Review of Pensions—Motion.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move:

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that, in view of the steep rise in the cost of living, and the difficulties created thereby for all pensioners, the whole question of pensions should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

The purpose of this motion is to secure a review of all pensions and a revision upwards of pensions to meet the changes arising from the rising cost of living. This motion has been framed in order to ensure that all categories of pensioners are included in it—or rather it has been framed so as to ensure that no category of pensioner, either State or other classes, will be excluded from consideration.

In recent months there has been both in the House and generally throughout the country quite an amount of discussion on the rise in the cost of living and many references have been made to the increases in salaries and wages, particularly to the recent rise in wages and salaries known as the eighth round. With few exceptions, all wage and salary earners have received adjustments. I say with few exceptions because there are a few sections, either those who are self-employed, or possibly some of those employed in particular types of work, who have received no increases comparable to the eighth round.

But in general, State personnel, employees of private concerns, employees of State companies and, generally, all categories of wage and salary earners in the community have received or are in the process of receiving the benefits of the eighth round of wage increases. Since the end of the war, salaries and wages of various categories have been adjusted on eight occasions, with, as I say, possibly some few exceptions, so that since the end of the war, either to meet the rise in the cost of living or, on one or two occasions, to improve the general standards of the wage and salary structure, increases in salaries and wages have been granted on eight occasions.

As I say, there are certain exceptions. With the exclusion of self-employed people and certain other categories who may not have been included, by and large the vast majority of wage and salary earners have received eight increases over that period. During the same period there have been only four increases in respect of pensioners. Here again there are exceptions because some of the pensioners have received no increases. However, as far as State pensioners are concerned, with possible exceptions where apparently only three increases have been made operative, pensions have been increased on four occasions only, so that compared with wage and salary earners, pensioners have not received the same attention or the same consideration.

I think it is generally agreed that one of the severe effects of economic conditions since the end of the war has been the adverse effect on persons living on fixed incomes and they include pensioners of all categories whether they are retired State personnel or people retired from private employment. Their pensions have been fixed on the basis of pay at retirement and once that system is in operation and that criterion accepted as the standard on which pensions are based, then because of the drop in the value of money and the rise in the cost of living over a number of years, the position of pensioners has been seriously affected.

It is, therefore, desirable that this motion should be considered in the light of the economic conditions which affect the various categories of pensioners in the community. Pensions, as I say, are based on pay at retirement and are generally regarded as being percentages of the active pay earned at the date of retirement. That has been the standard on which pensions have been based. They have been the statutory conditions governing all State pensioners since the early 19th century.

The House will agree that that basis is no longer valid. The idea of fixing a pension on the basis of salary at retirement was all right when the value of money was constant. The parent Superannuation Act is an old Act passed in the 19th century. There was an amending Act subsequently passed and there were various amending Acts since which varied or increased the rate but the basis on which pensions are fixed is still that of a percentage of pay at retirement. That worked reasonably satisfactorily when the value of money was constant and when economic fluctuations such as those we have witnessed since the last war did not operate. In actual fact, the parent Superannuation Act was passed before the Franco-Prussian war which is generally regarded as the start in modern times of a change in the value of money. Subsequently there was a settled period up to the first world war when an inflationary period followed and in the twenties and thirties, the value of money was reasonably constant.

During the last war and during all the years that have passed since the beginning of the last war, whether the tempo of the changes varied or not, there has been a continuous decrease in the value of money and a continuous rise in the cost of living. I want the House to consider and review the whole pensions code here and the basis on which pensions are paid to retired personnel. In addition to that, if we examine what has happened, we will see that there have been changes in comparatively recent times which have affected adversely the position of pensioners compared with their former colleagues who have been in a position to serve on for longer periods.

Over the past few years, there have been substantial wage and salary increases to serving State personnel, whether civil servants, Garda, Army, teachers or whatever categories are paid directly or indirectly by the State. When these wage and salary adjustments were granted, whether they were made directly by the Government or through arbitration or conciliation machinery, the increases were decided upon and the State paid them. There was no suggestion that the State should not pay. Only a couple of weeks ago the Taoiseach, in the course of the discussion on the Vote on Account, expressed the view that he did not think there would be any opposition either in the House or outside it to the Government's decision to pay the wage and salary adjustments concerned in the eighth round; that the State had the same responsibility to pay these increases as had private employers.

No one would suggest that the State should not fulfil its obligations in that regard. Why, therefore, should they differentiate between State pensioners and State personnel still serving? The reason why these differences obtain is because of the outdated method of calculating pensions based on pay on retirement. That was reasonable and satisfactory enough when pay remained constant over a relatively long period. The pay for a particular category was awarded according to rank and the pensions were based on the appropriate basis of pay on retirement.

In the past few months, and I do not propose to go back any further than that at the moment, there have been very substantial pay adjustments in respect of the Army and the Garda and I understand that the Minister for Finance is at present engaged in negotiations in respect of pay adjustments for civil servants. That development means that quite a large number of pensioners who retired last July or August now find that a person serving in the same rank who had the same number of years of service with the exception of a few months and who retired after the 1st November last is substantially better off than the man who retired in July or August.

That change has come about because, in the meantime, due to the rise in the cost of living or the wage and salary adjustments of the eighth round of wage increases, the emoluments of the particular office have been increased and the pensioner who retired on 1st November last retired on a higher pension than his colleague who retired in July or August. One of the difficulties of discussing a motion on pensions is that each category tends to consider the particular scale appropriate to his or her rank and the appropriate pensions to be paid to persons serving in a particular rank may seem smaller when compared with others. Compared with a person in a higher rank the person on the lower rank may consider that the person on the higher rank has a reasonably good pension.

I do not want to discuss the individual rates or pension grades except to emphasis that a very substantial change has occurred in recent months because of the increase known as the eighth round which has affected serving personnel to their advantage compared with their fellow civil servants who retired a few months ago and who retired at the same age limit, not because there was a change in their grading or rank, but because the increases in the wage or salary operated to increase the pension of a person who retired later.

It is reasonable that when a person serves in a particular grade or rank, he should expect to retire on the pension appropriate to that rank, provided that the cost of living had been stable and conditions had been stable; but we have here the position in which over a number of years, there has been a continuous rise in the cost of living and, in consequence, a decline in the purchasing power of money. I want to ask the House is it just or equitable or reasonable that because of the timing of a pay increase, the arbitrary fixing of a date—not any change in rank or age of retirement—one group of pensioners should retire with a lower pension than others or vice versa? No such difference can be justified or defended.

During the past few months and particularly during the past few weeks, Supplementary Estimates have been introduced for the purpose of giving the appropriate pay and salary increases that have been awarded. It seems, if that treatment is being granted, as it should be granted to serving personnel, similar treatment should be granted to those who have retired.

It is important for us to consider in this connection what happens in other countries. Quite recently, the British Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, said that with the advent of the Common Market, he believed there would be a levelling up of social benefits, not a levelling down. Up to very recently, he was, and at present he is, the Minister in charge of the Committee in the British Government dealing with the negotiations on Britain's entry into the Common Market and that is the view he expressed. It is important to realise that, so far as the attitude adopted here and in Britain is concerned, we appear to be out of step with a number of European countries in regard to pensions of retired State servants. I am using that decription in the broadest sense to include the Civil Service, Army, Garda, teachers and, indeed, local authority workers, employees of State concerns and so on, because they are all paid directly or indirectly by the State.

In quite a number of other countries, the position is different—in Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden. In these countries, pensions vary with the cost of living. There are certain differences in each case, but, in the main, the pensions are based on, or pegged to, the existing salary of serving personnel, and when adjustments are made in respect of wages and salaries of personnel still serving, the pensioners are included in these adjustments. In most of these countries, the changes have taken place since the war. That seems to be reasonable and proper because the substantial variations in the value of money have all occurred either during, or since, the last war.

In France, since 1948, civil and military pensions are automatically adjusted in relation to changes in the case of serving state personnel In Denmark, pensions are adjusted in step with fluctuations in the cost of living on the same basis as granted to serving personnel. The same is true in Norway and Sweden. When we go further afield, we find that increases have been granted in the case of New Zealand and in respect of the Services, what are regarded in other countries as the fighting services—here they are confined to the Army and probably the Naval Service—increases in pensions are automatic with those granted to serving personnel.

With those changes coming, with the E.E.C., it is significant that at the moment this country and Britain are out of line with pension arrangements which exist in a number of European countries and which have been changed in order to meet the changed conditions resulting from the increase in the cost of living and the drop in the purchasing power of money. It may be argued that any increase in pensions is a novelty. That argument was valid so long as the cost of living and the purchasing power of money remained constant, but when the superannuation code which is at present in operation was originally framed, the question of pay increases was hardly ever considered. The only changes that occurred were those with advancement in rank and unless a person were promoted to a higher rank, his pay or salary remained constant for very long periods.

That situation is no longer true and whatever validity existed for it when the cost of living was stable in the 'twenties and 'thirties, with the continuous rise in the cost of living and the consequent drop in the value of money which has been a feature in all economies—this country is not peculiar in that respect; the drop in money values and the rise in the cost of living may vary between one country and another but the pattern is pretty much the same—it does not exist now.

Since the end of the war, there has been pretty general price inflation and the various economies I have mentioned in Europe and outside it have changed their superannuation arrangements and altered their payment of pensions on the basis of whatever the appropriate increase is, either the cost of living index figure or alternatively, on the basis of the comparable rises granted to State personnel still serving.

The increase in the cost of living here in the past few years has been quite considerable. In February, 1957, the consumer price index stood at 135; in February of this year it had risen to 154. That is the consumer price index—all items.

While that is true in respect of the figure, as we know it, it may help to get an indication of how that affects commodities that are purchased by the humblest pensioners. The figures I have here involve commodities which everybody who has to exist must purchase. They show that the price of butter has increased from 3/8¾d. in February, 1957, to 4/6¾d. in February, of 1961, an increase of 10d. The 2-lb. loaf has increased from 9d. to 1/3½d., an increase of 6½d. The stone of flour has increased from 4/2½d. to 8/1d., an increase of 3/10½d. Potatoes have gone from 2/0¼d. to 2/8d. Sugar has increased from 7d. to 8½d. If we take the consumer price index, we find that clothing has increased by 4 per cent. from 102.7 to 107.3. Housing has increased from 115 to 131.3 or 10 per cent. Drink and tobacco have increased from 112.7 to 130 or 16 per cent. Between 1957 and 1962, the consumer price index has increased by 19 points. That is equivalent to 14 per cent. or 2/9½d. in the £. That is a substantial increase. As I say, I have picked out only the items which the humblest pensioner must have. I have not included meat or other articles that are included in the consumer price index. Deputies will agree there has been a very substantial increase in the cost of living, particularly the cost of essentials.

I want to urge the House and in this regard to impress on the representatives in this House of workers and workers' organisations that one of the interests which they have and in which they have shown an interest over the years has been the conditions, pay and emoluments of those at work whether they are employed by the State or by private concerns. In this matter, one of the important things for trade unions and other organisations representing employees is to look after the welfare of those they have represented not merely while they are at work but when they retire. Unless they exert their influence while these people are serving as civil servants, Army or Garda personnel, and so on, the contribution they can make to the welfare of the persons they represent after they have retired is not so great.

One of the facts about the superannuation arrangements and the pension arrangements in operation here has been that with a few exceptions there have been no increases comparable with the increases that have been granted to those in present-day employment. The increases that have been granted in respect of pensions have been referred to here on a number of occasions and these increases were granted under various Pension (Increase) Acts. The 1950 Act granted an increase on a pension not exceeding £100 a year of 50 per cent. There was a grading then, varying with the amount of pension: on a pension exceeding £100 but not exceeding £125 a year, an increase of £50 a year; exceeding £125 but not exceeding £150, an increase of 40 per cent., and so on, up to a maximum of £450. Subsequently the 1956 Act granted an increase on a pension not exceeding £100 a year of 15 per cent.; exceeding £100 but not exceeding £125, an increase of 15 per cent., and again up to £450 where the increase was 6 per cent.

When the 1959 Act was passed a 6 per cent. increase was granted in respect of retirals before the 1st January, 1948, a 4 per cent. increase in respect of retirals between 1st November, 1948, and 1st November, 1952. The 1960 Act granted a 7½ per cent. increase in respect of retirals before the 1st November, 1948, and a 5 per cent. increase in respect of retirals between 1st November, 1948, and 1st November, 1955. It is a fact that those who retired after 1st November, 1955 have received no increase. During the same period serving Civil Service personnel got 49 per cent. on the portion of salary not exceeding £250 and on the portion of salary exceeding £250 a year, 29 per cent.

It is obvious from these figures that the treatment afforded to pensioners has been entirely inadequate. The pension at present payable in respect of old age pensioners, widows and orphans, is beneath that which is necessary in order to exist in frugal comfort. I have figures which show that a widow of a Garda who died during service, that widow having two children, had a pension of less than £60 a year. The present old age non-contributory pension of 30/-, the widow's non-contributory pension of 28/6—47/6 for a widow with two children, plus 5/- for each additional child—indicates the level of pensions prevailing.

I want to urge the House to give an affirmative decision in favour of this motion. It will be argued, I know, that the amount of money which will be necessary to meet this will be considerable. During the course of some replies given here earlier this year, I ascertained from the Minister for Finance that at 31st December, 1961, there were 3,255 Civil Service pensioners and that the amount paid by way of pension for the year ended on the same day was £1,108,475. That is reported at column 50, Volume 193 of the Official Reports.

The Minister for Defence in reply to a question gave a total of 2,427 in respect of ex-Army personnel, officers, N.C.O.s and men and the total cost to the end of the year 30th September, 1961, was £418,661. The Minister for Local Government in reply to a question said that the total number of retired local authority employees at the 31st March, 1961, was 5,860 and the total cost of superannuation payments in respect of the year ended 31st March, 1961, was £1,355,908. That payment included pensions, marriage, death and short service gratuities.

These figures indicate the numbers involved and if we compare them with the cost of implementing the award which was mentioned by the Taoiseach in referring to the eighth round, it is obvious that the cost and numbers are far less than those involved in paying the wage and salary adjustments in respect of serving personnel. I believe the Dáil and the country would support an increase in pensions not merely to State pensioners but to all categories. Indeed, if we look at some of the State bodies, C.I.E. pensioners exist on a pension that is below any reasonable standard. It is one of the lowest paid pensions that it is possible to imagine. Most of the other State companies have more satisfactory pension schemes. The fact that the C.I.E. pension scheme is so unsatisfactory is, of course, due to the legacy they inherited from the principal railway company which was taken over, but I do not think there is any justification for advancing that as a reason for not increasing the pensions paid to retired C.I.E. personnel.

In any event, no matter what category we examine, the overall position compares very unfavourably with the increases that have been granted and the costs that have been borne by the community. The Supplementary Estimates introduced here in recent weeks for the payment of serving personnel, whether civil servants, Garda, teachers or others, have either been passed or are on the Order Paper for discussion in the near future. It has been agreed by all sides of the House that the increases which have been awarded should be paid and the necessary money will be voted by this House.

The same should apply in even greater measure in respect of retired pensioners because, with the exception of the four increases mentioned, pensioners have got no increase, or no increase comparable with the increases in salaries and wages granted to serving personnel. It is only an accident of age or, indeed, in some cases, an accident of timing of the pay award, that certain pensioners have had the good fortune to retire at a higher pension, although a person serving in the same rank, doing the same work, with the same number of years' service, except for a month or a couple of months, as the case may be, retires and finds himself on a lower pension because of the arbitrary date fixed for the granting of the eighth round increase.

I believe the House and the country are prepared to support a general review, to grant a reasonable increase. No one expects that any approach other than a reasonable one should be made to this matter but the reasonable demands, the just demands, the fair demands which these people have on the community for an increase in pension are beyond argument. Not merely do we ask the House to support this motion, but we ask the House, in addition, to support whatever necessary taxation is involved to meet the cost of the appropriate pension increases in respect of retired State servants and retired personnel, no matter whether they were employed directly or indirectly by the State.

One of the categories of pensioners whose lot has been even more severe than others are those living on the products of investments from money saved when at work, who invested their savings in order to give them some income on retirement. There are undoubtedly nowadays fewer of these in the community because most organisations have pension schemes in operation but, nevertheless, there is quite a substantial section who have to exist on the income from the accumulated savings of past exertions. I want to urge the Minister to consider their position. It may not be possible to include them in the present superannuation framework but it ought to be possible to consider some relief for them in conjunction with the Budget.

The amendment in the Minister's name urges that "proposals concerning pensions charged on the Public Revenue should be considered only in conjunction with the Budget when they can be related to the taxation required to implement them". Why do we adopt a different standard for pensioners from the standard adopted for serving personnel? The Taoiseach said in the course of the discussion on the Vote on Account that nobody should suggest that the State should not pay the wage and salary awards which have been granted. If that is true for State personnel still serving, it ought to be true for pensioners and the appropriate increase based on the cost of living index or based on a percentage of the increase that has been granted in respect of those still serving should be granted to those who have retired.

One of the facts about the various Supplementary Estimates introduced recently is that they have been introduced irrespective of the Budget and, indeed, in advance of the Budget. Some of them were introduced quite some weeks ago. Possibly some of them were introduced before Christmas. At present on the Order Paper, there are a number of Supplementary Estimates down for consideration dealing with some of these increases that have been granted. The same treatment as has been afforded to serving personnel, whether Civil Service, Army or Garda, and so on, should be afforded to those who have retired and I urge the House to give sympathetic consideration to this motion.

When the election was over, the Taoiseach said the Government would leave political considerations to look after themselves. It is significant that since the last election, two motions have been brought forward here, one dealing with the health services, and the reaction of the Government was to put down an amendment and to set up a committee to inquire into the matter. Even that was an advance. If that health motion had been down before the last election, there would have been no committee and no investigation. On this occasion, the Minister for Finance on behalf of the Government puts down an amendment requesting that it be deferred until the general budgetary proposals are under consideration.

That, in normal circumstances, would be reasonable enough, but, as I say, in recent weeks and months, we have had a whole series of Supplementary Estimates in order to implement the eighth round which has been applied by private employers to their employees and which in the case of State employees has been granted through either arbitration or conciliation or whatever the appropriate machinery is. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and we should treat those who have retired on the same basis.

In addition, one of the features of the various pay and salary awards that have been made is that they are retrospective to a date in November in most cases. If that is the standard adopted in respect of serving personnel, a similar standard should be adopted in respect of those who have retired and any increase should be made retrospective to a comparable date in order to compensate to some extent and give those who are on pension some small consolation in respect of the substantial rise in the cost of living and the drop in purchasing power of money.

In the main, the average life of a pensioner after retirement is something short of ten years. One of the claims adumbrated in relation to this country is that we have a Christian philosophy and a Christian approach to these matters. I do not believe any one Party or any particular side of this House has a different view on this matter from any other Party or side. I believe the Minister and the Government are just as anxious as we are to be reasonable and considerate.

Reference has often been made here to the directive social principles laid down in the Constitution. If we really believe in these principles, and if we want to live up to the verbal advices laid down, then we have now an opportunity of putting that advice into practice. It is not sufficient just to lay down standards and then refuse to implement them. One of the arguments we have advanced in support of our application to join the European Economic Community is that we are prepared to provide the same standards here as obtain in other countries. The British Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, referred recently to a levelling up rather than a levelling down.

I believe there will be universal approval of any proposal to review upwards speedily to a reasonable level the pensions for all categories of retired personnel, not merely State pensioners but all categories of pensioners, living on pensions or on accumulated savings. Irrespective of what positions they occupied, these people have served the community well. Many of them have rendered distinguished service. Some have rendered humble service. Whether service was distinguished or humble may have been an accident, but they all rendered the best possible service they could. They are now entitled to reasonable and fair consideration from the community.

That is the proposal we put before this House. It is a proposal we believe that not only the House will be prepared to support but also the country at large, so that, whatever may be necessary to implement the proposal to give these people reasonable standards which will enable them to live out their remaining years in proper Christian conditions, will be forthcoming. These are the conditions which should properly be regarded as appropriate to their circumstances and appropriate equally in relation to the obligations the State has to cherish equally all sections of the community.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion will require to be formally seconded.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I formally second the motion and I reserve the right to speak later.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:—"is of the opinion that proposals concerning pensions charged on the Public Revenue should be considered only in conjunction with the Budget when they can be related to the taxation required to implement them."

I ask the House to approve this amendment so that this question may be reviewed in the Budget. Whatever may be agreed upon, finance will be necessary. As Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, four Bills have been passed in this House in this connection. They have always been brought in at Budget time when the necessary finances were provided to meet them. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the House to delay its decision for some three weeks. The Budget will be introduced in three weeks' time. If the pensioners get an increase under the Budget, they will lose nothing by waiting until then because legislation will be necessary to implement any decision and legislation cannot be introduced until after the Budget. I do not think the mover of the motion should insist on having it put to a decision today.

I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that we are all probably of one mind with relation to pensioners. I should like to feel that when we come to the Budget, if we have to impose extra taxation in order to improve the position of our pensioners, Deputy Cosgrave and his Party will have the same sympathy then for these pensioners and will demonstrate that sympathy by voting for whatever extra taxation has to be imposed. It could happen that the only Party which will show its sympathy fully will be the Fianna Fáil Party. They will provide the money while the Fine Gael Party may well argue the pensioners should get something but deny the Government the finances necessary to improve the position of the pensioners.

We want to know what the position will be with regard to pensioners generally as far as possible. We cannot go into it in great detail at this stage. The Labour Party have tabled an amendment which brings in social welfare pensions as well. I should like to refer to these pensions now. It does not matter very much what year I take —1938, or 1947, or 1954, or 1957— we get largely the same result in relation to the increases given, as far as the cost of living is concerned. Since 1954, the old age pension has been increased five times. It has gone up from 21/6 to 30/-. That is an increase of 39.5 per cent. The cost of living in the same period went up by 22 per cent. In the case of the widow, the pension went up from 20/- to 28/6d. That is a percentage increase of 42.5 as against an increase of 22 per cent. in the cost of living. The allowances for the children of the widow have also gone up. Those for the first and second child have gone up by 66 per cent. In 1954, and for some years after, only two children entered into the calculations. In recent years, all subsequent children have been taken into consideration.

Pensioners under social welfare then have done better vis-à-vis the cost of living and a case for them cannot be made, certainly not very substantially on the basis of the cost of living. It can be argued, and I should not like to oppose the argument too strongly, that the pensions even so are low and, if the country can afford it, we should pay better pensions.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is the Minister including both categories—contributory and non-contributory?

Dr. Ryan

I am talking about non-contributory. There were no contributory pensions in 1954. They were introduced comparatively recently. Indeed, the contributory pension came in only on 1st January, 1961. These pensions have been just a little over 12 months in being. They represent a very substantial increase on the old rate of pension and, if one takes percentages there, the position is even better.

Consideration of contributory pensions involves, of course, more than merely a Budgetary consideration because both the worker and the employer enter into the picture here, Contributions would have to be reconsidered, including the State contribution. That would be a matter for separate legislation. As these contributory pensions have been in operation for just a little over 12 months, it would appear a little premature to reconsider them at the present time. However, they can be reconsidered at any time, if it is thought desirable to do so.

I might mention that since 1954, while the cost of living went up by 22 per cent., the national income went up by 31.7 per cent. If we take the national income and argue that the old age pensioner and the widow and the orphan have a right to share in our increased prosperity, in the increased national income, then they have done a little better than merely sharing. I am not saying that we should not give them more. I am merely giving the figures to show what the position is. The amount necessary for social welfare in the year 1962-63 is £25,500,000. That is a fairly substantial sum.

With regard to all pensioners, Deputy Cosgrave gave fairly detailed figures as to what was done in 1950, 1956, 1959 and 1960. Deputies will recall from his figures that a fair amount was done for pensioners who retired before 1946 in the 1950 and 1956 awards, especially those who were in receipt of the lower rate of pensions. If we take a person who was in receipt of a pension of under £100, he has, since 1950, received an increase equivalent to 75 per cent. Under the four Acts passed since then.

The most recent award was in 1960 which dealt with pensioners who retired up to November 1st, 1955. You have, therefore, different awards given which generally favour the persons who are longest retired and also those who were in receipt of the lowest pensions. These increases vary up to 5 per cent. in the last Act passed which applied to those who had retired before November 1st, 1955. Nothing has been done for pensioners who retired since 1955.

I do not want to go over the figures quoted by Deputy Cosgrave which correspond with the notes I have, but I would point out that a person who retired since 1st November, 1955, would now be on a pension equivalent to an increase of 17 per cent. The increase would be higher of course for those who went out before that. I have not been able to get the exact figure and I can only ask Deputies to make their own calculations of what the cost of a future scheme might be.

The cost of living, of course, did increase rather steeply at intervals during the past few years and if you take those who retired between August, 1957 and August, 1960, you will find that they enjoyed a practically uniform cost of living, and if one were giving compensation to those on the basis of cost of living increases, there would have been no increase during those three years. From August, 1960, to the present time, the cost of living has gone up by five per cent. We may take it, therefore, that those who went out from the middle of 1957 to the present time have had no extreme hardship because the most they could suffer would be an increase of five per cent. in the cost of living.

Those who went out before 1957 would, on the other hand, suffer more because the pensions were smaller by comparison with those being awarded now and if you go back beyond 1955, the percentage of increase would be above 17. Deputy Cosgrave said the calculation of fair pensions at the present time is outmoded. I do not understand what he means by that. I think the pension awarded to a person retiring now was arrived at after a great deal of negotiation between the Civil Service and the official side.

There was agreement, first, that the pensions would be two-thirds of salary but it was decided afterwards that there would be a lump sum, plus half the salary, and I have not heard any complaint against that particular method. Perhaps when the Deputy speaks of the system being outmoded, he means the parties should not stick to that arrangement but should get more. I would point out that we have been giving them more. Four Acts have been brought in increasing pensions and there is no reason for any Deputy to anticipate that there will not be further increases.

Before the war, it was never even contemplated that pensions would be increased; in the years between 1923 and 1938, the cost of living remained fairly steady and there was no demand for adjustment of pensions. Since the last war, however, the cost of living has increased very much more than it did between the two wars and that has brought with it increased demands for increased pensions.

In present circumstances, therefore, people who retired 20 years ago find their pensions comparatively much lower than persons in a similar grade retiring now. Those in charge of the Exchequer might have been disposed at some time to say: "We are fulfilling our contract and that is that; we shall not go any further". We, however, have departed from that and have brought in Acts from time to time to improve the lot of pensioners, so we therefore need not argue on the principle Deputy Cosgrave outlined. The only matter we need discuss now is what we can do to bring them up to full equality with people retiring at the present time.

I should like to be able to do it. Any Deputy in my position would like to be able to do it and the only thing that is preventing it is the cost. It is a rather formidable bill, although I have not got an exact calculation. There are two methods of calculating it. One is the suggestion that the pensioners be brought up to the point at which they would retire if they were going out now; the other is that there should be frequent changes in pensions as the cost of living changed. We might say the best way would be to have pensions increased side by side with increases in the cost of living, but I am afraid that could not be done immediately because I do not think that any one Budget could bear that cost, together with the other costs of running the country.

I hope, however, to be able to deal with the matter more precisely when the Budget comes along and find out what can be done and how it can be done and over what length of time the principle laid down here can be met. Those who are longest retired are, of course, suffering most and it would be well if we could, for a start, bring the longest retired up to a certain amount. That would probably be the way in which we would be inclined to approach it. Whatever we would be able to give we would be inclined to give more to the people who went out years ago than to those who went out recently.

I have only to repeat so that there may be no misunderstanding, that, so far as the Government are concerned, we are sympathetic to the motion that pensioners should get an increase which will bring their pensions more into relation with the cost of living. I am doubtful that it could all be done in one bite but I am hopeful that things will be better when the Budget comes along.

Mr. Cosgrave

I omitted to say that we accept the Labour amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the amendment should be seconded at this stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

I second the amendment.

Mr. Kyne

I propose to move the following amendment, on behalf of the Labour Party:

After the words "all pensioners" to insert "including all those in receipt of contributory and noncontributory old age pensions, blind, widows' and orphans' pension, retired State servants such as teachers, civil servants, gardaí, local government officials and members of the Defence Forces."

The reason for this amendment is simply to specify in particular the meaning in the Fine Gael motion of the words "all pensioners". I am grateful to Deputy Cosgrave for indicating his acceptance of our amendment and we simply wish to add to the Fine Gael motion those pensioners who are not pensioners of the State. That would include those unfortunate people who have to depend for their complete existence on the amount given to them by the State, old age pensioners, contributory and non-contributory, and windows and orphans. The same case made by Deputy Cosgrave in relation to State employees applies with equal force to those classes. I am in complete agreement with the views put forward by Deputy Cosgrave in moving the motion and I wish to indicate that the Labour Party intend to support it.

We look upon the Fianna Fáil amendment as a Parliamentary way of saying: "Wait until the Budget comes along and we shall see what can be set aside for social welfare people when the ordinary services have been paid for." That is the regrettable feature of the attitude of the State in these matters. These unfortunate people are always left to the last and then, if there is a little surplus, the Government will see what can be done for them.

The Minister for Finance said, quite rightly, that the day would come when taxation must be imposed to provide the means of implementing this motion. On behalf of my Party, I have no hesitation in saying that, provided it is clearly indicated that the total revenue from the taxation imposed will be diverted to improving the position of the social welfare group, we shall have no hesitation in supporting such taxation. That does not mean that we shall give blanket approval to all taxation imposed. We must be satisfied that the total revenue derived from the taxation will go directly to the people for whom it is intended and that it will not go to general State expenditure and only whatever surplus is left go to the section for whom we are seeking improvement.

The Minister quoted very convincing figures in relation to the national income and to the percentage increases for the social welfare classes. It is significant that all the figures quoted by him were favourable to the Government's point of view. In each case, he was able to prove from the figures that the increases that went to the social welfare group outstepped the percentage increase in the cost of living or the increase in the national income; but there is one figure I should like to put to the Minister. In the year 1957-58, the tax revenue was £102.7 million and the amount of that which was expended on social welfare was £25.5 million. That was 24.8 per cent. In 1961-62, when tax revenue was £118.3 million, social welfare expenditure was £26.4 million. That is 22.3 per cent. of the tax revenue which is a reduction on social welfare expenditure of 2.5 per cent. It seems strange that the Minister omitted to give that figure.

In the case of the social welfare people, we do not accuse the Minister or any Party in this House of having less interest than the Labour Party. I honestly believe that every Deputy is sincere in desiring that that group should receive as much as possible. It is the method by which that expenditure is assessed to which we are drawing attention. The Minister for Finance stated that the yardstick by which increases were granted has been the increase in the cost of living, and he said that increases had kept step with and, in some cases, outstepped, the increase in the cost of living, according to the index.

Whether the cost of living was a realistic yardstick in the past is one matter, but in the present circumstances it must be discarded. Trade unionists throughout the country have arrived at the conclusion that the index is not a fair indication of the trend of the cost of the necessaries of life. They consider that what is really essential for the ordinary working classes to have the frugal comforts of life are not included in the index.

The Government, by deliberate action, have divested themselves of the power to keep within their control the prices of essential commodities. It is because of that that the eighth round increase came within the past few months. Trade unionists do not believe the cost of living index figure. Trade unionists and their officials were forced to take action because the officials also knew that the cost of living, whatever about the index, was increasing week by week and day by day. Day after day it appeared in the newspapers. Essential commodities, not just luxuries, were being increased in price indiscriminately.

The Government had previously divested themselves of any authority to keep the cost of living under control. I have no doubt in saying that the action of the trade unions in securing increases for their workers was passed on to the consumer. It is inevitable, if there is no price control, that when a wage increase is granted it will be passed on. Because of that, I blame the Government for not keeping the control that was there. Even the Prices Advisory Body, which we had to act as the watchdog of the consumer, at least to draw public attention to unwarranted increases and give the consuming public a means of ventilating their grievances and showing up what they believed to be exploitation of the essentials of life, has been done away with.

Instead, we have the Minister for Industry and Commerce, acting for the Government, stating that the Government have, at any time they wish, the right to investigate. What happened when the master bakers decided to pass on the bread increase in recent months? Speaking from memory, what the Minister said was that they "noted the increase". That is of very little use to an old age pensioner when the price of the 2-lb. loaf goes up, unless, of course, the Minister for Finance, when it comes to Budget Day, will do a little more and do it in the only way the old age pensioner and the social welfare group will appreciate, by taking note of it with the intention of increasing the amount given by the State so as to compensate for that and many other increases.

Not only the trade unions believe that the cost of living has increased, whatever the index figure may be. Employers have freely met the unions and, without a threat of strike— because in their hearts they knew the cost of living was increasing for their employees and for themselves—agreed settlements were reached so that the average national increase secured here in the eighth round amounts to some 23/- per week. Does anyone suggest that Irish employers and workers could arrive at such a figure in free negotiation without anything to justify it? I suggest that employers, as conscientious and understanding people, knew that a claim for an eighth round increase was just and that compensation should be given.

It is true that the employers appealed to trade unionists to give compensatory additional effort and in many instances, that was given by the workers. All that is of little use to those retired on pension, the widows and orphans, the old age pensioners, the blind and others while at the same time, the mere pittance paid to them by the State remains stationary. Because of that, the Labour Party welcome this motion and are prepared to support it.

The Government deliberately divested themselves of the power of control over the prices of essential commodities. I am aware from what I have heard here that the Taoiseach is a great believer in competition, that it was his honest belief that private enterprise and free competition would so operate as to render price control unnecessary; that the competition by its nature would provide that control. Whatever truth may have been in that belief in the past things have radically changed. We are alive today to the fact that take-over bids are being made in various countries, that various big interests are combining to form groups in certain industries to attain control somewhat similar, perhaps, to the control exercised by the trade unions and groups of workers in industry. The big interests now operating are using their control to dictate prices at which goods are to be sold.

I do not know whether it is legitimate for them to do it. Perhaps they say they are as much entitled to do it as the worker is entitled to make a price for his labour. They may have the same answer as we have; if you do not want it, then, do not pay for it. I suggest that, while, for certain commodities, there may be justification for that attitude, in the case of the essentials of life, the Government were wrong in giving up their control and should immediately take steps to recover to themselves the power to control essential commodities. If that is not done, I suggest the system of linking a percentage increase for pensioners with the cost of living index must be completely altered. I suggest it should be linked to some outside body that have of their own right, power to avail of conciliation and arbitration. Old age pensioners and others in the social welfare group should receive the same percentage increase as is given to public servants in the Civil Service. As Civil Service personnel receive percentage increases either by conciliation or arbitration immediately, and in the very same way, the retrospective pay of those depending on social welfare benefits should be increased.

It is for that reason that we in the Labour Party support this motion. I would appeal to the Government and to the Minister responsible to look upon this appeal as one made with sincerity from the Opposition side of the House, not in the spirit of accusing the Government of something but in the spirit that pensions are inadequate and must be brought to a decent standard so as to give some substance to the claim that this is a Christian country; and having achieved that irrespective of the cost, because the most defenceless section must be our first consideration, then we must devise some system whereby as the cost of living increases and as organised groups receive their increases, then State pensioners will get corresponding increases at the same time and not with an eight months' lag.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dr. Browne.

Mr. Norton

Do you need a seconder?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The position is that at this stage the Labour Party amendment is not officially before the House, although it may be debated in the course of the discussion. There are only the motion and the Ministerial amendment before the House, but the content of the other amendments may be debated.

Mr. Norton

Without the requirement of a seconder at this stage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A mover or a seconder.

Dr. Browne

I move the amendment in my name.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no question of moving it but the Deputy may discuss the amendment.

Dr. Browne

With Deputy McQuillan, I tabled the following amendment:

"That in order to reduce avoidable hardship associated with the increase in living costs now experienced by those living on fixed incomes Dáil Éireann recommends that a supplementary allowance related to the cost of living figure be made to all State pensioners, the rate to be determined at monthly intervals after a comparison between the actual price level and the price level in January 1955."

This amendment was tabled in order to put a point of view before the Minister concerning this whole question of pensioners' increases. Everybody has accepted, both on the Government and the Opposition sides, that the case of the pensioners is well overdue for consideration. Whether he is a Civil Service pensioner, an old age pensioner or any other person on a fixed income who is not a member of a professional association or a trade union organisation, his position is a particularly precarious one as soon as the cost of living starts rising, because, not being a member of any united pressure unit, he finds it very difficult to effect any change in the attitude of the Government who are the responsible organisation for providing any increases. For the vast majority of pensioners who lose their salary and go on pension rates, it means an appreciable drop in their living standards or their way of living generally. They are prepared for it and most of them adjust themselves as best they can, but it is a very precarious balance. That balance is tipped the wrong way by any advance in prices of essential items, whether it is transport costs, food costs, the cost of rent, clothing, or any of the other constituents which are taken into consideration in assessing the cost of living figure.

Since, as we all know, there has been quite a sharp advance in the cost of living figure, there is a prima facie case for the Government's attention in the matter of increasing pensions paid to those pensioners for whom the Government are responsible. I have asked that the claim be related to the cost of living figure. The more one listens to the debate here and the more one sees the unanimity of attitude, including that of the Minister, that the need is there and that it is a fair demand, the more one realises that this should not need to be debated at all. The case was established in all our minds by our own knowledge of the increases in living costs but, above all, by the increases conceded by Government employers and private employers in the recent wage demand. It was conceded not because anybody particularly wanted to be generous with the funds at his disposal but for the very good reason that a case was made on the cost of living, on increased productivity or on the promise of increased productivity. In any event, a case was made which could not be refuted and that case, established for the general body of workers, was established by the trade unions, in effect, for the general body of pensioners.

I do not think it is right that pensioners, mostly men of 65 to 70 years of age, men for whom we all have a very great respect and regard and who have served their country to the best of their ability, instead of being allowed to enjoy possible retirement, should have to lobby Deputies for these increases. Any increases should be made automatically and they should know that they are protected automatically against increases in living costs. They should be saved the unnecessary trouble—putting it at its mildest—"humiliation" is the word that comes to mind—of going to Deputies and asking them to support a claim. That is perfectly regular and perfectly in order—I am not complaining—but, people who have gone into retirement should not be asked to do this. They should be automatically protected against rises in living costs which are brought about largely as a result of Government decisions.

As Deputy Kyne pointed out, there is no price fixing arrangement. The Government have a choice. If one believes in the type of private enterprise society in which the Minister believes and finds himself in this sort of position that there is a demand which he cannot fully meet and he knows he has got so much to divide and has to divide it amongst, to him, an unlimited number of people in our community, he cannot get away entirely innocent in his plea to us that he cannot afford to provide the money that is needed.

This is a plea that we are met with on all sides by every Department of State. Whether it is better education or better health services or more expenditure on provisions of one kind or another that one expects in a civilised community, one is told there is not the money to provide these amenities. At what stage do the Government or the politicians in the Government say to themselves: "The social and economic systems in which we believe do not allow us to care for our sick, feed the aged properly or look after the aged properly or educate our children properly and we will change that system so that we can do all these things which it is found possible to do in socialist countries like New Zealand and Sweden and various other socialist societies"?

I do not think you can have it both ways. You cannot pretend you have an ideal society on the one hand, a free democracy, or whatever you like to call it, and a refusal to accept radical changes in your economic planning and then plead innocence when the time comes to pay for this luxury of living in a laissez faire society. You cannot simply say to the sick: “We would like to give you better services but we cannot afford to do so” or to the children: “We would like to give you university education but we cannot afford it.”

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion deals with pensions.

Dr. Browne

Or to the old people: "We would like to give you increased pensions but we cannot afford to." The Minister, even in his own private enterprise type of beliefs and economy, has the right, if he wants to, to introduce some kind of price stabilisation mechanism so that when a wage increase is conceded that wage increase is not immediately passed on to the consumer and negatived. It seems to me that in this private enterprise society, a new device has been created by the employer. The wage demand is put in by the unions. There is a sort of token resistance in order to give an appearance of objection and inability to pay and then after this token resistance, the union is victorious, the wage demand is conceded and, within weeks, the price of bread goes up or the price of tobacco goes up or the price of liquor or the price of clothes or whatever consumer commodity it may be, goes up and in many cases it appears to us that it goes up by a vastly disproportionately higher amount than the amount which could be said to be warranted to meet the wage demand.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how that can be discussed on this motion.

Dr. Browne

I am dealing with it very briefly, Sir.

Dr. Browne

I am dealing with it very briefly. By competitive prices, he could keep prices at a level with the cost of living figure. That is the only case I certainly have in pleading for the pensioners. My proposition is that increase should be reviewed at monthly intervals and should be related to the current cost of living figure. If that were accepted, there would be an incentive to the Government to ensure that the cost of living did not rise. The Government is like a dog chasing its own tail. They are not handing the problem at either end. They say they cannot increase wages and simultaneously they say they cannot prevent the cost of living going up, and it is the cost of living which creates the demand for increased wages and improved pensions.

I do not know how long this farce can continue, this pretence that this society works, that there is prosperity here, good employment, that national productivity is increasing at a fabulous rate. All this ráiméis disseminated by the P.R.O.s here and elsewhere! I do not know how the Government can stand over their proposition that this is a healthy society with a rapidly expanding economy. Is it? This is the society which cannot afford to pay proper pensions to the aged. The Government are very like the proverbial beggar on horseback. In an effort to pretend this is a viable economy, they are scattering luxurious embassies all over the world, and talking loftily of prestige. At home, there are increases, prestige increases, in the salaries paid to the members of the Judiciary. Our judges are quite adequately paid already. It is time the Government were made to realise that the true measure of a country's prestige is not the embassies abroad but how we care for our underprivileged, for those who are dependent on our generosity, and how we divide the national cake so that the old age pensioner, and all other pensioners, get a piece of it. I prefer to judge on the latter. I am not taken in by the facade of prosperity and all the ballyhoo which is so fallacious and misleading.

I urge the Minister to accept the motion and the Labour Party amendment. I appeal to him to consider seriously relating increases in pensions in future to the cost of living. That is the fairest way of assessment. Then, if the need for an increase arises, it will be the fault of the Government. These people have the right to live out their lives in retirement in peace and they will have peace when they know that, under a statute of this House, their interests are protected, and they will never again be in the invidious position in which they are now, a position in which they are going around to Deputies trying to promote some interest in their plight. Acceptance of this motion should be unanimous. It should not be subject of controversy.

Mr. Blowick

Most of the salient points have been dealt with already. I am sorry the Minister did not see fit to give us some idea of what he would regard as a reasonable increase, particularly in the case of old age pensioners, widows, orphans, blind pensioners, Garda pensioners, and others who are not getting sufficient at the moment. The cost of living has soared. There have been some increases in pensions in the past few years but they have not kept pace with the cost of living. In towns in the west, there are old age pensioners whose only income is 30/- a week. One is ashamed of the circumstances in which they have to live. One will find an old age pensioner in Castlebar, Westport, or Claremorris, living in a wretched house, paying perhaps 7/6 a week rent, and trying to clothe and feed himself out of the meagre balance. Unless these people get help from relatives or some charitable organisation, their plight is really desperate.

This is one of the most important motions that have come before this House for a long time. The Minister tells us he proposes to deal with this matter in the Budget. We have a duty to our pensioners. Why should the Minister not decide now what should be done? Then, when the Budget comes, we can decide how best to meet the situation. We have a responsibility particularly in the case of the old age pensioners and the widow and the orphan. I shall reserve my comments for a later date on the puzzling method of computation.

There is an anomalous situation. Because a Garda resigned 24 hours before a colleague, he does not get the same pension. I shall not dwell on that at the moment, but it is no harm to mention the fact that one section is penalised and would appear to be treated unfairly. Those with lower pensions than others are certainly not getting fair play.

I am not enamoured of the Minister's amendment because I know quite well what the evolution of events will be. If the matter is brought up, then it will be dismissed in a few words or smothered over in a whole list of other matters. I cannot understand why the Minister should want to leave the matter until the Budget. Now is the time for the Minister to give the House an idea of the cost, to say what he thinks would be fair. Then we shall know where we are. Later on, we can decide whether the money will be raised by extra taxation or by economies. Economies are one way of getting money. If this is left until the Budget, the possibility is that we shall not get a detailed explanation.

I support the motion and the Labour Party amendment. I disagree entirely with the proposal of the Minister for Finance to leave it over for the Budget. The old age pension, the widow's pension and blind pensions are badly in need of revision. The rates we are paying these people are far too small, in view of the way the cost of living is creeping up day after day. I said a moment ago that whatever happens in the country, the old age pensioners in the town have nothing to fall back on. They have to pay substantial rents for their houses, pay for lighting, pay 4/7d. per pound for butter and 1/3d. or 1/3½d. for the ordinary two-lb. loaf of bread. They have to keep a fire going. They just cannot do all these things. We are guilty of grave dereliction of duty where these people are concerned.

There seems to have been a directive from the Government to Social Welfare officers. In regard to old age pensions and widows' pensions, there seems to be a Gestapo inquiry into every little detail which frightens the life out of the old people. Instead of reducing old age pensions when they are granted, the proper thing would be to have a more painstaking assessment of what pension should be paid in the first instance and leave the old person in peace.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is clearly administration.

Mr. Blowick

That kind of conduct by the Department towards these people is absolutely unworthy of the name of government in a Christian country. I fully support the motion. A revision of pensions is something that should have been carried out long ago. I am afraid I cannot agree with the Minister's amendment because the whole purpose put forward by Deputy Cosgrave as the basis for the motion would be completely lost in the hurly-burly of the Budget debate.

Mr. Norton

This motion to-day is just another discussion on the twin issues of our inadequate Social Welfare benefits, on the one hand, and the absence of any reasonable increases in pensions for those who retired from the public service when the cost of living was substantially lower than it is to-day. We have had these discussions before. We shall have them many times again in the future, unless we take steps to apply a remedy at this stage which will prevent these two problems pressing with such rigour and vigour on those who have to depend on public pensions in their old age or social welfare benefits when some of the adversities of life cross their path.

I want to deal with the question of social welfare benefits first and to avoid as far as possible covering the ground covered by Deputy Kyne. Notwithstanding what the Minister for Finance said, this is an opportune time to discuss the whole basis of our social welfare benefits. According to the statements made by Government Ministers and by members of the Government Party, we have now reached the stage, in their economic assessment, in which we enjoy a measure of prosperity without parallel in our long history. We have been told from the Government benches and from Government platforms that the country never had it better, or to put the situation in the same picturesque way as it was put by a Minister recently, we are "swimming in prosperity."

If that is the position, and that is the position represented by those who speak for the Government, surely it is time we devoted attention to the problem of relieving the lot of the tens of thousands of our people who are confronted, through old age, through widowhood, through adversity of one kind or another, with the ills to which human flesh is always heir, of doing something to relieve their position and to share with them some of the prosperity in which so much pride is taken to-day but which seems to elude always those who are in receipt of these low rates of pensions.

The Minister for Finance talked about the rise in the cost of living and the rise in old age pensions, expressing the movements on both sides by a percentage increase. Whatever percentage increase you apply to old age pensions, this fact still rears its ugly head, that an old age pensioner living in a city or town has still to depend on 30/- a week. If you think an old age pensioner living in a room in the city of Dublin, paying from 10/- to 15/- a week for that room and having to keep himself or herself for the rest of the week with three meals a day for seven days a week out of a sum of from 15/- to 20/- and to clothe that person and to buy some of the other necessaries of civilised living, then you get a picture of poverty and degradation that is impossible to justify in an age in which, according to a Minister, we are swimming in prosperity.

If you take the case even of those who get a contributory old age pension —£3 10. 0. for a man and his wife living in a city or town—if you remember the cost of feeding them for seven days a week, of providing clothing, firing, lighting and all the other necessary adjuncts to civilised living, you get a picture. It is that life is a grim, bleak, and tough struggle for people forced to end their lives, on such a small income, at a time when prices are moving well beyond their reach, not merely for luxuries but even for necessaries as well. If you investigate the case of the widow with children or the case of the sick man or woman, you find the same picture revealing itself. Take the case of a man with a wife and three children drawing £3. 17. 6. social welfare benefit. That person will not get home assistance from the local authority. The whole family of five have to rely on £3. 17. 6.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is only pensions we are dealing with.

Mr. Norton

Perhaps I have travelled rather far by mentioning the case of the sick or unemployed person, although of course because of their low scales of benefit, their plight is absolutely indistinguishable from the plight of the widow, the orphan and the old age pensioner. The plain fact of the matter is that this House, this Government and this whole community owe it to those unfortunate social welfare classes depending on miserable incomes per week to do something to relieve their plight. Indeed, one could imagine that a community which invested £2,000,000 within the past year or two in a kind of South Sea bubble would hardly be reluctant to provide some income in order to improve the lot of the unfortunate people who constitute those social welfare classes to-day.

We seem to have got a notion that we are doing something for social welfare benefits which was not done last year, but if we look at the picture, it is quite different. Last year, by increasing the price of tobacco and by other measures which brought in additional revenue, the Minister for Finance had approximately £2,250,000 to hand out. One would have thought he would have selected the social welfare classes for the best portion of that, but instead £1,500,000 was given in tax reliefs—none to the social welfare classes—£600,000 went to the aid of agriculture and £600,000 to social welfare benefits. But the same Budget imposed indirect taxation as well, with the result that those who have to live on low pensions or static incomes have to pay more for what they need and consequently their position is correspondingly worse.

If you take an overall picture of what we are doing for social welfare benefits, you will find that in 1956-57 our tax revenue was £102,700,000. We spent £25,500,000 of that on social welfare benefits, or 24.8 per cent. Coming to 1960-61, you find that the tax revenue was £114,900,000 and we spent £26,200,000 on social welfare benefits, or 22.8 per cent.—a fall from 1957-58. In 1961-62, our tax revenue was £118,300,000 and social welfare expenditure was £26,400,000. The percentage of our tax revenue devoted to social welfare expenditure last year was the lowest since 1957-58—it was down to 22.3 per cent.

In the case of contributory old age pensions, the proportion contributed by employee and employer has risen steadily. In 1960-61, employers and workers contributed £3,300,000 in social insurance. In 1961-62, they contributed £4,900,000, a rise of nearly 50 per cent. Which is being paid by employers and workers to implement the contributory social welfare pension. In view of these substantial additional contributions by the employers and the workers, one would expect that increased provision would be made from revenue for the payment of higher rates of social welfare benefits than are manifest in these figures.

We have not yet had an opportunity of seeing what the trend will be for next year, but assuredly it will be downwards, unless steps are taken by the Government to implement this resolution, as amended, in a generous way. We have got to look on both aspects of the problems dealt with in this motion and the amendments somewhat separately. In the case of social welfare classes, there is little use adjusting them from now onwards in accordance with the rise and fall in the cost of living, unless we first establish a satisfactory basis for that adjustment.

Provision for small, infrequent increases in the cost of living, where the basic State social welfare pension is low, will not bring any early or long continued relief as far as the State social welfare pension is concerned. What we have to do, in the first instance, is to establish a satisfactory basis, something within our capacity to pay, something the State is determined to pay in order to relieve undeserved want among the social welfare classes. Once we establish a satisfactory basis, then we can provide for periodic adjustments in an automatic way, dependent on a rising cost of living, but of course, at the same time, recognising the fact that in a situation in which there is an improvement in the national income, social welfare recipients are entitled to benefits as citizens in the same way as other sections of the community.

I would urge therefore that as far as social welfare benefits are concerned, we should try, first, to get a reasonable basic standard and, having established that, we can then graft on to it a scheme for the periodic adjustment of pensions to be paid in the light of rises in the cost of living and also in relation to the rise in the national income.

The Minister for Finance referred today to his belief that he can do nothing about this motion until such time as he sees his Budget and observes what the out-turn there is. We might make a better approach to this question of our social welfare obligations, and impress on our citizens that we have such obligations, if we were to construct our Budget differently. At present, our Budget is the product of modern thought and comes in the form of a Capital Budget and a Domestic Budget. In that way, we separate ordinary month-to-month housekeeping from capital investment which is financed out of savings and borrowings and repaid through the medium of the Domestic Budget and serviced in that way.

I think there is a good case to be made for examining the possibility of having a Social Welfare Budget—a special Budget which would recognise what we owe to the social welfare classes and services in the country. If such a Budget cannot be sustained by contributions from employers, from workers and from the State, it would be perfectly legitimate to hypothecate to a Social Welfare Budget sums of money from forms of taxation and levies on luxury goods, so that everybody who buys a £1,000 car and pays a tax on it, accordingly, will know his tax was going into a Social Welfare Budget so that old age pensioners would have a decent income at the end of their days and that widows and orphans, whose breadwinner was perhaps killed in a car accident, would have something to sustain them in their adversity.

I think a good case could be made for hypothecating taxes paid upon luxury and normally unnecessary purchases to a Social Welfare Budget which could be utilised to fill the gap which unfortunately exists today between the reasonable demands of the social welfare classes, on the one hand, and the unwillingness of the State, on the other, to make more money available for satisfying those demands At all events, I think it is a good policy and a good psychological approach that those who buy luxury commodities ought to know that, by doing so, they are helping the less fortunate sections of the community and their purchases will not be so painful for them if they know that a percentage of what they are paying is being siphoned off to finance the livelihood of those who cannot provide for themselves, particularly in their old age.

I commend this suggestion to the Minister for Finance for consideration and I think a good many people who dine and wine well, who drive well and who have various luxurious habits of an expensive nature might not feel that they are so brash, or so reckless or socially unconscious if they know that while they are spending money, they are helping to finance a desirable and laudable social welfare Budget on the intake of which depends the standard of comfort of a large and helpless section of our community.

I should like to pass on to the question of pensioners who have served the State. The maximum pension payable to a civil servant is one half his salary and a lump sum calculated in such a way that it can never exceed a maximum of one and a half years' salary. The officer who has served for 40 years and who may not yet be clear of his domestic responsibilities will find, when he reaches the age of retirement, that his pension is 50 per cent. of his salary of the previous month. The lump sum, in a great many cases, will have to be expended on domestic necessaries and commitments that have accumulated. At all events, his monthly cheque falls to 50 per cent. of what is was for 40 years. He always had a full month's salary at the end of the month, but, on his retirement, he is compelled to accept a 50 per cent. cut in his salary and must adjust his living conditions accordingly.

If you cut the salary of an officer of that kind to 50 per cent., you will immediately compel him to economise pretty severely. If he does not do so at once, those from whom he wants to buy goods will impose that cut on him very drastically. It is bad enough for him to have his salary cut by 50 per cent., but when, having done that, you allow the cost of living to rise, you find that the 50 per cent. has ceased to be that proportion of his salary. Instead of being 50 per cent., it is now substantially lower.

Take the case of an officer who retired in 1948 and allow him the small increases in pension that he got since that date. Put him in the position of an officer of the same rank in the same service and you will find that the officer who retired in 1948 has an income at least one third less than the other man. He has to live in the same economic climate as the man who retired in later years and in which prices are the same for both. It is hard to justify that. Many of these officers served the State from its establishment following 1921. They saw the dislocation and disorganisation of the services and knew what the events of 1922 meant to them. They stayed on with the State in order to rebuild the services and then, when the time for their retirement comes, they find themselves at the end of their years in a situation which is financially worse than they have experienced in the whole course of their service with the State.

Instead of being able to draw a pension which will sustain them in reasonable comfort, many of them will tell you that their standards have been substantially reduced because of the amount of their pensions. I am now referring to the pensions of the older officers who find themselves in an extremely difficult position. I do not think there is any such economic condition present in this country which should compel these people to endure this hardship. It is unfair to ask them to do so and I refuse to believe that we have not the resources here to enable us to meet the problem and relieve them of these hardships.

Every day in the week, such people are finding, because of the increase in the price of the commodities they must buy, that living is becoming increasingly difficult. They are not members of a trade union and there is no means by which they can bring economic pressure on the Government to have their pensions increased. They are denied the use of the weapons which are open to trade unions and the result is that, while living on static incomes, they are compelled to pay increased prices, although increases have been given in private industry to sustain the workers against the impact of these prices. Such increases in prices have a crippling effect on those who have low incomes or who have to depend on low static incomes.

The case for the adjustment of the pensions of State employees has been more than made. The irony of the whole business is that at one stage pensions were automatically adjusted in accordance with the rise or fall of the living index figure, but on the entreaties of the Fianna Fáil Government, that system was abolished. It was pleaded that we had now reached a static position and that this system was unnecessary. If it had continued, Civil Service pensioners would have done much better than they do under the present method of calculating and adjusting the pensions.

I think I am right in what I say that those who retired under Article 10 of the Treaty, between 1922 and 1934, still have their pensions calculated on a sliding scale and that their pensions are adjusted half-yearly, so that for every increase in the cost of living that has taken place since 1934, they automatically got an increase in their pension. When I last made inquiries on the matter, I found that some of them were getting more in increases than in basic pensions. I believe that is still the position, that those who retired under Article 10 and did not want to serve this State, still have their pensions adjusted, while those who served this State have had to accept a kind of composite pension and trust to this House or the Government of the day to make these small adjustments. I do not think the Government are paying for these adjustments but, if it is examined, it will be found that many people are in receipt of pensions in respect of the service they gave prior to the setting up of the State, in the same way as they got 100 per cent. of the lump sum, while those who served the State got only from £75 up.

I do not think any Party in the House wants to make political capital out of this question. It is a problem for every Party but one which can be solved by the Government and the House and, if we solve it, I think we would be doing great credit to all political Parties. We can do that only if we make a reasonable basis for pensions, in the first instance, and provide automatic adjustments in the case of the social welfare groups. In the case of retired civil servants similar provision should be made in respect of their pensions. Instead of being something that is discussed here year after year and month after month, it should be put on a proper basis so that everybody can understand it and the whole community will be able to feel whatever tax they had to pay was being borne in a good cause.

General MacEoin

The Minister and the Government should take full notice of, and appreciate, the measured terms in which Deputy Cosgrave moved this motion. I feel that anybody listening to him will be convinced that the case was well-founded and that its merits were beyond question. When the Minister moved his amendment, designed to put the question back until the Budget examination, I feel he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek because, if we agreed to that amendment, it would simply mean that any crumb the Minister let fall to these people in the Budget would be regarded by him as adequate.

I subscribe to the view expressed by Deputy Norton that this is a question that should be examined on its merits separately from the Budget and, if necessary, when the Minister is making the financial arrangements necessary to meet the obligations contracted under the motion, let him state specifically that the taxation he says may be necessary will amount to whatever sum is involved. Let him say that is the sum that this motion involves for the Exchequer.

I want to point out to my Labour Party colleagues that this motion includes all the social welfare classes, old age pensioners, widows and orphans, etc. The motion states "all pensions". We exclude nobody from it. I do not want to take up time emphasising the case made by Deputy Cosgrave and others but I want to add my voice to theirs and say that I am in full agreement with the statement of claim made on behalf of all pensioners.

There are two sections, however, in particular that I think are very harshly treated. I refer to the State servants who have served in the Army and the Garda. The other section that have been treated most unfairly are the railway workers. The system of pension for railway workers is an outrage. These workers contributed to a pension fund for years and on retirement get a pension of so much. When they reach the age of 70, that pension is arbitrarily reduced, until practically nothing is left, except a small fraction, because the pensioner then gets the old age pension.

Mr. N. Lemass

On a point of order, surely C.I.E. pensions do not come within the terms of the motion?

An Ceann Comhairle

I was just about to intervene on that point. The State is not responsible for C.I.E. pensions.

Mr. J. Brennan

The more people the Deputy can talk about, the better for himself.

General MacEoin

C.I.E. is a State body with a pension fund of £3,000,000 and I submit that C.I.E. pensioners come under this motion because the railway pensioner has a pension from the company——

Mr. N. Lemass

Fixed by the trade unions and the management.

Not exactly. Guinness's may be important to the State but it is not a State body.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am ruling the Deputy's remarks are not relevant to this motion.

General MacEoin

I shall leave it at that, but I do feel strongly about it and perhaps there will be some other suitable occasion on which to discuss it. The first sections I would mention are the Guards and the Army. Their pensions were based upon their pay on retirement and with the cost of living, plus the fall in the value of money, in the purchasing power of money, they are now practically mendicants. What was a very substantial amount some years ago is now a meagre pittance. One old legal personage, a former distinguished member of the Irish Bar, retired at a certain age. He believed he had ample funds to live in comfort for the rest of his days and then he said: "Now I find I have lived too long. What was ample to give me a decent livelihood ten years ago is now a mere pittance."

That is the position of many State pensioners and, in particular, of old age pensioners and social welfare recipients. I submit Deputy Norton was correct in his assertion that the base for social welfare pensions has never been adequate. They have been too small at all times. As he reminded the Government, they are now boasting of the very marked improvement in the standard of living and in our banking returns, and it is only reasonable if that is well-founded, and it appears to be, to ask that the social welfare classes and these other pensioners be considered and their cases re-examined.

I do not know whether the civil servant who retired under Article 10 can have his pension adjusted according to the increase in the cost of living, but it would be a very sound way to have it for all our pensioners so that this question would not arise every time there is a steep increase in the cost of living and the conditions under which these people live deteriorate so much.

The amendment moved by the Labour Party is, to all intents and purposes, included in our motion and I do not see any reason why that amendment would not be accepted by us. I have no hesitation in saying I accept it and I would suggest to the Minister that he withdraw his amendment and let the amended motion go to the House and be passed by a unanimous decision. That would go a long way towards showing that we believe in the Encyclicals the Taoiseach is now so very fond of parading and show that we mean what we say by doing it.

Mr. Leneghan

If we are to take this motion seriously, and I suppose we are, then it is good to see that after so many years, the members of the Fine Gael Party have repented and come before the House in a kind of dying kick effort to make reparation for their sins in the past. As far as I can see, they seem to be activated by the same sentiments as would, say, have urged Pontius Pilate to go along to revive Our Lord several hours after he was crucified. I do not see much difference in their attitude now and their attitude a number of years ago because they were the people who crucified the old age pensioners 30 years ago. Now that they are in opposition and will not be called on to do anything, they have changed their minds in an effort to advertise their wares. They stole a march on the Labour Party by entering their horse in the pensioner stakes this week and when the Labour Party found they had no horse in the stakes, they decided to mount the Fine Gael nag. Then, of course, the N.P.D. Party, not to be outdone, decided to get a hold of the horse's tail, and so we have their amendment.

I am not surprised at anything that party would do but I am very much surprised to see the Labour Party being so foolish as to ally themselves with the most reactionary political Party in Europe. I do not think the cat and mouse act here this evening will gain anything for them. I do not think it will deceive the people, and if they think it will deceive anyone in this House, they are mistaken. I would much prefer to accept the assurance given by the Minister for Finance that he will do something for the pensioners. Whatever he will do for them, I am sure the other Parties will do nothing. First of all, they have not the power to do it and when they had the power, they did nothing. If they had the same good intentions which they professed tonight to have, they should have done something for the pensioners at that time. It should not have been necessary to criticise the Minister because we all know that the sum total of social legislation passed by the inter-Party Government could easily be written on the back of a threepenny stamp. This is just another stunt to try to fool people outside this House. I do not think it will fool anybody inside and I doubt if it will fool anybody else, either.

The present system of dealing with pensions is neither proper nor realistic, but I realise that if any solution is to be found, it must come from the Government and the Minister for Finance. I am prepared to give the Minister his chance of doing that as I believe he will solve the problem.

All Governments — not only this Government—have taken the view that when the cost of living increases, wages should also be increased. That would appear to indicate that while all Governments believed the worker is entitled—as he is, of course—to an increase in wages as a result of an increased cost of living, the worker's father who has retired and who has to eat perhaps more expensive food in his retirement than he had to eat when he was working does not need any increase at all to meet the increased cost of living. That does not make sense and I am sure nobody would admit that faster than the Minister for Finance.

Of course, if the Minister for Finance has to give the necessary increases—and I hope he will—he has to find the money, but, strangely enough, the people who tonight are seeking the increases are the very people who for a number of days past have criticised most destructively any attempt to get extra money to do anything. By no stretch of the imagination can the Government increase pensions unless they get extra money. There is nothing very realistic about that approach.

If the Minister set up a committee to examine the whole question of pensions, he would probably be doing a very good day's work and would of course be divesting himself of a great deal of responsibility which he will otherwise have to take. No matter what increase the Minister may give to pensioners, he will be criticised, probably most openly and destructively by the people who are now trying to pretend that they want an increase in pensions. If the Minister divested himself of that responsibility completely and set up a committee of this House, or some other competent body, to investigate fully the whole matter and to present to the Government a reasoned attitude towards pensioners, it would be a better approach than having one Party here tonight trying to score at the expense of the other, an attitude which will bring no good to any pensioner.

It is rather remarkable that according to legislation, anybody who retired after a certain date—I think it is 1955 —is not entitled to an increase. That does not appear to be just. We all know that with the great depreciation in money values over a number of years, pensions now being paid to persons who retired a number of years ago are entirely unrealistic and do not take into account the increases which have taken place in the cost of living and which such pensioners are unable to meet. It must be realised that as a man grows older, his habits usually become more expensive. The unfortunate thing is that if we are to consider the attitude of all Governments since the State was established—it has nothing to do with the present Government—it would appear that their attitude was that as a man grows older his requirements become far less expensive, that, in fact, they reduce to half what they were when he was younger. There is no use blaming the Minister for Finance for that attitude. That has been the position since the foundation of the State.

The suggestion was made here that pensions would have to be brought up to the same amount as salaries. If that theory were pursued to its logical conclusion, pensions would be put much higher than salaries, which would not make sense, either.

If we could devise some method or incentive to get people, when earning, to save against the period of retirement, we would be doing another good day's work. The position we now find ourselves in is that, if a man has saved money, in many cases he can get no pension at all, whereas, if he has squandered it, thrown it down the drain, subsidised Guinness or some other firm, he can qualify for a pension at State expense. That is a remarkable position in this State. It is a matter of which the Minister should take serious cognisance. It is a very serious matter that, in 1962, the position still obtains that if a man is to obtain a non-contributory pension in his old age, his attitude during his working life must be to squander every penny he earns. That is an extraordinary situation. I wonder if the Minister has ever reflected on that anomaly. If he has not, I should like him to take notice of it because it is a matter which requires rectification. If that position were rectified, many of the troubles which now concern pensioners would not exist.

In my part of the country, we have the position that a young lad who has just been let loose from school is sent out to investigate the means of farmers and people who have applied for the old age pension. From my own observation, I believe many of these persons never saw a cow, not to mind being able to value one, until they arrived on the west coast. I am inclined to think that that is the case when I consider the type of valuation they place on animals in assessing applicants' means. The assessments are completely fictitious and have no basis in reality. The Minister for Social Welfare or somebody else has intervened in recent times and has got some idea of the facts. If he were to shift some of these social welfare officers away from the west coast——

An Ceann Comhairle

Administration of the Act may not be discussed.

Mr. Leneghan

If he did, he would be doing another good day's work.

Mr. Coogan

He could shift others, besides the pensions officers.

Mr. Leneghan

He could shift a few of them away from the east coast of Ireland, as we are at it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps we could shift back to the motion.

Mr. Leneghan

On the motion moved here this evening, I would ask the Minister to be more broadminded in his approach to pensions and to pensioners generally. It is not fair to any section of the community, not to mind pensioners, to be forced into the unhappy position where either they or their representatives have to spend hours, days, perhaps weeks, chasing Deputies and Senators trying to get them to intervene on their behalf. Any man in receipt of a pension, unless he is one of the long-living men of the West, is doubtful if he will enjoy his pension for more than nine or ten years. It is only fair and reasonable that steps should be taken with a view to ensuring that those who have done good work for their country, their families, and the community generally, should not be, in the twilight of life, in financial hardship.

I realise perfectly well that, if anything is done for pensioners, it will have to be done by the Minister for Finance. It cannot be done by the people who have tabled this motion and the people who have tabled the amendment to the motion. I am quite certain that when the Minister comes here with his Budget, he will not have failed to consider the position carefully.

Mr. Mullen

Having listened carefully to Deputy Leneghan, his reference to Pontius Pilate, his admonishing of the Fine Gael Party for tabling this motion, and the Labour Party for their amendment to it, and then going on to make a case for both the motion and the amendment, I am at a loss. I am left wondering who is the Judas in this House. We shall see later on tonight.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think we would get on much better if we left these references out of our speeches.

Mr. Mullen

Deputy Norton dealt with the matter before the House in some detail. Deputy MacEoin seemed to think the Labour Party are obliged to give a reason for their amendment. Having listened to Deputy MacEoin, I do not think that is necessary because he himself indicated the necessity for the Labour Party amendment. The words "all pensioners" are used in the amendment. The Labour Party were mindful of the fact that we are dealing with all pensioners. That is the basic reason for the amendment.

I subscribe to the argument advanced by Deputy Norton that this matter should not become a political football, so to speak. It should not be a question of scoring off each other. It is a question of realisation and taking stock of the existing situation. I do not think there is any Deputy who sincerely believes that the pensions paid are satisfactory and adequate. I do not believe any Deputy is so far removed from the general public that he is unaware of the fact that the general public resent the pensions paid. How eager the Government are to legislate for increases in salaries and pensions to people who do not really need them. Concurrently with these increases, there is lavish spending. It is time we ceased to be hypocritical. If there is a flood in some part of the world, we send financial relief, giving the impression that we have full and plenty. If there is a famine, we do the same. Simultaneously, we neglect deliberately to look after our kith and kin. Indeed, there seems to be some stigma almost now in being an old age pensioner; one is put into the backyard and left there to live on bread and spread.

Last week, or the week before, the Taoiseach defended increases in salaries for State servants. He said they must get the benefit of the eighth round. We must not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the eighth round increase was to improve the standard of living and not to keep pace with the cost of living. The people we are discussing in this motion, and its amendment, have nobody to defend them. Perhaps, when we are looking for votes, we assess the position; unfortunately the conclusion reached all too often is that they are not sufficient in number to make any difference; and, so long as the greater numbers are kept quiet, so much the better.

Most of us will one day go into retirement. If we are sincere in what we say here, we should set about helping those of our people who are on the lowest rung of the ladder. If we cannot do what is asked, then we should face up to that situation. We should also proclaim that we are no longer in a position to indulge in lavish entertainment for this purpose or that purpose, that we are at last compelled, to conform with our resources. If that is done, we shall have some reality in the situation. One hears frequent reference to "benefits". That is the operative word. We extend benefits, but they are of no use to our people because their only effect is to compel these people to live on bread and spread. We should be ashamed of that.

I often wonder what the ordinary man thinks about what goes on here. Recently, there was discussion about increases in salaries. There was not a word about the old age pensioner or the widow or the orphan. The means test still applies. It would appear that the higher up the ladder one goes, the more benefits one can find. The nearer one is to the ground, the more likelihood there is of being crushed and forgotten. There should be no question of dividing on this notion or the amendment to the motion. Because of the smallness of our country and our close contacts, there is not one of us who has not a relative or a friend who is badly off. I cannot understand how people sleep at night knowing this exists and how they can continue to tolerate it.

The Government amendment suggests we should wait until the Budget. To me, that postulates: live horse and get grass. On 15th February this year, the Minister for Social Welfare was asked, by way of a question put down by Deputies Dr. Browne, McQuillan, Kyne and myself, if he intended to increase, and in what manner he intended to increase, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and so on. After a rambling statement, the Minister said: "We always have them in our mind." Shortly afterwards we had a Deputy attempting to strike a bargain that they should get 5/- between the next Budget. Surely that is a clear indication of the urgency of the matter? There is no political gain out of this. We all believe the people referred to in the motion and amendment need immediate relief and should not be obliged to accept a policy of wait and see.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I support this motion which is one of the most serious and urgent motions to come before this House for many a day. I am particularly interested in some of the least fortunate of these pensioners. I refer to the old age pensioner, the person in receipt of a widow's pension and indeed the poor unfortunate blind pensioner. I live in a constituency in this city in which there are many such pensioners. I happen to be in a business where I know their minimum requirements of foodstuffs in order to exist.

The old age pensioner has 30/- a week. Allowing him the minimum requirements of bread, butter, tea and sugar, the cost comes to 13/9d. per week. That is allowing him three 2-lb. loaves for a week. On top of that, surely, there is no old age pensioner who has not at least 1/- a week insurance to pay? He also has to pay a minimum of 2/- for lighting. If he is living in a Corporation house, the minimum rent is 6/6. If we allow him, as I am sure we will, at least one meal per week with meat and vegetables, he is left with the sum of 3d. out of his 30/-. Out of this sum he has to pay for fuel, bus fares and clothing.

Take the case of the widow. A widow gets 28/- a week non-contributory pension for herself. If she has two children, she gets 47/-. For every other child, she gets the miserable sum of 5/-. In other words, she is expected to feed and clothe a child on 5/- per week.

Last week, the Minister for Finance stated that the eighth round wage increase was not a result of an increase in the cost of living but was designed to help people raise their standard of living. Surely there is one class of person for whom we should try to do something to raise their standard of living, that is, the old age pensioner who has worked all his life and is now left with just a few years in which to enjoy his retirement. It was never so obvious as it is at present that this matter should be treated as urgent. No doubt persons trying to exist on these small pensions are either suffering from malnutrition or are a heavy burden on some voluntary organisation or on friends or relatives.

With that in mind, I wholeheartedly support this motion. It is one of great urgency. I would appeal to the Minister to withdraw his amendment and let the House get together and arrive at some means to implement what is contained in this motion.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

I intervene at this stage mainly to assist any other Deputies who may want to speak and who may like to deal with the matter under discussion in a more realistic manner. I should have thought that the Opposition would have welcomed the amendment by the Minister for Finance, particularly in view of the fact that Budget time is now so close. The amendment, if accepted, would introduce a note of reality into the debate.

The Opposition motion asks for increases in all these pensions. The Labour Party amendment seeks to widen the terms of the motion by bringing in those pension schemes operated by the Department of Social Welfare. We make what I think a very reasonable suggestion: that the opportune time to consider such increases is at Budget time, when they can be considered and discussed in the context of the fiscal measures necessary to provide the increases. I certainly was not prepared to hear the suggestion from the first Labour Party speaker that this amendment is a parliamentary trick, that there is some kind of trickery associated with discussing the provision of increases in the context of the raising of the finances to provide those increases.

It appears to me that that is a fundamental thing that any Government would be anxious to do, and that any Party that looked upon itself as a serious alternative to the existing Government would also be anxious to discuss this matter in such a context. Budget time is very near now. The Minister for Finance today mentioned April 10th as Budget day. I should have thought the Opposition would like to show their sincerity in this matter by waiting until then, when they would be in a position to make responsible proposals for increases, in the light of the financial situation disclosed in the Budget statement, instead of what can be only an irresponsible and vague proposal made without any regard to the method of raising the money.

We have not been accustomed, during the period of the previous Dáil at any rate, to a responsible attitude on the part of the Opposition. I do not think that was to be wondered at, since they had all been associated in the previous Government whose irresponsible handling of the nation's finances brought about the near disaster of 1956/57. However, I thought the last general election had finally disposed of the whole idea of a Coalition Government and that the Fine Gael and Labour attitude would now be aimed at trying to find a more constructive approach to these matters, even from the viewpoint of eradicating from the public mind the bitter memories of what resulted from their two periods of coalescence.

I read in the paper a few weeks ago that Deputy Sweetman, whose name, as former Minister for Finance, is conspicuously absent from the list of Deputies sponsoring this motion, in dealing with motions similar to this at his Party's Ard Fheis, appealed to the delegates to approach the question of increases from the point of view of a Party which might find itself in Government at some time in the future. I should have thought that he, at least, would welcome this amendment which provides him with a chance of discussing this admittedly important matter in the full knowledge of all the relevant factors which can be done only at Budget time.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It would be a good thing if increases were imposed only at Budget time. What about the Post Office charges?

Mr. Boland

As the Deputy well knows, the Post Office is a service looked upon as one which finances itself and when increases came about in outlay, the Post Office naturally took steps to negative them in their effort to try to balance their independent budget. I think Deputy Sweetman realises that if Fine Gael are ever to be looked upon as a serious alternative to Fianna Fáil as a Government, they must, first of all, get rid of the reputation of entering into commitments without making the necessary financial arrangements to carry them out which they acquired during the two periods in which Fine Gael were responsible for the Department of Finance.

This debate provides him with a chance to show that he now sees the folly of providing for the disbursement of money without arranging for the money to be available, and I think it is difficult to expect the delegates to his Party's Ard Fheis to approach this question from the point of view of the country's capacity to pay, unless their Party in the Dáil shows some inclination to do the same. We are approximately only three weeks from the Budget and I think this amendment should be accepted from that point of view alone.

In a few weeks' time we shall have the opportunity, of discussing this matter in the light of the financial situation disclosed in the Budget Statement, and if the Opposition then feel that, having regard to all the circumstances, we have not dealt fairly with pensioners generally and with recipients of social welfare benefits in particular, they will be in a position to put forward concrete proposals to show they are serious in considering themselves as a possible alternative Government, and to show that they are sincere in their concern for pensioners by proposing that certain specified extra provision should be made for them and that the money should be raised either by certain specified extra taxes or by cutting down on some of the services provided by the Government.

I intend to deal mainly with the Labour amendment which extends the terms of this motion to cover the particular schemes administered by the Department of Social Welfare, and I think I can show that the record of this Government in respect to social services generally is such as to disclose no need for this sudden concern on the part of the Opposition that on this occasion we might deal with this section of the community less than justly or that we might be niggardly in view of the state of the economy.

Just to show briefly why I think our record is of that nature and should be reassuring to the Opposition, there is, in the first place, the fact that, with the exception of the non-contributory old age pensions which are there since 1908 and national health and unemployment insurance which have been there since 1911, every single social service that we have was provided by a Fianna Fáil Government. If Deputies are interested in dates, unemployment assistance was introduced in the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1933 and contributory and non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions by the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act of 1935.

Wet-time insurance was provided for by an Act of 1942 and children's allowances in the Act of 1944. In 1952, the comprehensive Social Welfare Act, which combined unemployment insurance, national health and contributory widows' and orphans' pensions was brought in and in 1960, there was a Social Welfare Act which introduced contributory old age pensions for the first time. As far as Fianna Fáil Governments have been concerned, there was continued awareness of this aspect of the Government's duty—to look after the interests of those people who, for some reason or another, were unable to provide adequately for themselves.

In addition to that, there is the record of what this Government and the previous Government provided by way of increases for the recipients of social welfare benefits. The amount which was provided in the increases given this year, even when the cost of living at the time was practically stabilised, would cost £849,500 in a full year. Since the change of Government in 1957, the total extra amount provided for non-contributory assistance services is £5 million and, at the same time, contributory schemes have been increased by £7 million, of which £2,900,000 is provided by the Exchequer.

Consequently, out of a total improvement in social welfare benefits of £12 million since 1957, £7,900,000 has been provided from the Exchequer. If you examine the amount spent on total social welfare benefits at the time when the comprehensive Social Welfare Act came into operation, the total expenditure, exclusive of administration costs, in 1952/53 was £22,086,000. In 1961/62, it is estimated that the expenditure will be £35,800,000—an increase of £13,714,000. Out of that sum £11,157,000 was provided under a Fianna Fáil Government. That is a total increase of 62.1 per cent. of which 50.5 per cent. was provided under Fianna Fáil Governments.

In view of that, I think the record of Fianna Fáil gives no reason for this sudden urgent concern and fear of the Opposition that on this occasion we might deal with the recipients of social welfare benefits less generously than they would, if they had the opportunity. I do not think their concern need be so urgent that they cannot wait for three weeks until they see our Budget proposals and that they must insist on discussing the matter in the present unrealistic atmosphere when the vital question of providing the money cannot be adequately discussed.

This motion calls for increases because of the steep rise in the cost of living. That is given as the reason why the increases are demanded. One would have imagined that some of the speakers would have attempted to show that the cost of living had not been matched step by step with the increases in the rates of benefits and that therefore the increase in the cost of living itself justified the increase in these benefits. No attempt has been made to show that the rates of benefits of the pensions administered by the Department of Social Welfare have increased at a lower rate than the increase in the cost of living. In fact, they have more than kept pace with the cost of living.

The mid-February consumer price index figure shows a rise of three points over the figure for mid-November. Whether this is a steep rise or not, in view of some of the other rises that have taken place, is beside the point, but it is certainly relevant to this motion that it should be established that social welfare benefits have not lagged behind increases in the cost of living. If the Opposition say that it is a steep rise, I will not argue with them. Again in order to assist Deputies to discuss this motion in a realistic manner, I should like to outline the position with regard to the social welfare schemes mentioned in the Labour Party motion. If we take the case of non-contributory old age and blind persons—it does not matter what date you take as a starting point, but a usual one taken is August, 1947, the date to which the consumer price index of 100 refers— at that time, the old age and blind pension was 15/-. The cost of living index figure now is 154, an increase of 54 per cent. The old age and blind pension is 30/-, an increase of 100 per cent.

If we take another suitable date, the date on which the comprehensive Social Welfare Act came into operation, July, 1952, the cost of living index figure was 122 and it now is 154, which is an increase of 26.2 per cent. The corresponding figure for the old age and blind pension was 21/6d. in 1952; it is 30/- now, which is an increase of 39.5 per cent. That is not the full picture with regard to old age pensions. A completely new scheme of contributory old age pensions came into operation in 1961 and, although it was a contributory scheme, the benefits were extended to persons over 70 years of age who had been insured workers even though they had not in fact contributed anything to the scheme.

The benefits under this scheme have been payable since January, 1961, and the rates as originally introduced were a 40/- maximum for the insured person, plus 28/6d. for the spouse. That latter amount has been increased to 30/- since last August without any increase in contribution. That is a new scheme which has been only 12 months in operation, but if you compare that with the increase in the cost of living since that date, we find that the consumer price index figure in mid-November, 1960, was 148, and in mid-February, 1962, it was 154, an increase of four per cent. A corresponding increase in the 40/- contributory old age pension would be 1/7 and on the combined pension of 70/-, a four per cent. increase would be 2/10d. and 1/6d. of that has already been granted without any increased contribution.

Therefore, if it was decided merely to bring that scheme back into line with the cost of living an increase of 1/7d. in the personal rate of pension would be sufficient and in the case of a person also getting a married person's allowance this increase would be more than sufficient. An increase in that scheme would involve increased contributions for workers and employers in addition to increased provision from the Exchequer. Somehow, listening to the debate so far, I got the feeling that Deputies who were last week, complaining about the high level of Government expenditure were, in this instance, looking for increased provision from the Exchequer rather than increased contributions from the workers or employers.

With regard to widows' and orphans' contributory pensions relative to the cost of living, the position is more complicated since the question of qualified children comes into account. In August, 1947, a widow with no child to maintain was in receipt of 16/- per week. She is now in receipt of 32/6 a week, an increase of 103.9 per cent. For a widow with two children, in 1957, the figure was 27/- and is now 55/-, an increase of 103.7 per cent. With three children, the figure in 1947 was 31/6 and is now 60/-, an increase of 90.5 per cent. With four children, the figure was 36/- and is now 65/-, an increase of 80.6 per cent. In regard to orphans, the change has been from 10/-to 20/-, an increase of 100 per cent. During that period, the cost of living increased by 54 per cent., so that for an increase in the cost of living of 54 per cent. over that period, the rate of widows' and orphans' pensions has been increased by amounts varying from 80.6 to 103.9 per cent.

The picture is even more impressive than that because the figures for 1947 were not flat rate figures. They were the maximum urban rates and lower rates applied at that time in rural areas. I do not know if I should also give the figures for the date in 1952 on which the comprehensive Social Welfare Act came into operation as compared with the present position. I shall give the percentage increases. For a widow with no children, the increase is 35.4 per cent.; for a widow with two children, it is 44.7 per cent.; for a widow with three children, it is 57.9 per cent.; and for a widow with four children, 71 per cent. The orphans' rate has increased by 100 per cent. In that period the cost of living increased by 26.2 per cent. Here again, in the case of contributory widows' and orphans' pensions, the improvement in the rates has more than compensated for the increases in the cost of living and the improvement is particularly marked in the case of widows with qualified children, which is surely a desirable trend.

In regard to widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions, the other scheme of my Department mentioned in the Labour Party amendment, the picture is that, in August, 1947, a widow with no children got 11/6, and now gets 28/6, an increase of 147.8 per cent.; a widow with two children got 20/-, which has now become 47/6; a widow with three children got 24/-and that is now 52/6; a widow with four children got 28/-, now 57/6. The orphans' rate went up from 6/6 to 15/-. The increases, for an increase of 54 per cent. in the cost of living, were in every case well over 100 per cent. Here, also, I have taken the maximum rates that existed in 1947, the county borough rates. There were lower rates for urban areas and rates somewhat lower still for rural areas. The increases in rates of benefit have been all of much greater order than the increases in the cost of living.

In regard to figures for 1952-62, the increases have varied from 42.5 per cent. to 79.7 per cent. in a period when the cost of living went up 26.2 per cent. So far as these are concerned, it is clear that the position of social welfare pensioners relative to the cost of living, while not as good as it was prior to the eighty round of wage increases, is still such that the rise in the cost of living has not yet caught up with the improvement in the various rates of benefits made by the present Government. This is true, no matter what date you take as a starting point. I have given figures for August, 1947 and July, 1952. The Minister for Finance gave figures which showed the same situation from some other date earlier today.

I do not want to be taken as suggesting that it is or should be the aim of Government policy merely to maintain the relationship that existed between the social welfare benefits and the cost of living in 1947 or 1952 or at any other time. It is the terms of this motion which have advanced the cost of living as the justification for increases and I am merely pointing out that if that alone were to be the basis on which the matter should be considered, the improvements the present Government have made in the rates have, in fact, taken care of the situation in advance.

The figures I have quoted make clear also that we have not been attempting merely to ensure that rates of payment of social benefits should keep pace with the cost of living but, in fact, a relative improvement in the position has been taking place as the full, beneficial effects of the change of Government in 1957 have appeared in the state of the country's economy.

Deputy Norton suggests that the question of adequacy of the pensions in themselves should be first considered and that we should, at one bite, bring these rates of social welfare benefits up to the level that we would consider adequate; but I think it is obvious that what we have been doing all along is gradually to bring them up. It is not possible to do it all at one time, but, as the state of the country's economy improves, we have certainly made it clear that we are in favour of improving the relative position of the people who depend on the schemes administered by my Department.

I admit there is still some way to go before we can be thoroughly satisfied, but we have been endeavouring, with a certain amount of success, as I have shown by the figures I have given, to improve those rates of benefit, irrespective of actual increases in the cost of living.

This motion is obviously aimed at keeping pace with the eighth round of wage increases rather than cost of living increases. If that is the real intention, I do not see why it should not have been stated. In that connection, I noted a conflict of statement between two Labour Party speakers on this motion. Deputy Kyne tried to establish that the eighth round was purely intended to cover an increase in the cost of living. I was glad that Deputy Mullen who also spoke said that it was to improve the standard of living of the workers. I see no point in denying that was, in fact, the purpose that was carried out, or in denying that the workers were quite legitimately endeavouring by the eighth round to improve their standard of living. There is no point in trying to make out that it was simply an effort to cover increases that had taken place in the cost of living.

When I was first appointed to this position of Minister for Social Welfare, the eighth round of wage increases had not fully developed and I felt hopeful that it would be possible to make another significant advance in the direction in which we have been going with social welfare benefits generally. I was aware of the improvement in the national income which had been a marked feature of the past year and the continued buoyancy of the revenue and although I knew that certain rather serious unforeseen expenditures had occurred, I still visualised myself making a bold bid in a comparatively favourable set of circumstances for a reasonable share of the increased prosperity for the recipients of social welfare benefits.

Now that the full extent of the eighth round of wage increases is becoming apparent, I realise that the claims of the recipients of social welfare benefits must be considered in a more difficult atmosphere than I had hoped. It appears to me that the pool of increased national prosperity has been largely scooped by the organised workers. A sum of £5,000,000 has been added to the cost of Government services for increases in respect of employees. Therefore, where I had hoped to be dealing with this question in the context of a buoyant revenue position, it now seems unlikely that increases can be granted without taxation to cover them.

In addition to the more difficult financial condition, while I would have liked to see increases granted even in the circumstances in which the cost of living had been more or less stabilised and thereby representing a real improvement for the recipients of social welfare benefits, we now have the position that the cost of living has risen by three points, due to the eighth round of wage increases, so that the effect of any increase that may be granted in the Budget will be lessened to that extent. Obviously, then, my hopes of further widening the gap between social welfare rates and the increase in the cost of living have been somewhat diminished, since, as I said, the financial position will be more difficult than it need have been and since the cost of living has increased by three points since mid-November. However, while my hopes may be diminished, they have by no means vanished.

I do not know if there is anyone on the opposite benches who is interested in such a minor detail as the cost of increases in these different schemes. Certainly nobody I have heard speaking so far seems to have any interest whatsoever in the question of cost or of raising the money but in case there may be somebody who has yet to speak who might like to refer to the sordid but inescapable detail of the cost of giving the increases and how the necessary money might be raised, I should like to put some information at his disposal.

The yearly cost of 1/- per week increases in contributory old age pensions at the present rate for the present number of pensioners would be £89,300. Taking into account the married persons' allowance, there would be another £34,300, making a total of £123,600. In regard to non-contributory old-age and blind pensions, the cost of 1/- a week increase in the pension for the 120,500 pensioners would be £313,300. For non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions, the cost of 1/- a week increase and 1/- increase for each qualified child would be £82,719. A similar increase for orphans on that scheme would cost another £663 giving a total of £83,382. In the contributory widows' and orphans' scheme, the cost for widows and orphans would be £121,503 and for the orphans under that scheme, £1,094, making a total of £122,597.

A rough way of making out the Exchequer contribution to the contributory scheme is that the State pays one-third, the worker one-third, and the employer one-third. One penny increase in contributions would bring in £107,000 roughly. Therefore, the total cost to these three schemes administered by the Department of Social Welfare of an increase of 1/-per week would be £642,879, of which £478,747 would fall to be met by the State. If an increase of 1/- per week were to be applied all round to all the schemes administered by the Department of Social Welfare, the annual cost would be £2,751,700.

That information should be helpful to Deputies. Some of them probably have some idea in their minds as to what size of increase they would like to give and by multiplying the figures I have given by 2/-, 3/-, 4/-, 5/-, or 10/-, or whatever figure they have in mind, they can get a fairly accurate idea of what the proposals they have in mind would cost. By reference to previous Budgets, they might also be able to get some idea as to where they would get the money to implement them.

This motion is concerned only with those schemes of the Department of Social Welfare which are properly described as pensions schemes but in dealing with the question of granting increases, the Government will have to take into consideration also those schemes which deal with temporary conditions, such as unemployment and disability, and which also cost a great deal of money and, in addition, the capacity of the economy to finance the increased charges from the Exchequer. They must also consider in relation to insurance schemes the ability and willingness of workers and employers to pay increased contributions and the effect of both increased contributions and any possible increased taxation on the economy of the country.

Deputies who have still to speak might like to advert to some of those problems that must arise. Deputies would be in a better position to do it if they would postpone the discussion for three weeks when the full facts will be at their disposal, but for some reason or other, they seem unwilling to do that. Apparently they prefer to discuss the matter in the dark. Of course, I am not in a position to know the final financial picture which will emerge at Budget time but the fact is, and it has been fairly well established, that even in difficult financial situations that arose on previous occasions this Government have never neglected the interests of those people who depend on schemes under the Department of Social Welfare and Deputies may be sure that on this occasion also whatever it is possible to do, bearing all the relevant considerations in mind, will be done.

I have said that I find it surprising that the two main Opposition Parties who, apparently, are anxious to be considered as possible alternative Governments to Fianna Fáil, when it is so close to Budget time, are so desperately anxious to discuss this problem in an unrealistic atmosphere and an impractical way since they cannot adequately discuss the methods of implementing whatever proposals they have in mind. If their aspirations to form an alternative Government on their own were really genuine, they would be anxious to demonstrate their sincerity in proposing that these increases should be granted and their sense of responsibility by waiting to discuss them in the light of all the relevant factors, which can only be done at Budget time. Indeed, the fact that they are not prepared to do that prompts me to ask the question: is the idea of a Coalition Government really so dead after all or is it the fact that they can see no other future than a return to the form of government which functioned so disastrously on previous occasions?

Our proposals with regard to social welfare and pensions generally will be made known very shortly in conjuction with the Financial Statement and in connection with the Budget and it is extremely reasonable to suggest that the Dáil should wait to pronounce on their adequacy or inadequacy in the light of all the circumstances which will then be known. In the meantime, the House can rest assured that the question of increases to pensioners and social welfare beneficiaries will be considered as favourably as possible and that the only limit to improvements will be the capacity of the economy of the country to finance them.

It was stated here that the motion was not put down in order to make political capital for any political Party. In fact, Deputy Mullen went so far as to say that we should not separate, that we should get together and see what can be done. We shall be in a position to get together and see what can be done in three weeks' time when the Dáil will see what the financial situation is and Deputies who are anxious —and it is generally agreed that all Deputies are anxious—that improvements should be effected in pensions and social welfare benefits, will be able then to make responsible proposals and to indicate from where the money should come from to implement those proposals.

There is just one point that arose that I should like to clear up for Deputy Norton, that is, in regard to pensioners who retired under Article X of the Treaty. It is true that they have got increases in their original pensions but that is not a matter for this Government; they are paid by the British Government. While they have got increases, it is not true to say that their pensions are automatically increased in line with the increases in the cost of living. Of course, pensioners who are getting their pensions from this Government have also got increases in latter years.

Mr. Carroll

This is an admirable motion and is moved at the appropriate time. I trust the entire numerical strength of the Party responsible for the motion will support it. During the discussion here, a Deputy used an analogy of a horse race. He referred to the various Parties as "runners". Having regard to the proximity of the Grand National, there could be no more fitting analogy. In that race, there are sometimes very few finishers. The Minister for Finance could be the favourite on Budget Day but he might come down at the last fence. May I suggest that the analogy be taken in all seriousness?

We have listened to the Minister. At first I was not pleased when he intervened because I, thought he was concluding the debate, but I was relieved to find that he was intervening in order to help those who wished to speak. Even his protracted statement did not help me very much. He spent a lot of time dealing with the years from 1947 to 1952. I think I am correct in stating that, in 1952, the ceiling was fixed which governs the means test for social welfare benefits and has not been increased or altered since. Therefore, the motion would be worthy of support if it only asked for a review of that aspect. The motion merely seeks review. The words used are "should be reviewed as a matter of urgency." I can appreciate the position in which the Minister for Social Welfare finds himself. However, he failed to indicate what sum he was submitting to the Minister for Finance, whether it was £750,000 or an increase of 1/- or 9d. to any section. Possibly it was embarrassing to him to have to intervene at that time because eventually the Minister for Finance will be the governing factor.

I cannot see why the Minister for Social Welfare, having conferred with the Minister for Finance or the Government, cannot indicate to the House: "Yes, we feel there are sections of the social welfare provisions that will have to be improved and it will cost so much and Deputies want it and when the Budget comes along, let them support it."

I am prepared to support this motion in the division to-night, irrespective of the consequences because I think the whole question of pensions should be revewed as a matter of urgency. I am completely opposed to waiting until the Budget. Now is the time. The race has not yet begun. Now is the time to shout the odds. Surely any difficulty there may be is not insurmountable? I am sure that a good deal of consideration is being given to the Budget at the moment. It behoves me to indicate to the House and to the people who sent me here the attitude I intend to take. Another Deputy has suggested some barter arrangement, some bargaining, in return for his support. I do not think there is anything admirable in that. I do not think it is parliamentary. I do not know if it has been considered.

The suggestion here is that a review is necessary. I do not think the Minister even attempted to suggest that he was satisfied with the position. Deputy Mullen suggested a conference. Surely that would be parliamentary procedure. The Minister for Social Welfare said there was no need for such a procedure because the increases are a certain percentage and the cost of living increase is a lower percentage, or something to that effect. I should like to think I was misinterpreting the Minister. I hope he will give consideration to this matter.

On a former occasion, I raised the position of a member of the R.I.C., who resigned and joined the I.R.A., and who was subsequently attached to the Dublin Fire Brigade. He was invalided out with arthritis. Under what Act did he qualify for pension? Under the 1952 Act. That man is crippled. His case is just one of many. I am sure there are many more. It was stated here by a former Parliamentary Secretary that Deputies succeed in winning their point in doubtful cases. So far, I have not been successful.

There should be no question of three weeks or three days. This motion is a simple one. I am sure it is founded on sincerity. If it is, it has all my support. I see no reason why the Minister should not agree to revision. He admitted he is not entirely satisfied with the present position. Ought he to be? Wet-time was introduced by Fianna Fáil. After one year, the contribution had to be cut by half. Remembering the amount of money collected in stamps per working man, and the increased employment, surely there must be sufficient funds in hands? They could be a means to an end. I appeal to the Minister to give a stronger indication to the House than a mere pious wish. I do not see that any compromise is necessary. All that is asked is an assurance that a revision shall take place.

Mr. Belton

The Minister has asked us to accept the Government amendment, in view of the fact that we are only three weeks from the Budget. He also suggested we were playing politics and that we were dishonest in putting down this motion. This motion has been on the Order Paper since last November. I hope its appearance will make the Minister realise the position in relation to our pensioners when he introduces his Budget three weeks hence.

The Minister suggested it would be proper to discuss this matter on the Budget. I suggest to the Minister that would have been the proper place on which to discuss the increases in salaries to justices, judges, and all the others. It was stated that the average increase in the eighth round was 23/- per week. I do not think anybody in this House would criticise those who looked for that increase, but I should like to point out that the total number of increases granted to pensioners since the end of the emergency was only four, and some received no increases at all.

It is time that Dáil Éireann and the Government realised the serious position in which some of our pensioners are placed. Many are completely dissatisfied with their lot. We have Civil Service pensioners, teachers, old age pensioners, widows, old I.R.A., C.I.E., and all the other groups too numerous to mention. In putting down this motion, we are bringing to light the injustice meted out to our pensioners.

Deputy Leneghan proposed—I do not know whether the proposition is acceptable—that a committee should be established to investigate the whole position in relation to pensioners. If the Chair would accept it and if the Minister would agree to it, I, for one, on this side of the House would be prepared to second it.

The whole position in relation to pensions must be re-examined. I shall not go into detail in regard to the plight of the various pensioners. I should like to see adequate pensions for all. All pensions should compare favourably with existing wages. There should be parity of pensions. What I mean is that if a Superintendent of the Garda goes out on pension in 1955, he should have the same pension as the Superintendent going out in 1960.

I should like to offer a certain amount of criticism. It is in regard to many of the organisations with which the pensioners for whom we are seeking help are associated. When their associations and trade unions seek an increase in pay, they should couple with their demands a proportionate increase in the rates of pensions. If that had been done over the years, our present position could have been avoided or considerably minimised.

I should like to draw particular attention to the lot of the C.I.E. pensioners. There are 1,615 C.I.E. pensioners with 12/- a week or less. C.I.E. pensioners living in my constituency in Clontarf must pay 1/4d. per week to go in to collect a pension of less than 12/-. There are 431 in receipt of from 12/- to 22/- and there are 30 with from 22/- to 40/-. I asked the Minister for Transport and Power a year and a half ago a number of questions and he referred me to C.I.E. As instructed by the Minister, I wrote to the Chairman and Board of C.I.E. I got a most unsatisfactory reply. I could not say I was ignored, but when I conveyed the position to the people who asked me to make inquiries, it was with a very unsatisfactory feeling.

I am glad we have had an opportunity of putting down this motion. It is something that should be favourably considered in view of the fact that, during the Vote on Account last week, all the Fianna Fáil speakers were talking about the happy financial position of the country and that things were going so well. It is a sad reflection on any Government and any Parliament that people are living on such miserable pensions that many of them are hardly able to exist. The pensions I have mentioned are considerably reduced when these people reach the age for old age pensions. I should like to see Deputies on the other side trying to exist on pensions such as I have mentioned.

Mr. Dolan

This matter of pensions is a very big problem. The relationship of the pension to the salary the recipient had when in employment requires very deep thought. It is easy to see that increases should be granted to people trying to exist now on pensions granted 20 years ago. The motion mentions a "steep rise" in the cost of living. I do not think there was any need for the word "steep" but I shall not go into that. The part which says this is a matter of urgency comes as a surprise. If the matter was so urgent, it should have been submitted long ago. I think it was political urgency the farmers of the motion had in mind. Perhaps they were suffering from a guilty conscience, so far as pensioners are concerned. On many occasions— there was one occasion in particular when they had the greatest overall majority any Government ever had— they could have done something for the pensioners, but the work they did is not to be seen. I do not know of any pensioner who benefited one farthing by their administration. I do not think it was urgency; I think the motion is a political gimmick to gain some political advantage at the expense of these pensioners about whom they are shedding crocodile tears but whom, when they had the opportunity, they relegated to the limbo of forgotten things.

It is admitted by anybody who has given the matter serious study that almost all the social welfare benefits introduced here were introduced from this side of the House. There can be no doubt whatever about it. Almost £25½ million of total taxation goes towards paying social benefits. The widows and orphans know quite well the plight in which they would find themselves, were it not for the many social welfare benefits introduced on this side of the House, and, what is more important, financed. It was not a matter of passing some hasty legislation to give a temporary advantage. The Government at all times provided the necessary money. That is an important factor in deciding the merits or demerits of any motion. I do not think there should be any play-acting about it.

People should realise fairly and squarely that when you advocate extra pensions, you must be prepared to provide the money. That must be done through taxation. We on this side of the House have never been afraid to impose extra taxation to meet our commitments. When we are not dealing with Estimates, it is all very well for people to suggest all the very fine things they would do for the ordinary people, but there is an old saying and true one—and the pensioners will find some merit in it— which says: "By their fruits you shall know them." That applies very truly to the efforts on behalf of the pensioners from the other side of the House.

There was reference to means tests during this debate. It was suggested that the means test should be abolished completely. Of course, that is a very popular thing to suggest but we must face it from another point of view. Can you expect the ordinary taxpayer to provide old age pensions for people who could roll up in their Rolls Royces to collect them? That was not the purpose of the old age pensions. There does not seem to be very much sincerity behind this motion which seems to have been trumped up at this stage. Since I went to school, the only contribution I saw the Opposition make towards the old age pensioners was a reduction of 1/- in their meagre 10/-allowances.

Mr. Ryan

That was 37 years ago.

Mr. Boland

That was the only thing they did for them.

Mr. Coogan

It has been pointed out from this side of the House that this motion was put down last November. If there was justification for it then, the justification is much greater today. It calls on the Government to direct their attention to the weakest section of the community, the old age pensioners, widows and orphans and others. We have had eight rounds of wage increases, possibly due to pressure by unions, but the people we are now talking about have no union to stand up for them. This is an honest motion and I think it should be accepted by the Government as such. One must realise how the Government have allowed the finances of the country to grow out of all proportion to the amount they are prepared to give the pensioners. I think it is time attention was drawn to this and that is what we are now doing. I suggest there has been gross mishandling of the finances of the country. We have a Budget of £150,000,000 on our hands and we quibble about giving a few shillings to the most needy sections of the community. Every night we have Ministers talking in millions.

The people we are aiming at in the motion deserve increases in their pensions in order to meet the cost of living which the Government have succeeded in increasing. The Government should consider themselves responsible for the people's inability to meet this increase in the cost of living. We have not got just an annual Budget any more—we have one every month, a further hump on the backs of the weaker sections of the community. I hope that when the Government bring in their annual Budget, they will make provision for the pensioners who are at the moment completely without means to meet the higher cost of living.

Mr. Gallagher

I shall not delay the House unduly. There is hardly any doubt in the mind of any Deputy that we on this side of the House feel the need for improved pensions, indeed more so and with greater sympathy than does anybody on the other side. We have in the past indicated that sympathy for the poorer sections of the community, and we do not come in here now as hypocrites. Our aim is to look after the entire community within our capacity to pay.

The motion asks for a review of pensions as a matter of urgency and the Minister for Social Welfare has invited Fine Gael to say what increases they want and how they suggest they should be paid for. These questions have not been answered because this is a hypocritical motion, not put down in the interests of the pensioner. Deputies must have regard to the interests of the taxpayers, but since I came here, I have not heard any suggestion showing such consideration. The slogan has been "give me, give me, give me" from every section of the House.

Mr. Coogan

The judges said that, too.

Mr. Gallagher

They sent the farmers, the National Farmers' Association, looking for millions. Who is worrying about the taxpayer, the person who will ultimately have to bear this burden? Let there be a little sincerity from all sides of the House. Let us be mature in our deliberations and let us not seek political spoils at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr. Coogan

Or at the expense of the judges.

Mr. Gallagher

At the expense of the judges or anybody else. It has been suggested by the Labour Party that all increases are passed on to the consumer by the manufacturer. That is a suggestion that the manufacturers of this country are fiends who will take the advantage of the consumer at every possible opportunity. Deputies have only to ask the Minister for Finance the amount of the taxes paid by these alleged fiends to realise that there is a limit to the amount of the increases that can be absorbed by the manufacturers. When that limit has been reached, prices must be increased. If we do not pay some attention to the question of who is to pay the piper, we shall be into the ninth round of wage increases before we know where we are.

We have had the other suggestion that we should bring in some form of bureaucratic control so that all articles made here will be controlled in price instead of letting men control and manage their affairs in their own way. I hope this country will be run in the latter fashion for a very long time to come and that men will be allowed to control and manage their own affairs in the way in which they have always done it.

At times, while listening to some of the speeches, I wondered whether I was in church. We have had appeals to Christian charity. We are all Christians in this House and we all understand Christianity. Charity begins at home and I would like to hear some suggestion from the other side of the House as to the amount by which these pensions should be increased. The record of the Government has been to introduce increased social benefits on every occasion on which the economy of the country could afford it and they have tried to make some rationalisation of the problem of wages increases.

This motion brings in every conceivable type of pensioner, the one in receipt of £2,000 per year as well as the one in receipt of 12/- per week. It covers the whole field and the suggestion is that they are all in need of some increase. There has also been the suggestion that the increase in the cost of living has been extraordinary, but the figures given here deal with that question. My recommendation to the House is to leave this matter over until the Minister for Finance has had an opportunity of reviewing the financial position, and I am sure that this side of the House will not forget the pensioners, if it is possible to do anything for them. But we must have regard to the capacity of the taxpayer to pay. He is the person who has sent us all here.

Mr. Ryan

I have no desire to address the House other than to mention that this motion of the Fine Gael Party is responsible for this matter being before the House at all. Had it not been tabled by Fine Gael, it is clear from the attitude of Fianna Fáil that the pensioners would not only have been forgotten now but they would have also been forgotten in the Budget. The whole tenor of the remarks from the Government benches is that everybody is entitled to a share in the increase in national income, with the exception of the pensioners. If this is a valid principle, then why does every civil servant and every employee of a semi-State body not receive his increase except under the Budget? If the Minister's argument that pensions should not be increased except in the Budget has any validity, then the same principle must apply to every man who is paid by the State.

There can be no exceptions to the rule if it is a valid one. If it is an invalid one, there is no reason why the wrong principle should be applied to the poorer section of the community who have no strength or power to make themselves recognised. Civil servants, teachers, and employees in industry and agriculture will get an increase, independent of the Budget, because they can withdraw their labour or go slow, but, short of a hunger strike, there is no weapon left to the pensioner, other than to keep on protesting and little attention is paid to the protests.

There hangs in the hall of my father's house a fading parchment which recalls the fact that there was awarded to my grandfather by the French Red Cross a decoration for his services in the Franco-Prussian War. That parchment is beginning to decay and is discoloured with age but that parchment was presented at the same time as the present principle underlying pensions in this country was laid down. It was in the time of Queen Victoria that the principle was laid down that pensions were simply deferred pay. Generally, there was no right whatever to get any increase in pension. Pensions had to be related to the nominal income earned in the day-to-day work. I wonder in what position was the parchment or paper on which this rule is enacted put by the Government which then ruled this country and which has been accepted by our conservative Department of Finance ever since?

It seems it is about time we took the proper step of relating pensions automatically to currently-earned salaries and to no other measure and, if the Government of the day decide to allow increases for serving civil servants or increase to social welfare pensioners, the pensions paid to retired civil servants should increase automatically by the same percentage.

In a reply to a recent Question of mine, the Minister for Finance advised us that the proportion of the national annual revenue paid to State pensioners represented three per cent. I am not certain what proportion of the State's expenditure represents pay to serving civil servants but I am sure it is at least 20 or 30 times the percentage paid to retired State employees. If, as has happened, over the past few months, the Government decide to allow public servants an increase in their incomes commensurate with increases being paid to most sections of the employed, an increase varying between 15 and 20 per cent., then, we believe that pensions paid to retired civil servants, retired members of the Garda, or of the Army, or retired teachers or other retired public servants should increase automatically by the same percentage.

The Minister for Finance in his amendment requires that all the words of the Fine Gael motion be deleted except the first and that the words should be inserted:

"Is of the opinion that proposals concerning pensions charged on the public revenue should be considered only in conjunction with the Budget when they can be related to the taxation required to implement them."

If the Minister is sincere, he should apply the same principle to all currently-serving public servants. He has chosen not to do so and therefore it is quite apparent that he is insincere in this amendment. This, it seems, is only one of a series of dodges on the part of the Government since the House reassembled for the first time last October. Whenever any teeth have been put into the proceedings here, the Minister concerned has sought to appoint himself as dentist to take the teeth out of the motion in question and prevent anything effective being done.

We had a challenge here by Deputy Gallagher that Fine Gael would not give details of their proposed increases in pensions. I regard that kind of taunt as the height of audacity from a Government who have set up three different commissions because they are afraid of declaring their own policy, either because they have none or are ashamed to announce it. But if Fine Gael once announced their proposals, the Government would try to camouflage. We have a commission sitting— or sleeping—on the question of the Irish language at present. Another is sitting, or perhaps not yet sitting, on health reforms and a third is sitting on the question of ground rents. If Fine Gael would be so naïve and innocent as to surrender to the taunts and jeers of the caretaker Government and declare their policy now, we are quite certain whatever figure we would suggest for an increase in pensions would be outbid by perhaps sixpence or so, when the Budget comes along in three or four weeks time. Fortunately for the Government, we are a little more intelligent than that, but we say that if the Government have decided to allow increases to their serving employees, they must, in justice, give the same treatment to pensioners and if they do not, they must be condemned and found wanting.

On that account, I ask the House to unite in rejecting the pharisaical amendment of the Minister for Finance. The Labour Party amendment simply gives a better dressing to the Fine Gael motion. It does not say anything not already contained in the original motion but endeavours to win sympathy from sections of the community who might not understand that the Fine Gael motion includes them. Our motion is all-embracing. It seeks a complete review of our whole pension code and not simply that existing pensions be increased. That is why we must emphatically reject the Minister's amendment which is based upon a rule regarded as acceptable in a different time and age, the 19th century, when the idea of pensions was entirely new.

Mr. Corish

We put down the amendment to the Fine Gael motion, as Deputy Ryan has suggested, to make it abundantly clear that while we are concerned with the plight of the State pensioners and local authority pensioners, we are equally concerned with those who receive pensions from the Department of Social Welfare. I do not know why Deputy Gallagher from Sligo-Leitrim becomes indignant at the idea of the motion and the amendment being put down by the Opposition.

The Labour Party have always shown and expressed concern for those dependent on State assistance by way of pension to enable them to live in reasonable circumstances. We are concerned about the haphazard method of adjusting pensions down the years. I do not think the suggestion in the amendment by the Minister for Finance is sufficient, that these matters should be considered in conjunction with the Budget proposals and be related to the taxation required to implement them. The evidence has been over the years that when it came to providing increases for pensioners, they were given the crumbs left over after extra taxation had been imposed and benefits distributed to various sections of the community. That can be clearly demonstrated in the behaviour of the Minister for Finance last year.

In that year's Budget, by increasing the prices of tobacco and some other small things, the Minister had £2,720,000 to hand out, so to speak. Of this, he spent £1,522,000 in tax reliefs, mainly in income tax and surtax. There was a £600,000 aid to agriculture and £600,000 to social welfare. Therefore, it seems that the only reason for imposing further taxation by way of increasing the tax on tobacco, was to give these tax reliefs. That £1,500,000 was devoted by way of tax relief, not so much to the ordinary working man who has the small income as to those who are in the higher income bracket. While that relief meant a matter of shillings or in some cases pence, to the ordinary working man, it meant £20, £50 and even hundreds of pounds to other people. However the social welfare recipients, not necessarily pensioners, were thrown the crumbs that were left over when the Minister for Finance had finished paying out to other sections.

I do not criticise the Fianna Fáil Party for what they have done in the matter of social welfare and the increases they have given in recent years, but we were always led to believe by the spokesmen of the Government, and especially by the various Ministers for Social Welfare, that the ability of the country to pay for these things was the overriding consideration. I do not know, therefore, how one can reconcile that attitude with the attitude displayed here by Deputy Gallagher from Sligo.

For the past three years, we have been told this country is swimming into an era of prosperity. We have been told that national income has increased by approximately three per cent per year in the past three or four years, that national production has increased to an enormous extent and that, generally speaking, we are reasonably prosperous. Our point is that that prosperity is not at all reflected in the amount of the weekly, monthly or yearly allowances we pay out to our pensioners. The various increases that have been given over the past three or four years range from 1/- per week to 1/6d. per week. I do not think at any time during that period there was an increase of 2/6d. That does not demonstrate to me the prosperity of which the Fianna Fáil members boast.

Some people say that we spend far too much on pensions. When one sees the figures and compares expenditure now with that of four or five years ago I do not think it can be said we are spending too much. We must have regard, as has been mentioned here by some of the Fianna Fáil speakers, to the amount of money that taxation brings in. If we have regard to that, we shall see that in respect of social welfare recipients and pensioners, rather than there being an increase, there has been a decrease in expenditure.

In 1957-58, tax revenue amounted to £102.7 million; social welfare expenditure was £25.5 million, 24.8 per cent of tax revenue. In 1958-59, tax revenue amounted to £104.1 million; social welfare expenditure was £25.4 million, a decrease of .4 per cent because social welfare expenditure represented 24.4 per cent of tax revenue. In 1959-60, social welfare expenditure represented 23.8 per cent of tax revenue, a decrease of .6 per cent. In 1960-61, it fell to 22.8 per cent, a decrease of one per cent. For this year, 1961-62, again it has fallen by .5 per cent to 22.3 per cent.

Mr. Boland

That is because there are fewer unemployed. The rates have increased.

Mr. Corish

I do not think it makes any appreciable difference at all. My argument is that if tax revenue has increased, if the national income has increased, we should be able to afford a little more for these people who are dependent on pensions. I heard Deputy Gallagher speak also about the opposition there is from those on this side of the House when it comes to proposals for increases to people who are mentioned in this motion. Again, I would remind the House what happened last year when we had £2,500,000 and most of it was devoted to people who had plenty of money already. I remember also the year 1952 when a Budget proposal by the then Minister for Finance made a present of £900,000 to the cigarette manufacturers, money that could easily have been devoted to the people mentioned in this amendment.

Deputy Gallagher says he has heard a lot about Christianity in this House and described us on this side as being virtual John the Baptists, exhorting the Fianna Fáil Party to practise Christian charity. He says that public representatives are charitable in respect of people who are dependent on social welfare or on pensions. I do not think that is demonstrated in many public bodies in this country especially when we have regard, for instance, to the amount of home assistance devoted by the members of local authorities, county councils and corporations to those who have no money at all, to those who have no pension, wages, salary or income of any kind. It is a matter of shame for those of us who are in local bodies or in this House that we pay old age pensioners a mere 30/- per week.

I wonder do the members of the Fianna Fáil Party appreciate what this motion wants the Government and the House to do? I am sorry I was not here for the speech of the Minister for Social Welfare, but I believe he stated how many millions it would take to increase these pensions by a given figure, by 1/-, 2/-, 4/- or 5/-. All of us appreciate how costly it is, but what this motion and this amendment seek to do is to regularise the position as regards pensions and try to devise some scheme whereby pensioners would get regular increases, in accordance with either a general increase in wages or salaries or in accordance with an increase in the cost of living.

Nobody will deny that the method of applying increases to pensioners is rather haphazard. That is not the sole responsibility of the Fianna Fáil Party. It was my responsibility when I was Minister for Social Welfare. It has been the responsibility of Governments over the past 40 years. We are asking the Government to agree that as far as social welfare pensioners and State and local authority pensioners are concerned, there will be some regular system whereby when the necessity arises, either through an increase in the cost of living or anything like that, they will get a proportionate increase. I do not think that is unreasonable but it is not reasonable to suggest that we should just wait to see what we have and then if we have a few pence over, give it to the pensioners. That is not a good system. I never did think it was a good system. At least, the Government should accept in principle that the whole system of revision of pensions should be reviewed so that some regularity may be achieved.

I am informed that the amendment introduced by Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan is not being put. I do not know whether that is right or wrong. I merely want to say on that that while I appreciate the spirit behind the amendment, it seems to me to have defects in drafting and would not do what we in the Labour Party would like to have done for State pensioners and social welfare pensioners. It would seem to suggest to have applied to them increases from January, 1955, only and in respect of some of these pensioners, it might mean that they would owe the State money. If one were to have regard, say, to the old age pensioners, Deputy Dr. Browne described the increases they got as being a little above the actual percentage increase in the cost of living. I appreciate that that is not intended in this amendment but I am afraid we could not support the actual wording but certainly would support the principle.

I would not be at all in favour of the idea that from now or from any date like 1955, increases for pensioners should be linked entirely to the cost of living. Many of these pensioners have never had a proper standard of pension. Old age pensions 50 years ago were 8/- or 10/- per week. It is a shocking thing that all the State can afford now is 30/- per week. It is something that Fianna Fáil and the Opposition Parties should be ashamed of. For that reason, we suggest that the Government should at least accept the principle that as far as State and social welfare pensioners are concerned, machinery should be devised to ensure that they will not be lagging behind and that increases will be applied to them related to increases in either the national income, the cost of living or increases to wage or salary earners.

Mr. Sherwin

Much of what has been said is in support of a motion of mine which has been on the Order Paper since last November. My motion was the first to be on the Order Paper. It reads as follows:

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, following a general increase in wages, a proportionate increase (apart from Budget increases) should be granted immediately to all those in receipt of social welfare benefits, because a general increase in wages is usually followed by a general increase in the cost of living."

In that motion, I sum up most of what is being advocated here today. The reason I included the words "(apart from Budget increases)" was that pensioners might get a shilling in the Budget but in the event of a general increase in wages in the following few months and a consequential rise in the cost of living, I would expect another increase.

The principle underlying my motion is that increases should not be haphazard and should not depend on the good offices of whoever is in power or on whether an election is pending, but should be in proportion to a general increase in wages and that some sort of code should be arrived at as to the proportionate increase that should be granted automatically to social welfare beneficiaries.

That is what is now being advocated by the House. That is what I heard Deputy Cosgrave say today and what I have just heard Deputy Corish say. It is all embodied in the motion that I have tabled and which I will not have the chance to discuss for some time.

I foresaw the present situation early last November. At that time, there was a general increase in wages, the effect of which was not felt because the increase in the cost of living was only beginning to become apparent. It was obvious that if all employers gave a substantial increase, they would increase the price of their commodities. That made sense. It will always happen that where there is a substantial increase in wages, automatically there will be a substantial increase in the cost of living. One does not have to be a very clever person to know that.

The time has come when there should be some understanding as to what a social welfare beneficiary should receive, what the old age pensioner, the widow, the unemployed man, should receive and, a code having been established, it should be arranged that henceforward, automatically they should get a proportionate increase. That is how I would argue and how I will argue when my motion comes up for discussion later. Nevertheless, I want the principle of what I am saying to be considered now in discussing this motion. I want the Minister to bear in mind the points I make, especially when budgetary decisions are being made.

I am prepared to a large extent to accept the Government's amendment. I am largely concerned here with social welfare beneficiaries. I am not one of those who expect the impossible. I am a local representative. I have been "browned off" in the past ten years hearing discussions about differential rents. One Party wants to beat the other; one offers something and the other offers more. There is never a question of who pays. There has been a lot of that type of thing here today.

It is suggested that everyone should get an increase—everyone. I shall not go into that. I accept the principle and I hope that some day everybody will get an automatic increase, but I am now concerned only with the people in receipt of social welfare benefits and I hope they will get a substantial increase in the Budget. I am not going to town asking for increases for everybody, because, caring as I do for those people whom I have mentioned, I realise that if everyone got an increase, it would dissipate whatever money is available and the people for whom I want an increase would get little or nothing. If there is any money to spare in the Budget, I am asking that they be given a substantial increase because they are really on the floor.

Many of the people who, it is suggested, should get an increase may be people with property, with a little in the bank or with a pension amounting to one-half or two-thirds of their former income. I am prepared to admit that there are some cases where the circumstances might be poor, but many of them are fairly well-off. The majority of the people I am talking about are non-contributory pensioners who are subject to a means test and who have not got the itch or, if they have, it is assessed. They have nothing but what the State gives them—28/- in the case of a widow and 30/- in the case of the old age pensioner and uninsured cripples get a miserable 22/6d. They are the people I am worried about. That is all they have. If they go to the home assistance officer, he will visit their homes and see if they have a television set or any family income, in which case they will not get twopence.

There have been substantial increases in wages. The increases in this round were almost double the increases granted in previous rounds and, consequently, the increase in the cost of living is double. The people in receipt of social welfare benefits will have to pay that double increase. That is why I say that, whereas formerly it would have been all right to give them a bob or two, I will not now accept a bob or two for them. Because of the substantial increases given to other sections, I expect these people to get proportionate increases in their benefits in the Budget.

I know it is most popular to advocate increases for everybody. I know politics only too well. Suppose the Government did give an increase to everybody. Why then they would have to increase taxation considerably; and we all know that the taxpayers would start marching, like the ratepayers all round the country, asking for the Government's blood. If there were an election, those who got the increases for these people would reap the benefit, and also the votes of those marching around the country looking for the Government's blood.

We know all that and, whether we like it or not, the Government have to calculate what kind of body-blow they will deliver. Naturally, they will not deliver too heavy a blow and, therefore, they will not be able to do all the things they are asked to do. I realise that. That is why I am concerned with those who are really on the floor. I will press their case, but no other case. I will accept the Government's amendment because I believe these people will get an increase. But I want a fair increase, not a bob or 1/6d. This time, that type of increase will be of no use.

This is not really a debate in which one can prolong discussion. One states one's views, and that is an end of it. I press for these people because I live in a very poor constituency, Dublin North-Central, old Dublin, with a lot of slums in it. I know the sort of people who inhabit the area. I was born among them; I still rub shoulders with them. There is a dispensary round the corner from me and I pass droves of these old people going in there every week for their 2/6. I know what I am talking about. I am not going to ask for too much. I know the Government will have to increase taxation to meet the increases given to State servants. I shall say no more. I want a proportionate increase for the people on the floor. I will be satisfied with that.

We are expending about £9,000,000 per year on non-contributory old age pensions. Last year, nothing was done for these people, despite the fact that considerable concessions were made to surtax payers. Now, Deputy Gallagher is a representative of the surtax payers.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy is not correct in saying nothing was given to non-contributory old age pensioners last year. There was an increase of 1/6d. from 4th August.

Mr. Byrne

I apologise. That increase cost less than £500,000.

Mr. Boland

£849,000.

Mr. Byrne

I consider Deputy Sherwin's proposal of 5/- not at all excessive. I do not accept the Minister's percentages when he relates his argument to a pension of 15/-, 15 years ago. I am aware that the cost of living has increased by 54 per cent. since that time, but percentages of this kind prove nothing whatsoever.

From the long-term point of view, there is a grave pension situation because of the fact that the number of old people is increasing, due to the advance in modern medicine. Life expectation is much greater than it used to be. That creates a considerable problem because, at the same time, the working population, the supporting community, is decreasing. You have the position where an increased number of old people have to be supported by a declining number of working persons. For that reason, it is well that we should consider first principles and decide whether or not it is within our economic capacity to support our own people and to what extent we are prepared to do so. Many more inducements by way of tax incentive could be operated to encourage people to provide for their own old age.

Again, having regard to first principles, and taking a purely long-term view of the matter, it seems to me there is a very different pensions problem as between the rural parts and the city areas. I was talking to a country Deputy last night who said he was aware of cases of small, 15 to 20 acre farmers, amongst whose children there is a certain amount of competition when the old person becomes eligible for the old age pension as to which of them should accommodate the old person and which of them should have the advantage of the 30/- a week income. If that is so, it is a very different state of affairs from what prevails in the city areas. I do not think in rural areas the rent problem is anything like what it is in city areas. It is by no means uncommon for an old age pensioner in Dublin to pay a rent of 10/-, 12/6d. or 15/- a week for a single room.

I have often heard of the phenomenon of the small farmer who, in order to make himself eligible for the old age pension, signs over his land to one or other of his children. Again, that particular individual would not seem to me to be in such dire straits as the retired builder's labourer trying to eke out an existence on 30/- per week in one room in a tenement in Dublin. While I am always very reluctant to take a purely local view of national problems, it is time we considered the question of the city resident as a problem very different in kind from that of old people living in the country.

In regard to State pensioners, Garda, Civil Service and Army pensioners, there is no doubt whatever from the considerable number of representations Deputies receive from time to time from their organisations, that all of the State pension schemes simply bristle with anomalies, all of which leave one or other section of pensioners labouring under a sense of grievance or in a position where they are not receiving parity with other pensioners in similar circumstances. I came across one such case a few days ago in respect of Garda pensions. Garda, when they were employed, had deducted from their pay a certain amount for rent allowances. Their pensions are related to their former pay and that rent allowance is not taken into consideration whatever. I do not wish to prolong my remarks except to repeat that I consider it is time we sat back soberly, apart from its being time to do so, to consider our scale of priorities.

Mr. Corry

I am happy about this motion because it proves that the Opposition now admit the country has become so prosperous under this Government and the previous Government that we are in a position to deal with these very deserving classes of the community. It is a pretty big change from the wails we had last week about all the unfortunate farmers looking for a reduction in the rates. Both Fine Gael and the Labour Party were here as a Government in 1954, 1955 and 1956. The only trouble I ever saw with old age pensioners was in January and February of 1956 when they went into the post offices in fear and trembling because they were afraid the money would not be there.

Mr. W. Murphy

Who gave them the first rise?

Mr. Corry

Was that the time you took the bob off them? The inter-Party Government cleared out early in 1957, in the full knowledge that if they remained on another month, not alone would the pensioners have nothing, but the civil servants would have nothing and they would have nothing to pay themselves. We have brought the country to such a state of prosperity now that we can afford to deal with the pensioners. That is a big change. If Fine Gael did not believe that, they would not have put down this motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might come to the motion.

Mr. W. Murphy

He should come to the motion before the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And the Deputy should not talk at all: he is interrupting.

Mr. Corry

I know men down the country, and other Deputies know them as well, who went out and risked their lives for the freedom of this nation and who have a service certificate and a pension of less than £25 a year. According to Deputy Ryan, all the civil servants are entitled to increases. I suggest that the first people who should be considered in any increases are the men who made it possible for all those "blathers" to come in here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not refer to Members of the House as "blathers"

Mr. Corry

If you can call them by any better name, I agree. It is not fair to see men who risked their lives to give us the measure of freedom we enjoy in this Republic getting from £15 to £30 a year, while others are looking for increases in pensions of £600 or £700.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): This is an important motion in so far as it embraces such a large number of people. We have an increasing number living to an advanced age. Even in the past 30 years, there has been a ten-year increase in longevity which might please most members of the House. In this country, due to emigration, we have a very large proportion of very old people. Of course, we have the old and the young, and owing to legislation over the past number of years, we have an increased number of people paying superannuation.

The motion deals with two sections of our people—State pensioners and the social welfare group. If we take the State pensioners—people who were at one time State employees—the average person in that category was attracted to the Government service for two reasons: First, there was the steady income and secondly, the fact that at the end of his service, he would get a pension. When he joined he estimated the value of that pension. Furthermore, in some forms of employment, down through the years, he must make contributions to that pension.

Consequently, there is a certain breach of contract involved when he finds on his retirement that the money he receives as pension has less purchasing power than he thought it would have when he joined the service. If, after a number of years, when he becomes an old pensioner, his pension remains steady while the cost of living goes up, he has an established grievance. We, as a community, no matter what Government are in power or how it came about, have a certain responsibility in the matter by virtue of the fact that the purchasing power of the pound has steadily gone down through the years.

The existing fixed pension system, as we know it, was based on a period in which inflation was practically unknown, when men could plan ahead on what they were able to receive as pensions. Inflation, as we know it, is something which has hit us in this country since 1930, and particularly since the war, and consequently people who are going out on pension are faced with something they did not anticipate when they first joined the Government service. Therefore, I feel we have a moral obligation and we should face up to that responsibility.

The Minister for Finance, in his remarks in relation to old age pensions, made calculations in percentages and said there were percentage increases in some cases which had exceeded the rise in the cost of living. Calculating this thing in percentages is fallacious because if you are giving a small amount originally, the percentage calculation falls down. It is easy to take a figure of 5/- and say you gave a man a 100 per cent. increase, taking it on the basis of what the man had originally. That is a fallacious kind of calculation.

It was also mentioned that an increased amount of money was being spent on social services. That is true. Since 1956-57, the increase was something like £27,000,000 but we must measure that also against increased revenue and if we do, the percentage is slightly smaller.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that it has been agreed that the Deputy who is to conclude on the motion should be allowed to rise at 9.45 p.m.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The only other point I would make is on the question of old age pensioners. Expending money on old age pensions should not, in the ordinary course of events, cause any substantial financial difficulty in the State. Most of the money given to old age pensioners is spent on simple household requirements. The average old age pensioner is not a person who would in any way, through his purchases, upset the balance of payments or in any way contribute to inflation. Normally, he spends his money on buying necessaries for himself or for the grandchildren. Consequently, money so spent might, in a fashion, be regarded as an investment.

In this country, we have county homes, and in the average household there is a tendency to dump the old grandfather into a county home and in many cases he is kept at home among his family by virtue of the fact that he has a few bob from the old age pension. I believe that increasing that will tend to keep people out of the county homes and no matter how exotic we make our county homes, the average old man will not be as happy in one as in his own home, no matter how humble it may be. Finally, I would point out that this motion merely asks for a review. We have been asked why we did not specify some particular figure. The answer is obvious, and in that light, no request could be more reasonable.

Mr. D. Costello

There are great inequalities in our social fabric, there are great social injustices in our society today. There is great inequality of opportunity in this country; there are rigid class distinctions in this country between the more well-off and the poor. The object of this motion is to bring to the notice of the Government in as forceful a manner as possible the view of this House that we are of the opinion the poorest sections in the community should be helped immediately in a practical way by the State. We are drawing attention in this motion to the lot of all those living on State pensions and all those in receipt of social welfare pensions and so forth.

We do that because we think that these are the people who are at the present time in most need of assistance from the State. It is sometimes to be feared that people are inclined to pay mere lip service to the needs of the old age pensioners and of the widows and orphans and those living on small State pensions. There is nobody who will say that they should not be well looked after but their good wishes are always surrounded by so many escape clauses as to make the desires of these people practically impossible to achieve and they are not backed up by any effective action at government level.

We wish to draw attention to the fact that while we may be regarded as an affluent society for a very small group of people, by and large, the people of this country are poorly off and some sections of them are very poorly off. There are some people who suffer from hunger and malnutrition and from cold because of the low level of their incomes. Nobody conversant with conditions in the city of Dublin will deny the truth when we point to these facts and say that the old age pensioners and the widows and orphans are the people who suffer from cold and malnutrition and common hunger. These people are helped out by charitable organisations in the city and throughout the country and these charitable organisations do help to supplement what the State is giving to them.

But people who know the conditions in the city of Dublin and other towns also know the plight of the old age pensioners and the widow; they know that if you go into their homes, you may find the light turned off in order to save the gas bill; they know that they have not got a proper fire because they cannot afford proper fuel or are eking out the fuel they have. They know also the conditions of the blind pensioners who are living in similar conditions. We feel that where there is talk of the affluent society in this country and of increased prosperity, this talk should be translated into practical action to help the sections of the community who are living in poverty.

We are drawing attention also to the plight of persons who have retired from the State services and the service of local authorities. It is invidious to draw distinction, as Deputy Sherwin tried to do, between them and persons on social welfare pensions because the position of a great number of our retired State servants is extremely bad. These people are living in greatly reduced circumstances and it is not true to say that many of them are living in a comfortable manner. Undoubtedly the fact is that the great majority of them are living in very dire distress. They are people who were used to a certain standard of living; people who were used to keeping up certain standards and they have suddenly found themselves in a position of very dire poverty. These are the people whom we wish to point out to the Government as requiring immediate assistance.

It has been suggested that this is not an opportune time to bring this motion, that it is a hypocritical motion and a move in the political game. I do not think any of these criticisms are justified. This motion should help the Government. The Government should realise from the discussion the unanimous view of this side of the House that we want pensions increased and that we want social welfare benefits increased. The Government should have little difficulty in trying to put through a Budget proposal to do these things because they know beforehand the attitude of the House.

The only criticism of the motion has come from the Government backbenchers. It is only from the backbenchers of the Government that we have heard the usual words of caution; it is the backbenchers of the Government who framed the escape clauses that mean no action. From this side of the House, it has been made abundantly clear to the Government that we are prepared to support an increase in social welfare benefits and increases for State pensioners. In the light of that, we think this motion is very opportune and one that should be welcomed by the Government.

I do not think it is incorrect to say that the amendment put down by the Government is a political move to avoid an expression of opinion by this House. The Government do not want the motion passed asking for a review of pensions. The Government would not like such a statement from the Dáil now and obviously some Deputies not under the Government's whip are gullible enough to accept the Government's amendment. We on this side of the House ask them to vote for the motion.

Those who vote for the Government's amendment should realise that by so doing, they are avoiding an expression of opinion by the House which would be coercive on the Government to give assistance to State pensioners and to people in receipt of social welfare benefits. That is why we think the Government, by this political manoeuvre, are endeavouring to avoid a decision by the House which we think it is advisable should be given so that the Government should have no doubt about the feelings of the House as to how the Budget should be framed.

In the past few years, a great deal of political discussion and controversy has taken place about the cost of living. It was a very common type of attack on the Government of the day to say that the cost of living had increased. It was very common for the Government to be blamed for that. These criticisms of whatever Government were in office were answered by different types of announcements at the time, but one thing that must be said about the undoubted, considerable increase in the cost of living which has occurred here since 1957 is that it was the result purely of internal pressures on our economy. It was purely as a result of internal factors that the cost of living increased by 19 points since 1957. I ask Deputies to look at the figures for import prices since that time. They will see that in other years import prices had a considerable effect on the cost of living here, but since that year import prices have, in fact, declined and whatever caused the rise in the cost of living it was a cause which was worked out at home and over which presumably the Government should have some control.

We have drawn attention to the rises in the cost of living since then. We have pointed out that it is something that was not caused by outside factors. We have also pointed out for Deputies who appear to think that "a steep rise in the cost of living" is a phrase not justified by the facts, the remarkable increase that has occurred in the cost of living in recent times. Since the beginning of 1960, the cost of living has increased from 114 points to 151. It seems to be going up since the beginning of 1960 at an accelerated pace and, if I heard the Minister for Social Welfare correctly this evening, it appears that later figures indicate that there has been in very recent times a further increase.

We think these matters are relevant to this discussion and also, as has been pointed out by several spokesmen, while we can argue that because there has been an increase in the cost of living, State pensions and pensions of persons in receipt of social welfare payments should be increased, this in itself is not a proper criterion. To say, as has been said here by the Minister for Finance, that between 1954 and the present time, social welfare payments and pensions generally have increased by 39 per cent and that the cost of living has increased by only 22 per cent is not a proper comparison because the cost of living index figure is worked out on a weighted average which is, in fact, a figure not fair to the old age pensioners because they have to eat and must depend on some things which are unfairly weighted from their point of view in the cost of living figure.

The real things that count for the old age pensioner or the person in receipt of a window's or a blind pension or some small state pension are the prices of bread, butter, tea, sugar and fuel. These are the things that have increased so drastically since 1957. Deputy Cosgrave told us that butter had gone up by 1/2; a 2-lb. loaf by 6½d. and the stone of flour by 3/10½d. Anybody who knows how the old age pensioner ekes out his 30/- a week knows that bus fares sometimes mean that he cannot go out from the centre of the city to visit a married daughter at Crumlin, Ballyfermot or Finglas because he cannot afford the extra 1d. or 2d. on the bus fare. That is the sort of margin on which those people live; these are the facts, and juggling with statistics cannot gainsay the undoubted fact that these people have been most adversely affected by the spiralling cost of living experienced since 1957.

We have talked about a review of pensions, but, in addition, the Government should seriously consider reviewing the means test and the way in which it operates, particularly in respect of old age pensioners and widows. We all know of widows trying to live on non-contributory pensions who want to earn a few shillings a week by cleaning or doing housework to augment their meagre income. They find themselves hounded for so doing and penalised because they want to do a little work. While the abolition of the means test from our social welfare code is, perhaps, a luxury the country cannot afford at present, that is no excuse for not trying to bring a great measure of alleviation, particularly to the widows and old age pensioners who want to work and are prohibited in many instances from doing so because of the defects of our present code.

Reforms come very gradually and usually as a result of a great deal of pressure over a long time. One reform which should come here and which I trust will come shortly is a reform in the method of computing pensions to our retired state servants. Other countries, not better off to any great extent than we are, have been able to link State pensions with the cost of living. Norway and Denmark, for example, are doing this; France does it also but she is wealthier than we are. Yet, countries whose conditions may, in general, be compared with ours have been able so to devise their economy as to afford sliding scales linked to the cost of living to State pensioners. It has been said already, that the present position represents a breach of trust with those people who have given service to the state or local community and who find themselves being paid pensions, to which they have largely contributed, in a debased coinage. I hope we shall see the day when these reforms are brought about.

The Government and persons who say: "We must wait and see" or "We should love to give these increases but we cannot increase taxation any further" or "We must see what the burden on the community will be"; persons who couch their language in these sage phrases forget, I think, the facts which were brought out here this evening very clearly by Deputy Corish. Last year, the Government, if they wanted to do so could have increased social welfare payments; instead, they took a deliberate decision that they would not increase social welfare payments beyond the level at that date and that instead they would reduce the level of income tax.

That was a decision which I for one criticise because while there is no doubt that we would all love to be able to say we will reduce the income tax, I believe, as has been said in this House, we must have a clear priority. We must know there the certain people whose claims on the bounty of the State, whose claims for assistance by the State, come before all others. Those are the people to whom we refer in this motion.

As I said in the course of the remarks I made earlier, the Government should take courage from this debate. It is a debate which has been initiated at a very opportune time. It has taken place just at the time when the Government must be preparing their Budget. There has been a clear demonstration from this side of the House that we want to see increased the pensions of persons who have given their lives to the State, the pensions of persons who have served in local authorities all their lives, the allowances of persons who are in receipt of social welfare payments. We are prepared to support any action to do that. Let the Government take their courage in their two hands and turn their back on the Tory reactionary policies to which they have become accustomed.

Mr. Moran

That comes well from the Deputy.

Mr. D. Costello

Let them be generous to those people who need support at this critical juncture to enable them to live proper, decent lives in this country.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided, Tá: 60, Níl: 64.

Tá

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Jack.
Blowick, Joseph.
Browne, Michael.
Carroll, Jim.
Casey, Seán.
Clinton, Mark A.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Coughlan, Stephen.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Desmond, Dan.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Dunne, Seán.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Farrelly, Denis.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Browne, Noel C.
Burke, James J.
Burton, Philip.
Byrne, Patrick.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McQuillan, John.
Mullen, Michael.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Thomas G.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
O'Keeffe, James.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Pattison, Séamus.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Ryan, Richie.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.

Níl

Allen, Lorcan.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Breen, Dan.
Brennan, Joseph.
Breslin, Cormac.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crinion, Brendan.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cuninngham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
Dolan, Séamus.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Gallagher, James.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James M.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hillery, Patrick.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Leneghan, Joseph R.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Meaney, Con.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moren, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
Ryan, James.
Sherwin, Frank.
Smith, Patrick.
Timmons, Eugene.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl, Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.

Question declared lost.

Question "That the proposed words be inserted" put and declared carried.

Amended motion put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 21 Mar 1962