstances associated with it. You have seven or eight inspectors administering small sums of 2/- or 3/- a week. In the case of a good many homes you have national health insurance; unemployment assistance, possibly a blind pension, the old age pensions and perhaps home help going in. Surely, the time has come when all these various social services should be brought under one Department, so that you will have one inspector or investigator inquiring into means and one body paying. The figure mentioned here may be excessive. It may be outside the capacity of the purse, but the figure that was considered adequate in 1938 should, approaching the question in a sense of equity and balance, be raised at least 70 per cent. to meet the increased cost of living. None of the moneys that go by way of old age pension to any individual is spent on luxuries. None of the moneys given in that way is spent in careering around this country or any other country. None of it is spent on frolic. Every farthing of the few shillings that go to the old age pensioner is spent on bare maintenance. In view of the alarming and uncontrolled rise in the cost of living, there is a responsibility on the Government to keep pace with that rise in the cost of living, at least with regard to people totally dependent on the State, seeing that all the machinery sought to control the cost of living was given and that it was as ineffective as the sieve against the incoming tide.

We heard a reference to the age at which pensions should be given. There, again, the Government is in a very weak position. We have a number of pieces of legislation before us indicating that, in the opinion of the Government, a person is unfit for further work at the age of 65 years. We had people thrown out of employment by legislation, not because they were not doing their job efficiently, not because their health has deteriorated but because they had reached a certain age—namely, 65 years. We must assume that there was an honest intention behind such legislation. We must assume, therefore, that, in the opinion of Government, a person is beyond and unfit for work and incapable of maintaining himself at the age of 65 years. Then, we have the span of five years left during which people are to live on air or charity. We cannot have two heads on the coin we toss. We have got to face up to the problem of settling what the cost of maintenance is for an adult and a juvenile. Seeing that the State takes to itself the right to ascertain the means that a person enjoys, at least that figure fixed as the cost of maintenance should be paid out.

I should rather face up to this question in a way different from that in which we are asked to face up to it here. We are asked here to approach a big national question, which requires investigation, by a number of individual, jerky motions, each motion dealing only with a symptom of the disease and none dealing with the disease as a whole. Surely, we have reached a stage of development at which we can afford to lean back and see how the machine is working, whether the machine is defective or whether parts of it are overlapping. Surely, we have reached a time when there should be some experienced or authoritative commission or committee to investigate the whole question with a view to making recommendations. I am never much impressed by arguments as to what certain other countries are doing. When that kind of argument is used in Parliament, the Minister always staggers into the Dáil, carrying a number of papers, to tell us what other countries are not doing. If certain countries are doing better than we are, there are as many others doing worse. That type of argument does not get us very far. I should like to see, in the first place, agreement on the point that what was considered reasonable when the cost of living was considerably less, cannot be considered reasonable at the present moment. With the development of social services—employment assistance, a type of unemployment insurance, development of the home help scheme, children's allowances and issue of blind pensions—there is at present a multiplicity of Departments, under different direction, all doling out tiny, little sums. Part of the activity of the type of committee or commission I suggest should be directed towards making recommendations to co-ordinate and bring under a common head and common Department all these comparatively small activities. That would lead to a very big reduction in overhead costs. It would lead to easier administration and, above all, it would lead to an easing of the amount of annoyance and irritation caused to humble people by having a multiplicity of inspectors, each coming to investigate means, health or employment, under different schemes, under one Government administering a tiny island such as this.

Mr. T. Murphy

A very large volume of support for such proposals as are outlined in this motion is provided by the news appearing in the papers this morning. There is to be a revolutionary scheme of social progress in Great Britain, based on the adoption of the entire plan prepared by Sir William Beveridge. I do not suggest that all that is outlined in that scheme, or, indeed, a great part of it, is possible of early attainment here, but I suggest that the move made ought to set all Parties in this House thinking and all representatives here thinking as to when a positive but modest step in that direction will be made here. Has the Minister made up his mind that it is time that some move was made to assist this very deserving and estimable class of the community? The case for a substantial improvement in their position, if the Minister is not prepared to concede in full the demands in this motion, is unanswerable. Take the case of an old age pensioner who drew 10/- a week in 1939. Without involved mathematical calculations, one finds that that 10/- would have to be increased to 17/- to enable that pensioner to maintain the standard that was then maintainable on 10/-. That is a fair indication of the need for a change. Surely nobody in this House or outside will, at this stage, defend the means test associated with old age pensions. If a person be in possession of means in excess of £15 per annum, he cannot get a pension of 10/- a week. Nobody will say that that standard is not in present circumstances antiquated. There must be complete unanimity that the means test calls for immediate revision, so that a good deal of the injustice that arises when a person is precluded from obtaining an old age pension because his all-in means exceed £39 may be removed.

I am of opinion that a means test must be associated with old age pensions, and I am not ashamed to say that I also believe that there should be a means test for children's allowances. That is my personal view. I adhere to it, because I strongly believe that we must have some means test in connection with old age pensions. But I put it to the Minister that the time has come when the means test should be revised, and a substantial approach made to the demand formulated in the motion, if the Minister is not prepared to go the whole way. It is obvious that the Minister has had reason to give some thought to this matter, because it is one that has for some time past agitated the members of local authorities, as well as people in touch with the needs of the poor. In fact, many local authorities have had to relieve old age pensioners out of home assistance funds. Some two or three years before the emergency old age pensioners were getting 2/- or 3/- weekly in certain parts as home assistance. Nobody can suggest that home assistance is given on lavish or generous lines. There is a rigid means test by officials of local authorities, and by county managers, and they were convinced that these pensioners needed assistance out of local funds. There is a complete case for getting ahead with the work of providing an additional measure of independence for old people.

I want to refer to the emergency old age pensions allowances that were granted, and to express my entire dissatisfaction with the scheme and with the whole position that has arisen in respect to it. Applicants for old age pensions have to satisfy a means test before being entitled to get 10/- weekly. If such people applied for emergency old age pensions allowances they have to satisfy a further rigid means test to establish their claims. These allowances are paid on the basis of 80 per cent. subsidy from national funds, and 20 per cent. subsidy from local rates. There is no doubt about this fact, that the test for getting these allowances is the test for home assistance or, in other words, for something approaching destitution. I do not think the Minister would justify that situation as the best that this State could do for the old people. A most extraordinary position has arisen in connection with these additional allowances. There have been so many applications of obvious merit, that the number of allowances granted exceeded the total sum available in a particular county. As a result there has since been a revision of the allowances granted and, as Deputy Keyes pointed out, a cutting off of allowances in some cases, where two old people living in the same house were in receipt of them. When an old man received 10/- weekly, and where an old woman received 10/- weekly, if both got emergency allowances of 2/6, the position now is that the emergency allowance is withdrawn in one case, but is continued to whoever is head of the house. There is also an urgent need for revising the age of eligibility for the old age pension. There can be no doubt about this, that there is a sound case for reducing the age from 70 to 65. I agree that the argument used in respect of any claim for social advancement is that it is a financial problem, but the Minister must now be convinced that all sections, even those who on former occasions did an injustice to old age pensioners, would be willing to bear any reasonable sacrifice that a belated measure of justice to the old people would demand.

I confess I was disappointed with the speech of Deputy O'Higgins. He suggested very properly that there should be an amalgamation of social services, so that overlapping and wasteful or extravagent administration in certain respects might be done away with. That is going to take a considerable time. Demands for coordination of that kind, which were frequently made in the past, would not be in any way weakned by tackling this question now. As we know from experience during the last 20 years committees and commissions of inquiry take years to arrive at a conclusion following their deliberations. I do not think these people, as Deputy O'Higgins suggested, can afford to wait while prolonged investigations are being made.

I admit that the case for the amalgamation of social services is a good one, and that the whole question must be examined in that light some time; but the question now is the urgent need of these old age pensioners. There is also the unsatisfactory manner in which the meagre allowances granted recently have been paid, the dissatisfaction that exists, and the terrible increase in the cost of living. I suggest that this is a motion to which the Minister ought to give sympathetic attention, and ought to be prepared to indicate his willingness to go a very considerable distance towards meeting, if he is not prepared to meet it in full.

Mr. Donnellan

I think the Government have no case at all in relation to the matter of the age limit, in view of the fact that it was they who brought legislation into the House which makes it compulsory on a civil servant to retire on pension at that age. Surely the Minister must realise that the old age pensioners in the country district, the men and women who spend their lives working hard on the land, the people who work the spade, the shovel and the slean; who work, in many cases, 12 and 14 hours a day, and produce food for the country under all sorts of weather and hardship, are not the people who could possibly continue to work after the age of 65.

If the people who, as one might say, work in luxury, who never have to face the elements, but who have merely to sit at a desk and use a fountain pen for their livelihoods, are deemed not to be fit for work after the age of 65, surely the people on whose behalf I speak are not capable of working after that age. Whatever is to be said about the amount of money asked in the motion, although I am in favour of it, I am quite sure the Minister will agree with our views about the age limit. I cannot for the life of me see how he can object to accepting that part of the motion, and I expect him to do so.

One other matter which I cannot understand is the means test as at present operated. Under that means test, a man has to prove that he is a beggar before he can get consideration. The officials come in to a man in the country and actually count the number of hens. They look around to see if there is any possible way in which they can put a halfpenny on his income in an effort to prevent him getting the pension. I am a member of an old age pensions committee, and I was more than surprised at one thing I heard no later than yesterday. An old age pensioner happened to have a little money in the bank, and the pensions officer set down the income from that little sum of £80 at 5 per cent., whereas he was in fact getting only I per cent. That is outrageous. I feel that the Minister, who is more reasonable than a good many others, will do something with regard to these matters of the age limit and the means test now being operated.

Another matter to which I want to draw the Minister's attention is that, in North Galway, where there are small valuations of £5, £6 and £10, it is terrible that a father or mother must sign the little holding over to a son if there is to be any use in their applying for the pension. Not only that, but the son must get married, or it will be said that the signing over of the holding was a trick. I have come across cases in my own area of applicants being turned down because the son did not get married. Surely the Act never intended that a person should not get a pension because his or her son would not get married?

I know that the Minister will have no objection to the part of the motion which deals with the age limit, although the usual question: "Where is the money to come from?" will be asked. We will be asked if we want to tax this, that or the other, which is the cry always raised when any effort is made to help the poor and needy; but when the civil servant, who is well able to continue working after the age of 65, is compelled by law to retire at that age, we hear no cry about where the money is to come from. We were told it was well he should go at that age in order to make room for others and to help the unemployment position. The vast bulk of the old age pensioners are people who work on the land. They slave on up to 70 years, 75 years and some even to 80 years of age. They have, as a matter of fact, to continue working until the day they die, and if some of these people had some little hope of a pension at the age of 65, they might take things a little easier and so help the unemployment position.

If we are not able to afford £1 per week to people in the rural areas, who comprise the majority of old age pensioners, after they reach the age of 65, it is a shame for us, because they are the people who produce the food and do all the slaving. The other classes are only the people who give the orders, and it is much easier to give the orders than to carry them out. These people in the rural areas are the people who do the work, and I think it would be setting a good example if the motion were passed unanimously.

I listened to Deputy O'Higgins speaking on the motion and thought it rather strange that he should be for it and against it. So far as the old age pensioner is concerned, neither the present nor previous Governments gave them fair play or any real consideration. We have only to look back to the time when an attempt was made to take 1/- from them. People tried to defend that attempt in the country, and I want to tell the Minister's Party that the action of another Party at that time went a long way towards placing the Minister and his Government in power to-day. They themselves came along and said that the 10/- pension would be given to everybody, but, instead, not even the full 10/- was given, because, by reason of this low means test, the amount in the ordinary case is 5/- or 6/-. I ask the Minister to remember that it was the bad treatment of this section by another Party which probably gave him and his Party the opportunity of being the Government of the country for a good number of years.

I will ask him seriously to consider this matter, not that I say he may do it altogether for the sake of vote-catching, or anything like that—of course, politicians do not do those things, I know. I believe that so far as the age limit is concerned, he and his Party will be unanimous. Speaking on behalf of the group I represent, the people on the land, I may say that it is their wish, and this motion will have our unanimous support. We feel it is a long-felt want, and we feel it is one thing that is lacking in this country.

There is not enough respect for the aged and the poor. If it was any section of the community other than the aged and the poor, I have no doubt there would be many a cry raised in this House for them. If it was any other section of the community, such as the teachers' organisation, or other such organisation—not that I wish to belittle that profession—I believe their case would be made here in a very sound fashion. I appeal to the Minister to grant what is asked in this motion, pensions at the age of 65 years of £1 a week, and also the abolition of the means test. If it is at all possible, the means test should go. I am in favour of its abolition. The Government are not asked in this motion to abolish it and I am really sorry that that is so. If the Government were asked to abolish it, that proposal would have the support of our Party. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.