I move:
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.
I have waited a long time to introduce this motion. I was not certain when it would come up until I was informed today that it might come up tonight. Naturally, when it comes up suddenly, one is not as well prepared as one would wish to be. I should like to be able to speak until 7.30 p.m., and to speak again, but I do not think I shall be able to do so.
The question of social benefits first arose in a haphazard manner. We know that in or around 1911, old age pensions were first introduced by Lloyd George. To do that, he had to introduce surtax. There was much opposition to this proposal, especially by those who were asked to pay for it. It is only since then, and gradually, that we have had other benefits. All those benefits should relate in some way to some figure. I am taking the labourer's wage as a case in point.
Let us accept that at present a labourer's wage is £10 a week. Therefore, there ought to be a reassessment of what the various beneficiaries should get — whether the person be a single man, a young man, an old age pensioner, a widow, a dependent, and so on. There ought to be a complete reassessment and there ought to be an improved scale, in relation to what the labourer earns to maintain a wife and family, if he happens to be married.
Social beneficiaries have never received a sufficient income in relation to the cost of living and in relation to the wages paid to a labourer, that is, £10 a week at present. Benefits are very much advanced in Britain compared to here. We are told they have to pay for them and we know that Britain is a far wealthier country than this. The social benefits in the North are far superior to ours. They are similar to those obtaining in Britain and are subsidised or paid for by the British Exchequer.
Within the past year or two, this Government said they aimed to increase social benefits and to bring them as near as possible to the British level. That will depend on increased productivity and on the general economic wealth of the country. That should be the aim: the Government say it is the aim.
A Select Committee ought to be set up to go into the whole question of what each person or couple or family ought to receive and, having established that, allowing, among other things, for the cost of living and for the age question because age has much to do with it. For instance, if you consider that an old man should get, say, 50/- you might not consider that a young man should get that amount, because young men have ways and means of earning money. They can go away; they can join the Army, and so on. It is, perhaps, not a good thing to encourage a young man but, allowing for the age difference, there should be a reassessment in the light of modern standards. It should not relate to past standards.
In the past, whatever benefits were granted were granted in a begrudging manner. I understand that when old age pensions were first paid in Britain the amount was 5/- a week. There are many people who sympathise with this class of people but when they are asked to contribute they do not want to do so. Prior to 1911, as we all know, old people died in the workhouse. There was no unemployment assistance. From our readings about the Famine period we know that starving people were housed in huge workhouses. We know that people lived largely on potatoes and salt and that large numbers of them had to emigrate. There was no assistance. Even contributions to assist those in the workhouses were objected to by the big ground landlords. In fact, some of the landlords shipped many of those people in the workhouses to America in the coffin ships. They considered it cheaper to do so. It is a very difficult matter when it comes to the wherewithal. However, we have advanced since then.
It is extraordinary that the French Revolution was not commenced by any organised body but by mobs of unemployed, destitute people. The other people took it up afterwards. There was a complete disregard, over the ages, for the old, the destitute and the feeble. About 50 years ago, we made a start but I am not satisfied that what they receive now is a just amount, taking into consideration the cost of living and other aspects of the matter.
A man who has to live on an old age pension ought to receive at least a quarter of the amount an employed manual worker earns. We cannot encourage young people in this respect but we cannot let them starve or we should have more crime. A new figure should be reached for all the various classes I have in mind. Then we ought to consider how they may receive increases because they must receive increases from time to time just like wage earners. Up to now, it has been pot luck. It depends on the Government, on the Minister, on whether the Government are strong or weak. Nothing is regularised and it ought to be.
The fate of the people I speak for should not depend on the whims of any Government or Minister. They ought to have the right to receive an increase in proportion either to the increased cost of living or at least wage increases. Nowadays, wage increases are general. We heard talk about the eighth round increase, and so on. Whenever there is a round of increases, two general increases follow. All the people who pay those increases automatically increase the cost of their goods or services.Later, the Government, being the largest employer and having to meet the same demands, increase taxation to pay their employees and all the people depending on them. Therefore, a general increase in wages is followed immediately or thereabouts by a general increase in the cost of living. The State will increase the cost of living because they must pay the same increases to their employees. I would like to see all this regularised. I do not like to see these people being treated as pawns, depending on the whim of the Minister, on the health of our finances, on whether an election is due or not. There should be some way by which they would get an immediate increase.
As time passes, we are organising in this direction. We are now told that wages should be related to productivity and national income. The Labour people, both here and in England, have begun to see the importance of this relationship. Some individuals think that the old way is the best. It is not. If you do not relate increases to the ability of people to pay, you can do serious harm to the very people expecting some additional support. Consultation is now taking place to relate wage increases to these other conditions.
Likewise, increases granted to those in receipt of social benefits should also be related to something. Old age pensioners should not be made the pawn. From time to time we have people tear jerking and seeking votes. If there was a procedure by which those in receipt of social benefits would obtain those benefits as of right, there would be no need for individuals or groups of politicians to cash in on this because it would be no longer their business. That is the principle behind my motion. It is up to the Minister to do something about a reassessment along the lines I have suggested. I have a right to speak again, and I know this is a matter on which a lot of Deputies would like to express themselves.
The motion on the Order Paper contains a reference "apart from budget increases". I should like to explain that. At Budget time, a Minister may give an increase of a shilling or anything else; but if, within a few months, there is a general round of wage increases, independent of that shilling or whatever it is, a proportionate increase should be given. I should like to hear the views of other Deputies on the motion.
