Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1955

Vol. 151 No. 7

Social Welfare Bill, 1955—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Minister for Finance, in his Financial Statement on the 4th of last month, announced that the Government had decided to increase old age and blind pensions, and widows' non-contributory pensions; and he indicated that legislation would be introduced with a view to having the increases made operative from Friday, the 29th July, 1955. The object of this Bill, then, is to obtain legislative authority for the proposed increases.

I do not think it is a Bill which requires much explanation. So far as old age and blind pensions are concerned, the effect is that the present weekly rates—21/6, 16/6, 11/6 and 6/6—will each be increased by 2/6. The number of pensioners who will benefit by these increases is about 166,000 of whom some 6,000 are blind pensioners.

A glance at trends in old age, and blind, pension rates in the past seven or eight years may not be out of place. In 1948 the statutory rates were the same as in 1928, ranging from 10s. down to 1s., but, under Emergency Powers Orders, cash supplements to pension were being paid at 5s. a week in the cities and towns, and at 2/6 a week in the rural areas. In the rural areas the public assistance authorities had power to grant additional supplemental allowances, up to a maximum of another 2/6 a week, to pensioners in necessitous circumstances. Seventy-five per cent of this expenditure was recoverable by the local authority from State funds.

Under the Social Welfare Act of 1948 which was one of the first measures introduced by the inter-Party Government all these supplements were discontinued, and new inclusive rates of old age and blind pensions were provided as from the 7th January, 1949, the maximum being increased to 17/6 a week.

In his Second Reading speech on the Social Welfare (Insurance) (No. 2) Bill, 1950, Mr. Norton, the then Minister for Social Welfare, informed the House on the 2nd March, 1951, that he intended on the Committee Stage of the Bill to introduce amendments relating to old age pensions, which would include raising the maximum to 20s. a week. Before this could be done there was a change of Government, but under the Social Welfare Act of 1951, promoted by my predecessor, the increase to 20s. a week was authorised with effect from 5th October, 1951.

Under the Social Welfare Act of 1952 the maximum rate was increased to 21/6 a week as from 4th July, 1952, to compensate pensioners for the increased cost of food due to the reduction of subsidies.

There is, I think, general agreement that the present rates of old age pensions should be increased to the maximum extent permitted by the financial position of the country. Many Deputies will, no doubt, ask for larger increases than those provided in this Bill and the Government would be glad to grant larger amounts were it not for the fact that even small increases in the rates of old age pensions mean that a large additional sum has to be found. The increase of 2/6 per week now being provided will cost £1,085,000 in a full year. The estimated cost of old age and blind pensions in the current financial year before providing for the increases now proposed is £9,420,000. The annual cost, therefore, when the increased rates are in force will be £10,505,000. This sum represents 2.4 per cent. of the total national income for 1953, the latest figure available. It may be noted that the corresponding figure for Great Britain is 2.5 per cent. so that we are devoting almost the same proportion of our national income to the payment of old age pensions as Great Britain does.

The other recipients of pensions for whom provision is made in this Bill are widows who are in receipt of non-contributory pensions. These number approximately 28,000 and they will each receive an additional 2/6 per week as from the 29th July next. If the widow has one dependent child she will receive a further 1/- per week and where she has two or more dependent children a further 2/- per week in addition to the 2/6 per week mentioned earlier. A widow with two or more dependent children will as from 29th July next receive 36/6 per week as a non-contributory pension if her means do not exceed £52 10s. per annum. The increases in the rates of pension will cost the Exchequer £199,000 per annum and will bring the annual cost of non-contributory pensions for widows up to £1,799,000.

As in the case of old age pensions the first inter-Party Government provided in the Social Welfare Act, 1948, for increases in the rates of widows' non-contributory pensions. Prior to the passing of that Act widows residing in county boroughs received 11/6 per week and those in urban districts 10/- per week inclusive of the cash supplement to their pensions. These two rates were each raised to 14/- per week by the Social Welfare Act, 1948 and rates of 7/6 per week and 8/- per week for widows resident in small towns and in rural areas, respectively, were each raised to 10/- per week.

The rates of non-contributory pensions for widows were further increased by the Social Welfare Act, 1952, under the provisions of which the, maximum pension for a widow with two or more dependent children became 32/- per week. Under the present Bill this figure is being raised to 36/6 per week as from 29th July next, so that the increase in such cases is 4/6 a week.

Deputies will note that taking old age and blind pensioners and widows in receipt of non-contributory pensions together the number of beneficiaries under this Bill will be approximately 194,000. These classes are amongst the most deserving in the community and each pensioner will as from the 29th July next receive an additional sum of 2/6 to 4/6 per week.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his provisions for the most needy section of our community. It is true that some of us had hoped that the provision would be higher and that an increase sufficient to bring the pension to 25/- per week would have been possible. We realise that, under the circumstances, perhaps, that is not within the power of the Minister at the moment, but I would stress that we still feel there is room for improvement in these pensions because of the fact that these particular types of people are subject to a very severe means test.

It is on that means test that I would like to say a few words. I believe that when the Minister again approaches the question of old age pensions, either for the old age and blind pensioners or the non-contributory widows, he should consider the question of removing the means test completely. I had occasion to put down a parliamentary question to the Minister some time ago and I think his reply was that to do away with the means test would cost approximately £2,000,000 per year extra. I do not know how close the Minister could go, in reply, to the actual figure, but even assuming it went as high as £2,000,000, I believe there would be contrary savings that would reduce that amount considerably. The time and the money spent in investigating the claims of old age and blind pensioners and of non-contributory widow pensioners would represent a considerable saving. In the light of the help and the feeling of independence it would give to the people who have to avail of this service, I think the country would be amply repaid.

The means test as it operates at present is to my mind absolutely unjust. Take the case of a substantial farmer with up to £50 valuation. He can, under certain circumstances, divest himself of his farm, hand it over to his son and at the same time draw the full pension while he reserves for himself the right of a living in that farm, the right of shelter and food; and there is nothing to stop his son giving him a share in the profits of that farm. When I say that, I do not want it to be thought that I have anything against a farmer getting that, but contrast him with the working man, with a county council worker. If he is over 65 and his wife is 70 years, she is refused a pension. She will not get a single penny because half of his income is related to her. Taking still the county council worker or the ordinary industrial worker who has paid in a considerable sum out of his small wage each week as a contribution towards a retirement pension, we find that the very fact that he has saved and gone without in order to provide a pension for himself will automatically debar not only him but also his wife from an old age pension.

I think these are grave, glaring defects and that it is the duty of the Minister to investigate and to reform the code in such a way that it will be an enticement and an inducement to our people to provide as much as they can for old age without having to pay the penalty of being deprived of the pension that most people get because of the fact that they were thrifty.

Did Deputy Kyne say £50 valuation?

£50 and under.

Maybe it is £30.

I rise to compliment the Minister on bringing in this Bill because it is felt throughout the country that the sections of our community who benefit under it are the most needy people under our care. I would like to add to what Deputy Kyne has said and to bring this matter to the Minister's attention in the hope that perhaps on some future occasion he may deal with it. Deputy Kyne has referred to a class of farmer who may transfer his holding to his son and obtain the pension having done so. It is a fact that, when this was introduced some few years ago it was a very good thing to do, that up to that time it was impossible for a farmer to get the old age pension on attaining the age of 70 years unless he transferred his farm on marriage. This provision was made, I think, during the inter-Party's term of office.

Now, Deputy, it was not made at that time.

The provision was that a farm under £35 valuation could be transferred and that the person who transferred the farm would qualify for an old age pension. The Act, however, specified that the transfer must be to a son or daughter. Throughout the country there are childless couples who, instead of leasing their farm, take in a nephew or a niece at a young age. That nephew or niece may spend the best years of their lives working on that farm with that couple—uncle or aunt as the case may be. That old couple settle the farm on the nephew or niece who becomes the proprietor. I would bring to the Minister's attention this fact and ask him to extend the scope of the Act to take in such cases so that a farmer with a valuation of under £35 could obtain a pension after he had assigned his farm to a nephew or niece.

I should like to congratulate the Minister, not so much on anything he has done in this Bill but because of the conversion that has taken place and the eventual realisation by the Minister that pensions and assistance generally are governed by the Government of the day. It may be boring, but nevertheless we have to refresh the memories of the public because shortly they will again be reminded of those promises which were given to them 12 months ago. It is not my intention to read extracts of the promises of the various Coalition speakers before the last election.

Read them in the local elections.

Since Deputy O'Leary has so kindly interrupted me I shall read him one of his. It will show that the public in the last general election were firmly convinced that many increases of a substantial nature would be given to them. The Minister has said that that could not happen because he had to cut his cloth according to his Government's measure. Deputy O'Leary has changed his tune since the 8th May, 1954, almost exactly a year ago.

What did I say?

You got up below in Wexford and said: "How long can a man be expected to live and bring up a family on 50/- a week?" Will Deputy O'Leary now say the same thing? Are you still satisfied that a man cannot live on 50/- a week?

The Deputy must use the third person.

What are you quoting from now?

I am quoting from the Wexford Free Press.

Hear, hear!

So long as it is not the Irish Press.

As I have said, the public were convinced that the increases would be very substantial and they are now sorely disappointed. I have a feeling that the Government, in the local elections, are going to receive a vote of no confidence in no uncertain manner. There is one point which has evidently been overlooked by the national Press and that is the question of the types or categories of persons who are going to benefit from this proposed Bill. It has been freely stated that widows without the word in brackets "non-contributory" are going to benefit. It should be pointed out that widows on contributory pensions will get nothing at all—that it is only those in the non-contributory class—the Minister mentioned 28,000 of them—who are concerned.

The Minister must be sorely disappointed that he cannot implement his own wishes. Speaking evidently at the same meeting as Deputy O'Leary, because it was on the same day, and he is quoted in the same paper, he said that: "Fianna Fáil boasted of their social welfare scheme but could any man maintain himself on 21/6 a week or could an old age pensioner do it on 24/- a week or a married man with a wife and three children do it on 50/- a week?" If he could not do it in 1954 on 50/- how can he do it now, with an increase in price in each of 40 commodities?

There were specific promises by all the Coalition speakers that the unemployment assistance would be increased. There is no mention of those increases made here, but as I say I appreciate the Minister's attitude that he has to cut his cloth according to his measure and that being in such a position he had to deal with those whom he considered to be in most necessitous circumstances. From that point of view I would expect him possibly at some date in the very near future to give some consideration to those receiving the £1 a week disability allowances.

The Deputy may not refer to all those things. He must confine himself to the scope allowed by the Bill.

I am only recommending——

The Deputy may not discuss the matters he is endeavouring to raise on this Bill.

With respect, I am suggesting it should be in the Bill.

It does not come within the scope of the Bill.

It is for the Department of Health, anyway.

Am I to take it, a Cheann Comhairle, that I am not empowered to discuss widows' and orphans' pensions or maternity grants or the administration of matters under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Social Welfare?

As the Deputy proceeds to deal with the matter I shall tell him what comes within the scope of the Bill and what does not.

I want to refer to the question of home assistance and I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the administration of home assistance.

Administration does not arise upon this Bill. It may arise relevantly on another motion which will come before the House, but it does not arise on this Bill.

May I discuss home assistance?

No. Administration is not permissible on this Bill. As I have said the Deputy may raise it at another time.

I want to discuss the payment of T.B. allowances.

That is a provision under the Health Department and does not come under the Department of Social Welfare.

I want to discuss the payment period of unemployment.

That is another consideration.

I would not rise to speak at all on this measure were it not for the remarks of the young Deputy from Limerick. Deputy O'Malley is new to this House. Indeed, I think he is new in politics.

We in the Labour Party are glad that a Labour Minister has been able to do something which his predecessor in Fianna Fáil did not do. Indeed, the only thing that Fianna Fáil Deputies seem to be able to do is to read quotations. We all know that this Government is comparatively new. Taking the Easter and the Christmas recess into consideration and the fact that we did not take office until June of last year, we have not really been 12 months at work.

We were told by Fianna Fáil speakers —I heard them myself—that the Coalition could do nothing; they could give no increases because the money was not available. If Deputy O'Malley had been here when Deputy Dr. Ryan was Minister for Social Welfare he would know that Deputy Dr. Ryan told me here on one occasion that an increase of 1/6 was enough to meet the cost of living; and at that time butter was 5d. per lb. dearer than it is to-day. The Deputy must remember that this Government had to face a problem in the winter that has gone, a problem which no other Government had to face. I am referring to the flooding in the Shannon valley and in Dublin, as a result of which money had to be provided by way of compensation for those who suffered as a result of the flooding.

Remembering all that, the old age pensioners will be glad to get this increase of 2/6. The sooner it is put into operation, of course, the better. I admit it is not much. I would like to see more being given and I hope that next year there will be a further increase. I think something should be done in relation to the people who go out to the old age pensioners' houses and probe for information.

The Deputy is now going into administration.

That probing has had the result of depriving some of these old people of their pensions.

The Deputy will have another opportunity of discussing that. He may not do it on this measure.

I think that a lot of these people, widows included, should be brought up to 36/- a week. That would be a good increase. The present increase is small but it is nevertheless a welcome one. After all, we were told we could do nothing.

I am glad a young Labour Minister has introduced this measure to the House and obtained the approval of the Cabinet for it. That is something upon which everyone must congratulate him. We hope next year there will be a still further increase and that by the end of our five years social services here will be as good as they are across the water.

Nuair a bhí an Rúnaí Parlaiminte ag cainnt ar an mBille so dúirt sé go raibh an tathrú i riaradh na nAchtanna Sean Pinsean a bhaineas leis na feirmeoirï curtha a bhfeidhm i 1948. Ba chóir don duine uasal so a bheith curamach le na chuid fioraí.

Ba chóir dó smaoineamh ar an mbotún a rinne sé nuair a bhí sé ag cainnt ar na hallaí damhsa. Tá sé 'na Rúnaí Parlaiminte anois. Do rinneadh an tathrú i bfabhir na bhfeirmeóiri beaga i rith réim Fianna Fáil blianta roimh teacht isteach don Rialtas Comhpháirteach.

The measure before the House represents the only bright spot introduced into this House since this Government took office. I would like to congratulate the Minister on having had the opportunity of increasing the old age pensions by 2/6. At the same time, I would make a very strong appeal to him to go back to the Government and ask them to give an extra 1/-. I think that request would be supported by every member of the House.

I would like to support the appeal, too, of Deputy Kyne in relation to the investigation or the means test imposed on old age pensioners. Surely after 50 years of old age pension legislation we ought to have reached the stage in 1995 where the old age pension is automatically given at 70. The large sum paid to meet the increased bill for pensions would be saved in the cost of investigation and administration.

Deputy O'Leary said, in the course of his remarks, that all we can do on this side of the House is refer to newspaper cuttings, to speeches made here and quote from the Official Report. I want now to give the Minister this assurance. No bonfires will be lit because of the extra half-crown that is being given to old age pensioners. No matter how glad the pensioners are because of the increase they still feel it is a niggardly award.

I happen to be a home assistance officer and I went to the trouble of seeking the opinions of some of the old age pensioners to find out in what light they regarded this increase. I shall quote now, not from newspaper reports, but the actual words of the people I asked:

"They broke their hearts. As far as I can see the pension will not be worth anything with the cost of living as it is."

The second one is:—

"God only knows where we will be in July."

That was in reference to the fact that the inquiry was made during the month of May. Another old age pensioner, and this is about the most favourable comment, said:—

"Better than nothing. You cannot make them give any more".

Another one said:—

"It is not a whole lot, is it? I do not know how we manage. Everything has gone very dear".

Another one said:—

"They broke their hearts, God help them, and the coal going up. We will be dead before we get it".

Would they not be foolish to say anything else to the Deputy, a home assistance officer?

They would not.

They would not say anything else.

Possibly it is not correct for me to quote these in the House. I merely quote them to show how these people feel.

Did the Deputy give any increase in the home assistance?

These people feel, and I am sure the Minister himself feels, that the 24/-, or the 25/- which I suggest, is not anything like adequate to meet the extra cost of living imposed on these people. Recently the Minister made an Order in connection with persons who qualify for the disablement allowance that the first 10/- of that allowance is not to be taken into consideration in connection with people who have to apply for home assistance. If the Minister did the same thing in relation to the old age pensioners he would be doing something worth while.

The advance made is to be welcomed in so far as it goes, but I am sure the House and the Minister realise that there are cases of special hardship, principally among old age pensioners living alone, and having to meet all the demands of rent, maintenance and the usual charges that go with a household. Some local authorities give them additional benefits when they are approaching 80 years of age and are getting really helpless. In the local authority in Cork some of these people are getting 4/- and in some cases 5/- a week in addition to what was previously granted. I am sure the Minister will not interfere with the discretion of local authorities in such cases and that the addition of half-a-crown a week now being granted will not take from the discretion of local authorities in cases of special hardship.

As far as the suggestion made about the means test is concerned I think it would be welcome, but I do not think that it can be dealt with under the present Bill. The one appeal that I would make to the Minister is in respect of these old age pensioners who are living alone.

I do not think that any of us would agree that even if we were to grant 4/- or 5/- a week to the old age pensioners it would be adequate for them to subsist. This is the first installment by the Government to redeem the promises made in respect of social service benefits. I think it is a remarkable step forward and I think that it is brazen impudence on the part of the two Deputies from the Fianna Fáil side of the House who described that increase as niggardly. Those others from the opposite side of the House who said that they welcomed the increase genuinely meant it, but do Deputies O'Malley and Gogan understand what was the attitude of their Party to this matter not less than six months ago? Would it be wrong for me to quote what the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party said to the delegates at the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis when the matter was mentioned? He said that in view of the fact that taxation had reached such a high limit it would be, in present circumstances, dangerous to increase social services. If that is the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party why do they describe this proposal for old age pensioners and widows and orphans as niggardly?

Deputy MacEntee spoke on the Budget debate and it must be agreed that if he was still Minister for Finance there would be no increase given to old age pensioners or widows and orphans. Speaking on the 18th May at column 1723 of the Official Report he said:

"I was saying that if we were in office to-day there would have been in this year's Budget a reduction in the standard rate of income-tax and there would have been a corresponding reduction of an equivalent amount in other taxes as well and there would have been no cut in the social services."

He went on to say that if he had been Minister for Finance there would have been no cut in social services but he said nothing about an improvement.

Deputy Lemass welcomed the proposal to increase the benefits but described them as niggardly and said that they were merely sufficient to compensate for the increase in the cost of living for which this Government was responsible.

That is right. In April, 1952, when Deputy MacEntee in his Budget speech announced the withdrawal of certain food subsidies he said that in order to compensate the old age pensioners and widows and orphans for the increase in the cost of living which would be involved he proposed to give them an increase of 1/6 per week. The effect of the withdrawal of the food subsidies in the 1952 Budget was to increase the cost-of-living index figure from 115 to 122 points. That was admitted by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was Taoiseach in reply to a parliamentary question. Fianna Fáil contended that to compensate for an increase of seven points in the index figure an increase of 1/6 a week was sufficient. Since we assumed office the index figure has increased from 124 to 126 points and we are now giving an increase of 2/6 a week to the old age pensioners. If the Fianna Fáil increase of 1/6 for an increase in the cost of living of seven points was justified surely we are now attempting to undo some of the damage done to these people by the withdrawal of the food subsidies in 1952.

I did not intend to make these points and I only make them now in view of some of the remarks made by Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Gogan. I do not think, and I am sure the majority of Deputies in this House agree with me, that the old age pensioners should be made the subject of political controversy. I am sure that during my term of office and the term of office of the Government this will not be the only assistance we will give to these people. In respect of the other people now in receipt of social welfare benefits we are prepared to implement our promises and I can promise the House and assure the Opposition that, as far as I am concerned, the promises we made will be honoured to the letter.

Deputy Kyne raised the question of the means test. I explained to him before that to do away completely with the means test would cost somewhere in the region of £2,750,000. I would like to dispel from his mind the idea that the doing away of the means test would mean a very big saving as far as administration is concerned. From the information available to me it appears that if the means test was abolished the saving in administration would amount to about £25,000. I want to say that I am still a believer in the principle that there should be no means test in respect of old age pensions and I believe that in the present circumstances, if there is any sum of money available to the extent of £2,000,000 or £2,750,000, it should be devoted to improving the weekly allowance. I do not know whether or not it will be possible for me during my term of office to completely abolish the means test but I do hope and trust that I will be able to effect some improvement. I can see that there are many hardships and anomalies and we all hope that there could be some improvement in its operation as it stands at the present time.

On a point of order. The Minister has suggested that I used the word "niggardly". I did not use the word niggardly in describing the increase in the old age pensions. The Minister also misquoted Deputy de Valera——

The Deputy is now going into another speech. I allowed him a point of personal explanation.

Perhaps the Minister would deal with the point I raised as regards the discretion of local authorities to give special benefits in cases of particular hardship.

As far as local authorities are concerned the sky is the limit. They can use their own discretion.

The local authority with which I am concerned is giving 4/- and 5/- a week where the old age pensioner is living alone and is approaching 80 years of age and over it. I am sure the discretion of the local authority will still operate in that regard. That is all I have to ask the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.
Top
Share