I had hoped, before I made such few observations as I have to make on this motion, to have heard the Minister and to have learned what attitude he intends to adopt upon what I conceive to be a very reasonable motion. This motion was moved and fairly fully discussed last March. I think the actual motion has been on the Order Paper for over 12 months. It was designedly drafted to be as reasonable a request as possible to the Government to consider a problem which is causing the gravest perturbation amongst some of the most deserving classes in the community, old age pensioners, persons in receipt of blind pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions.
It would have been a very simple matter for the movers of the motion to put down a flamboyant request to the Government, asking for large increases in old age pensions, blind pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions, but it was held that it might be possible to secure a discussion of the particular problem mentioned in this motion in a calm and reasoned fashion and to arrive at a decision on the merits of the case, without any suggestion that either this Party, on whose behalf the motion is moved, or any person or Party in the House was doing so for the purpose of gaining any particular political advantage. It would have been simple to put down a request to the Minister to remove altogether the means test, or to raise the level to a very substantial extent, but what this motion really does is to direct the attention of the Government to the fact which, I think, cannot be controverted, that the basis on which the means tests in reference to old age pensions, blind pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions are operated is no longer appropriate to the circumstances existing to-day.
There is no doubt that the system of interrogation to which these unfortunate people are subjected by officials carrying out, as they must, the law, has been a source of great irritation to these people, has aroused great indignation amongst them and has, incidentally, in some cases, possibly caused great hardship. This means test, or the basis upon which it is assessed, finds its roots in the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908. The basis of assessment of means was modified by the Act of 1911 and subsequently by two Acts of the Oireachtas, the Acts of 1924 and 1932, but, substantially, the method of assessing the means of old age pensioners and others remains as it was established in 1908 and amended in 1911. At that time, old age pensions were a complete social innovation. I have never been able to understand what is the philosophy, if we could dignify it by such a term, behind the ascertainment of the means of old age pensioners and its relation to the actual amount of pension given.
It is said that the amount of the old age pension cannot be looked upon in any way as being equivalent to something which will enable the recipient to maintain himself or herself in decent comfort. If that be the basis of old age and other pensions, that the amount given does not purport to represent what it will cost to maintain the pensioner, then, why are the grants of the pensions surrounded by all these rules, regulations and administrative queries with a view to keeping down the amount of the pension to its minimum, having regard to what can be assessed as the amount of income the old age pensioner has?
Deputies, in the course of this debate, gave example after example of the hardships suffered by these pensioners, owing to this system. It is clear that these people are interrogated by the officials, who must carry out the law, as to whether or not they are getting anything from their sons, their daughters, from charitable neighbours or from other charitable sources. Every penny and even every halfpenny is reckoned up, with a view, if at all possible, to bringing up the so-called means of the pensioner to a point where it will be possible to reduce the amount of money the pensioner receives from the State. The fact that the old age pensioner lives in a room in a house belonging to a relative, whether a son, a daughter or anybody else, is taken into account. There are some words in the Act of 1911—I am speaking from recollection—about the statutory necessity for taking into account in assessing means, "benefits or privileges" obtained by the old age pensioner. All sorts of things are capable of being, and are habitually raked in in order artificially to inflate the amount of money being received by the old-age pensioner and so to reduce the amount given by the State.
I have a recollection—unfortunately time did not permit me to verify my recollection—that one of the former Ministers for Finance in the present Government, introducing his Budget proposals some considerable time ago, gave, as one of the methods by which he intended to balance his Budget, savings on old age pensions by administrative action, that is to say, by more active interrogation, cross-examination and investigation by the officials into all the sources, small as well as big, of persons in receipt of these pensions.
As I said, these interrogations and cross-examinations have caused the greatest irritation and annoyance. It is not easy to see why, if an old age pensioner is assisted by his son from his earnings, it should be taken into account in assessing his income. He cannot live on the 10/- a week he used to get, not on the 12/6 a week he is now getting, even though it is supplemented by some additional cash allowance, instead of the vouchers which used to be given. The old age pension, plus the cash in lieu of the vouchers which is now given, will not allow of any person subsisting on any reasonable or decent level. Where is the rest to come from? The statutory minimum, even if a person has that amount, will not allow a person to have a decent living.
What is the philosophy behind the whole of it? It is said that the old age pension and the other pensions are not given in order that a person may live on them, but administrative action giving effect to the provisions of these laws in effect dries up the source which would supplement the pension and enable the old age pensioner, the blind pensioner and the widows and orphans to live at a decent level. That has always appeared to me to constitute a grave injustice in connection with these pensions. I am unable to understand what is at the back of it, unless we go back to the origin of the whole matter in the Act of 1908. These proposals were an innovation at the time; the pension was something that was then regarded as a bounty of great magnitude; nothing like it existed before. It was natural in that state of facts that there should be certain restrictions imposed in connection with the means test. But those times have now long gone by.
This motion merely asks—and I think I am correct in submitting to the House that it is a reasonable request— that the Government revise the basis on which the means of the pensioners are calculated for the purpose of getting the small amount which they get by way of a pension. I think the existing circumstances demand, and common justice requires, that the amount of money which is being given either in cash or in kind by the relative of an old age pensioner to supplement his pension or to a blind person or a widow to supplement her pension and enable her to bring up her children should not be taken into account. The only result is to save the Exchequer or else get the son or other relative giving money to withdraw that bounty. Why should the room in a house be taken into account in assessing income? Why should every little thing be taken into account? I do not know whether, in assessing means, the amount of money given by charitable associations and societies like the St. Vincent de Paul Society are reckoned, but I imagine they would be.
The motion merely states that the basis of assessment requires revision. Surely that is a reasonable view to take, considering that the basis on which the means of old age pensioners are calculated was settled in the year 1908 and substantially has not been changed since. It does require revision.
It appears to be the policy of the Government not to increase these old age pensions any further than they have been increased because it is said that the taxpayer cannot afford it. If that be so, surely there is a way of easing the burden for those pensioners, a way in which it will cost the taxpayer little, if anything. Why not let the old age pensioner get his full pension and let his relative assist him either by giving him a room in a house or food and clothing or odd payments, or even periodic payments?
I have in mind one case that occurred in England where an elderly lady had spent her life in a certain service and at the end of 40 or 50 years of that service she retired without a pension. She got the old age pension. But a certain lady, being charitably disposed and knowing of her circumstances, as a measure of her charitable bounty supplemented out of her own private income this old lady's pension. It was discovered by the old age pension officer and the charitable lady in question was lucky not to have been prosecuted.
I cannot understand that. That might occur here, too. An old age pensioner has 12/6 a week now. Let us say there is a charitable person who wishes to bestow charity anonymously on a well-deserved object and who decides to supplement an old person's pension in order to enable that person to live in reasonable comfort. The charitable person supplements the pension to a point where it will be increased above the amount allowed by the Act. The State will immediately cut off or decrease that pension. Where is the justice in that? Where is the necessity for it, except to cheese-pare for the benefit of the taxpayer?
I do not think any person, however much he may deplore the weight of taxation in this country, will object to the proposals put forward in this motion. There is no politics in this motion; there is nothing to be gained out of it. Deputy O'Higgins and myself have put it forward in the belief that it is a reasonable request, in the hope that it will be favourably considered. Whatever advantage may be got out of that favourable consideration, the Minister and the Government can have a present of it.
I have felt for many years past the injustice of the manner in which these old age pensioners are being treated in reference to the ascertainment of their means. I can instance the case of an old lady who was married to a waiter. He was working and she got a pension. She was cross-examined and he was cross-examined, not merely as to what he got while working as a waiter but as to the tips he got and what was done with them. She was asked if she was out working and if she was getting assistance from anybody else. Subsequently her pension was decreased. I cannot understand the justice or the morality of that decision.
I think the taxpayer is bound to make provision for the abolition of these cross-examinations which go on day after day among some of the poorer sections of the community. I ask the Minister to consider this motion favourably. At the risk, perhaps, of too much repetition, let me say that it was put down designedly as a reasonable motion in the hope that what we conceive to be a very great injustice will be remedied.
Perhaps it is not within the scope of this motion, but there is one matter that was referred to in the course of the discussion to-day that the Minister, in conjunction with this motion, might also consider. It was mentioned by other speakers that several firms have pension schemes for their employees. When they reach a certain age they get these pensions, which are small in amount, not sufficient to keep them in decent comfort. Indeed, they would not be sufficient sometimes to keep them from starvation. These amounts must be supplemented. When the pensioners reach the age of 70 that amount is not allowed to be added to the old age pension but is taken into account in assessing their means. The result is that these firms who are prepared to give pensions to their employees must take away those pensions. That is another aspect which is a corollary to some of the matters in this motion and which might easily be considered by the Minister.
I think I am right in saying that in the course of the discussion of this motion last March Deputies from every Party appeared from their speeches to support it. So far we have had no indication of the official attitude towards it. Perhaps we may hope that with all the money the Minister states from public platforms and elsewhere he is about to distribute he will just lop a little off here and there and give something to the old age and other pensioners in order to carry out the recommendations referred to in this motion.
