I move:—
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 22/6 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.
There is, I suggest, a certain significance in the fact that this motion will be seconded by Deputy Keyes of Limerick because it is now some 19 years ago since Deputy Keyes signalised his entry into this House by a speech on this very same subject. The fact that he will, of necessity, have to traverse a good deal of the ground that he covered 19 years ago, is a pretty fair indication of the lack of progress in the intervening years on this outstanding social question. When old age pensions were increased to the figure of 10/- some 30 years ago, it was hailed in this country as the economic emancipation of a very large section of our community, calculated as it then was to give a reasonable measure of comfort to our people, with the added recommendation that it would ensure to them that spirit of independence which is cherished at no time in life more than in old age. Two wars have been sandwiched in between that period and the effect has been to dissipate to a very great extent the value of that splendid social experiment, to the extent that the position of the pensioner in this country at present is depressed almost to zero. An illustration of that is to be found in the fact that it now takes 24/7 to purchase what was available in 1916 for 10/-.
The House I think will readily admit that there has been, I am glad to say, an improvement in the intervening years in the position of the great majority of the people in this country. The one glaring exception to that general improvement is afforded by the position of the old age pensioner. Not alone has there been no improvement in his position but there has been an actual serious deterioration. I suggest that if we reflect for a moment on the rising tide of prices which has been a feature in this country during the last five years, it does not require a very vivid imagination to get a picture of the hardships which these people had to endure. I can say from experience that in the City of Dublin the position of a considerable number of them in any case has been pitiable in the extreme because pensioners in the City of Dublin, and in other large cities and towns throughout the country, have to meet the full impact of an economic situation which taxes even the resources of those who might be regarded as being properly equipped to meet it. I would ask, how could it be otherwise when one examines what could have been purchased during these five years or what could be purchased to-day for the sum of 10/-?
We suffer from the disability that we have no official standard by which we might express in terms of £ s. d. the requirements of an individual, but at least we have the figures for the cost of maintenance in our institutions. I can give the figures for two of these institutions in the City of Dublin. In one case the figure is 30/- a week and in the second £2 2s. If, therefore, we refer to the individual with 10/- a week—at most his total income cannot be more than 16/- a week—and place that figure against the known cost of maintenance in institutions, a minimum figure of 30/- and take also into consideration the impact of prices here during the last five years, I think the House will not suggest that I am making an over-statement when I say that a considerable number of people affected are very definitely on the border line of destitution. To get an idea of the number of people so affected it is necessary for us to refer to the official figures.
For that purpose I will quote the official figures as at the 30th June, 1943. The number of persons then in receipt of the old age pension was 146,068. Of these 22,500 were in receipt of less than 10/- a week:—159 had 1/-, 316 had 2/-, 514 had 3/-, 1,095 4/-, 2,172 5/-, 3,935 6/-, 3,105 7/-, 6,184 8/-, 4,012 9/- and 124,576 10/-. There are, therefore, 124,576 in receipt of 10/- per week, whose income because of the assessment under the means test can not be more than 16/-. When we consider what these people have to face, having regard to the purchasing power of that 10/-, we get a very clear picture of what the old age pensioner is suffering at the present time. His position I suggest calls for a little more than sympathy. On occasions of debates of this kind the value of comparisons has been disputed. I am going to make some comparisons, with the reservation that while they may not entirely help to solve the problem here, they at least will help to show the general trend towards this great question of old age pensions throughout the world.
First of all, I take the position at the present time in Great Britain. Deputies are aware that a new national insurance scheme was introduced there in December last. Under the Bill —which, incidentally, will apply automatically, in the general course of events, to Northern Ireland—every man becomes pensionable at the age of 65, and every woman at 60, according to Section 77. Instead of an old age pension, the old person on reaching pensionable age, becomes entitled to what is described as a retirement pension of not less than 27/- per week. An additional 16/- a week is paid if there is an adult dependent, and 7/6 for each child dependent. In Great Britain, therefore, a couple—a man of 65 with a wife of 60—are guaranteed 52/- a week for the remainder of their lives. They may get even a larger allowance later in life: if the husband continues at work until aged 70, and pays 50 contributions in each of the five years between 65 and 70, his pension is increased by 10/- per week. It is true that the retirement pension envisaged under the Bill is entirely on an insurance basis, and as the contributions are not segregated, I am not in a position to give the amount that would be attributable to the retirement pension. That scheme being on an insurance basis, there will be contributions from the beneficiary.
In the case of New Zealand, which has been quoted here on many occasions and where the scheme is noncontributory, every person gets 32/6 at the age of 60, so man and wife are guaranteed a joint income of £3 5s. In addition, such a couple—and this is interesting because of the means test here—can have £1 a week of their own, can have up to £500 each in the Post Office Savings Bank and may own their own home, without the pension being affected. The cost of living in New Zealand, particularly regarding food, is now assessed at 20 per cent. under that which operates in this country, so the benefits have been more substantial even than may appear on the face of the figures.
In Sweden, one of the most progressive countries in the world, perhaps, so far as social legislation is concerned, the pension scheme at the age of 65 is £120 a year and the husband and wife may draw separate pensions. It is interesting to see what has happened in the United States at the present time. The scheme there covers pretty well every item of employment, save agriculture, domestic service and State service. The pensionable age is 65, but retirement from work at 65 is not compulsory. The pension is based on the rate of earning. Taking a man earning 100 dollars a month, which appears to be a fair average income for the mass of the people covered by the scheme (that is £300 per annum) his pension would be 27½ dollars a month.
In France, now struggling to emerge from chaos, a scheme has been introduced for old age pensions. Their rate is half the average national wage as a minimum, plus 10 per cent. where the insured person has brought up at least three children. If they have brought up more than three, it is plus 20 per cent. The pension proposed there is payable at the age of 65.
I mention these comparisons not as a solution, or any indication of a solution, of the problem that applies here, because of varying conditions, but because they are covered by a general trend with two outstanding features. One is that the pension will be payable at the age of 65, and the other that the pension rates are more reasonably adequate.
Now I come to an aspect of the old age pensions code which gives more trouble to the potential beneficiary and to members of public bodies, including this House, than any other section of the code itself. It is the question of the means test, regarded as the most objectionable section of the whole code. No later than to-day, a Question appeared on the Order Paper regarding it and I certainly would be one who would like to regard the incident reported in that Question as being purely isolated and not governing the general position. However, there is a feeling abroad regarding the means test that it carries with it, immediately from the first, point of examination, a general form of inquisition which is, to put it as low as I may assess it, irritating. A man or woman at the age of 70 is naturally in a sensitive state. They do not like to feel that their whole lives shall be laid bare, and more especially that their position of dependency, as it will appear to them then, is one to be exploited. In that respect, I suggest that the time has arrived for a complete reversal of the policy pursued in connection with the means test.
My own view—and it is a personal view—is that the means test should be entirely abolished. I see no grounds for retaining it and I am strengthened in that view by the fact that a Bill passed through this House quite recently on much the same lines, the Children's Allowances Bill, from which that objectionable feature was removed. Something might be said for that proposal, when we look at the figure for administration of the old age pension code as a whole. That figure in 1942-43 was £118,000. On the 21st June, last year, the Minister stated that of that sum £30,000 was allocated as administrative charges in respect of the means test—in other words—25 per cent. of the total cost of administration.
In this resolution, we are asking that the means test might be modified to the extent that income in excess of £52 a year would be disregarded, so far as the investigators are concerned. I think that proposal is reasonable and will not make an undue charge on the Exchequer. It is one that will be very deeply appreciated by those about to come into benefit as beneficiaries and is one that will be welcomed by all sections of this House, since I am bound to say that concern for the aged is not the preserve of any particular Party here.
On numerous occasions since I came into this House, I have drawn attention here—and so have members from all quarters—to the position obtaining so far as voluntary pensions are concerned in both industrial and commercial firms. I am glad to say that, for the last five years or so, there seems to be a growing tendency on the part of employers to give a voluntary pension on discharge at the age of 65— which seems to be the general figure in industry throughout the world. The individual between 65 and 70, therefore, has to fend for himself as best he can. Employers are recognising the difficulties with which their late employee would be faced and, consequently, more and more of them are coming in on what may be described as a voluntary superannuation scheme. Again, the vicious circle enters at the age of 70. The pension, usually a small one, is immediately docked at the age of 70, because of the fact that this particular means test will apply and the head of the industrial firm is prepared, naturally, to saddle the Exchequer with the 10/- rather than bear it himself, when he knows that it can just as easily be had from the State.
The suggestion I make to the Minister—it has been made by several members before—is that we might encourage this type of voluntary pension to the extent of £1 or 30/- a week, as it may be, and that, in addition, the State pension of 10/- will automatically apply. I do not think that is an excessive demand. I think, again, that not alone the employees, but the employers generally throughout the country, would be prepared to co-operate in a scheme of that character. I may mention, too, that in the trade union movement a number of trade unions provide a superannuation scheme on a small basis for their members retiring at the age of 65, or in the years between 65 and 70. They, naturally, suffer the same disabilities. I will not say more on the means test than that, because I know that Deputy Keyes will have something to say about it, as will other members of the House.
I should like to indicate to the Minister that a motion in almost similar terms was debated in this House in 1944, and the only distinction between the motion then before the House and the one that is now before it is that a figure of 22/6 is substituted for 20/- The reason for that was that on our side we felt the necessity for bringing it into line with the money payment which operated in Northern Ireland which was, from a pension and a supplementary pension, 22/6, although there is this point, that, since the cost of living in Northern Ireland is generally regarded on a 20 per cent. lower basis, the figure of 22/6 represents a higher purchasing value there than here. That is the reason for the alteration from 20/- to 22/6.
When that debate took place in 1944, and, indeed, on other occasions, the answer of the Minister in charge at the time usually was that the cost of the motion would be prohibitive, since the charges would have to be made up out of taxation. Reference in that respect is usually made to the cost of expanding social services. It is true, as was pointed out on the last occasion, that an increase of 1/- a week would cost the Exchequer £385,000, and a figure of 5/- would cost just slightly under £2,000,000—that is, with the basis of age at 70. Actually, the figure of cost for the motion in 1944 was given as £12,500,000, less, of course, approximately £4,000,000, the cost of the then existing services.
One of the reasons why the Minister for Finance, as a rule, says that he cannot accede to this request is the cost of expanding social services. On this occasion I want very clearly to say to the Minister that on these benches we have an entirely different conception of the term social services from that which he and his colleagues are prepared to place upon it. I would say that when a nation is compelled, as apparently ours has been compelled for some time, under the guise of social services to resort to such expedients as free boots, fuel and food, then quite frankly such a nation is very definitely, both socially and economically, sick. Services of that kind are not social services. Throughout the world, in every progressive democratic State, social services are classed under three or four headings. They are common to these countries and should be standard here. These are the care of the aged, the sick, the infirm, the widow and orphan, and the blind person. I say, therefore, that any of the other services for which taxation is being imposed on our people, outside of those in that category, is very definitely not a social service as we view it.
I suggest a continuation of that scale of services is just merely a device to stave off what should be, in effect, a radical solution, and that solution is to be found working with success in countries as far apart as New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and the Scandinavian countries; it is now in operation in Great Britain and is praised from practically every platform in the United States. That solution is the exploitation of our national resources on the basis of a policy of full employment calculated to increase the pool of national wealth from which real social services can be fed. That is not happening here; it is not, apparently, likely to happen for some time and I suggest to the Minister that, in the light of the position which operates for so many of these people suffering from keen hardships outside, we cannot afford any longer to go down the slippery slope and something in excess of sympathy is needed, something practical and something that should be done quickly.
I am hopeful that the Minister, who is appearing here in his capacity as Minister for Finance for the first time on this particular subject, will not only approach this subject with sympathy, as I feel he will, but that he will give some evidence that he is prepared to ease the burdens which now lie so heavily on shoulders that can ill afford to bear them.
