Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Nov 1966

Vol. 225 No. 9

Private Members' Business: Pensions.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I move:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that in view of the steep rise in the cost of living and the difficulties created thereby for all pensioners, all pensions should be increased.

That, Sir, is an all-embracing motion. It is, in my respectful submission, no more than is necessary. It is a motion which calls on the Government to recognise the fact that the cost of living has increased substantially and, as a result, severe hardships have been inflicted on all categories of pensioners. I am appealing to the Minister and the Government to do justice to all grades of pensioners. In that, I include old age pensioners, widows, retired local government employees, retired civil servants, retired members of the Garda Síochana and all other categories of State and semi-State pensioners. It is unnecessary for me to labour the argument or to emphasise the fact that the cost of living has increased very substantially.

I propose to deal with this motion in a general way because other speakers following me will deal with each of the categories involved more specifically. However, I should like to say a word about old age pensioners in the first instance. The maximum rate of pension payable to an old age pensioner at the present time is 47/6d per week and that has been so now for over 12 months. It does not need any great eloquence or argument to convince the country, or certainly Deputies, that that is a totally inadequate sum on which to expect an old person to live. We should, in this country, be just to people who can no longer fend for themselves, to people who can no longer go on strike, who can no longer march in order to put their claims before the Government and the Minister concerned.

I notice that a new means test has been introduced into the old age pension code. Up to about 12 months ago a person could have £52 a year approximately and qualify for the full old age pension. In the Budget of last year, I think, a new means test was introduced whereby people who had more than £26 a year did not qualify for the maximum payment of 47/6d per week, but in the Social Welfare Act of this year, we had yet another means test introduced. When the last 5/- a week was given, it was stipulated that it would become payable only to people who were destitute, people who had no income whatsoever; even a right of residence disqualified a person from receiving this latest increase of 5/-. That was an unfortunate provision to put into the Social Welfare Act of this year, because I think people should not be discouraged from making some provision for themselves, such as retaining a right of residence in the house which they transfer to another member of the family. I shall deal with this only in a general way and I want to leave the old age pensioners and the widows on the note that the present pensions are really a disgrace to this country in this year of 1966.

State servants, in general, and local government employees who retire have the same grievance. The pensions they receive bear no relation at all to the salaries for the time being paid to their successors in office, and the pensions they receive very often bear no relation to the cost of living. I have held, and held for a very long time, that the pension being paid to a retired civil servant or local government employee should be tied, and tied rather rigidly, to the salary being paid to the successor in office; that is no more than reasonable. I understand that local government pensioners have received an increase which is supposed to bring them up in line with the ninth round, to compensate them for the ninth round increase. In fact, it does not do any such thing. It ignores certain increases which serving officers received subsequent to the seventh round. It ignores the status increases of which the Minister is well aware. This means that those local authority employees who retired, I think, after 1963 are in a very poor position indeed, and feel that they have a genuine grievance. It always puzzled me why the pensions of retired local government employees and civil servants were not related to the salaries paid to their successors in office. It is very hard to justify their not being so related.

Members of the Garda who have retired are also dissatisfied with the treatment which they received, and with the pensions which they are being paid. I think it is a fact that there are six different rates of pensions being paid to the same grade in the Garda. Admittedly, they retired at different times, but it is an extraordinary thing that six different rates of pensions should be paid to the same grade within the Garda Síochána. When these men joined the Force, they were led to believe that they would have a guaranteed standard of living, a reasonable standard of living. Of course, so long as they remained members of the Garda Síochána, their organisations fought for them, and were in a position to agitate for them, and see to it that they were properly treated. A man who joins the Garda should be guaranteed not only a reasonable standard of living while he is serving in the Force, but a reasonable standard of living when he retires and can no longer earn a living for himself.

I understand that the Garda alone among all the State servants contribute to their pensions. I think they pay something approximating to 2½ per cent of their salaries towards a pension fund. I understand that no other branch of the Civil Service so contribute to their pension fund. That is all the more reason why they should be properly treated by the Government and by the Department. The same thing applies to local government officials who retire. They find themselves, comparatively speaking, much worse off than their serving brethren.

Another thing that strikes me as being unfair to retired people is that many of them invest, and have invested in the past, in national loans, believing they would have some security in that way, but of course they find that what looked like a reasonable rate of interest when they invested their money, and what looked like a reasonable income, means very little at the present time because the value of money has been substantially reduced. At the same time, if they are within the income bracket, they have to pay income tax. Those are the better off pensioners. As I say, while their capital is being reduced if invested in national loans, at the same time they are called upon to pay income tax.

It is really difficult to understand the general approach of the Government, and of various Ministers of State individually, to this problem of pensions. They do something, but they do it belatedly, and they do too little. The system of giving pensioners something now and again in the Budget is quite unsatisfactory. Usually when the Minister has dealt with everything else in the Budget, he sees if he has anything left, or if he can scrape a bit from some other place, and he throws it at the pensioners. The amounts provided in this way in different Budgets by previous Ministers for Finance, year in and year out, have borne no relationship at all to the amounts being paid to the pensioners' successors in office. More important still, they bear no relationship to the cost of living.

The question of the superannuation paid to retired civil servants and local government employees should be tackled on a realistic basis, and should be put on a proper footing once and for all. It should be ensured that a person who during his working years received a reasonably good salary, and was able to keep up a fairly good standard of living, is not reduced to the position of a second- or third-class citizen when he retires, and is not thrown on the scrapheap, while those who are still in harness are well enough looked after because they are in a position to fight and because they have the machinery at their disposal to arbitrate for them and see that justice is done.

I do not think it is good enough— it is deplorable and unchristian—that people who have ceased to perform a useful service, so to speak, should be forgotten and treated as something that does not matter. I appeal to the Minister for Finance, who, I suppose, is the youngest man to hold that office for some time, who after all is the man in charge of the provision of pensions on an overall basis, the man who at Budget time is charged with providing the money, to bring to bear a new line of thinking on this subject and to be big enough and bold enough to say to the Government that they must provide the wherewithal to look after those who are not able to look after themselves. If the Minister approaches the subject in that way, he will have the full support of this side of the House in any proposals he brings here to do justice to retired State servants and retired local government employees. If the Minister is approached by the Minister for Social Welfare to provide money to help the still weaker section of the community, the weakest section, the old age pensioners and the widows and orphans who are utterly unable to provide for themselves and who must exist on charity—that is not the proper word because it should not be charity—who must call on the stronger sections of the community to look after them, the Minister should not be afraid to do so. I can assure him that he will have the support of this Party in providing money for that purpose.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

In seconding the motion, I wish simply to add my voice to that of Deputy Fitzpatrick in appealing to the Minister. The motion asks the Dáil to express the view that because of the steep rise in the cost of living and the difficulties created thereby for all pensioners, all pensions should be increased. I imagine the Minister will probably adopt the line that a motion of this sort is too broad and too general and that it would raise too many difficulties for him. We want to see the motion accepted by the House and implemented by the Government. As Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, there may be difficulties. It may be necessary for the Minister to raise money and the raising of money is not always popular, but as far as we are concerned we are prepared to support any steps the Minister may take to raise money for the purpose of implementing the motion.

The people who are always hardest hit when the cost of living increases are those who for one reason or another find themselves on fixed incomes. There are people not covered by this motion, elderly people with fixed incomes of their own, arising not from pensions but possibly from investments. They, too, are hard hit when the cost of living increases but those in receipt of pensions, particularly those on small pensions, people of the sort Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to, old aged, widows, orphans and other State and semi-State pensioners, are particularly hard hit. Because of their age, they are not in a position to alleviate the hardship by doing work or by seeking employment even on a part-time basis.

The people for whom we are talking are those who by their years of service have earned reasonably generous treatment from the State. They are people who have now entered their declining years. They are not able to assist themselves; they are not able to obtain employment and during their working lives were not able to put aside anything towards their retirement. They are the people hardest hit whenever the cost of living increases.

One thing Fianna Fáil have proved themselves good at is increasing the cost of living and even during the past six or ten years—I have not got statistics in front of me—I am quite sure the cost of living has increased considerably since Fianna Fáil came back as a Government in 1957. It is true that certain State pensioners have been given compensatory increases in pensions but the point we wish to emphasise in the motion is that in fact those people have not been fully compensated for the increases that have taken place in the cost of living. The cost of living has gone up and as far as one can judge it is going up every day. If we could arrive at a situation where pension increases could in some way be tacked to the cost of living, it would get over to a large extent the difficulties those people face. Before that would be of any use, however, it would be necessary, first of all, to build up pension levels to a degree which would enable those people to have some reasonable comfort.

I hope that in speaking to the motion the Minister will not adopt the line I am afraid he will adopt of pointing to the difficulties of a new Minister coming into the Department of Finance of implementing a motion of this sort which may involve the raising of new moneys. We appreciate those difficulties and we are prepared to face them if the Minister will do the same.

Mr. Treacy

It is with a feeling of pleasure that I rise to support the motion. Any motion that has as its aim the alleviation of human distress and suffering is worthy of the consideration and the active support of all sides of the House, especially the Government side, on which devolves the obligation to implement measures to render assistance of this kind. The Government Party have consistently maintained that any worthwhile improvements that have taken place for the benefit of the social welfare classes, especially the social welfare assistance classes, have come from them alone, particularly in recent years. They have claimed that they brought about increases in most other types of pensions as well. They tried to convey the conviction that the Fianna Fáil Government Party are overflowing with the milk of human kindness, always showing a deeply ingrained regard for those sections in the community against whom the winds of adversity blow hardest, especially the old aged, the widows and the orphans.

Whatever regard previous Governments may have had for those categories of unfortunate people in the past, anyone who takes the slightest interest in the present position of the old age pensioners must come to one conclusion, that never in the history of this State have a Government been guilty of such flagrant neglect, and such a total disregard for the condition of those particular people, the non-contributory classes of widows and old aged.

This is evident from the kind of means tests which are applied. In the Budget of last year, when a much lauded increase in social welfare benefits was announced, we were appalled to learn that associated with that particular increase, there was a stipulation that a means test applied. Only those people whose income did not exceed £26 5s a year would benefit by the increase. This was a pretty rigid means test. Anybody whose income exceeded approximately 10/- per week would not get this increase in pension. Those means tests are applied rigorously and most searchingly by the various staff officers attached to the Department of Social Welfare who investigate, in minute detail, the private affairs of those pensioners. They quickly assess income and quickly decide whether a person's income is in excess of the limit set out in the means test applicable. Last year the means test figure was £26 5s. a year.

A very large section of the social welfare assistance classes were deprived of that increase. Mind you, the thing which I object to most of all is the false, misleading and hypocritical manner in which those increases are lauded by the Government Party at the time they are announced. At Budget time, in particular, one might have substantial increases in taxation, whether by way of turnover tax or purchase tax, increases in the price of beer, cigarettes and even on the essentials of life, but as a cover up we usually get banner headlines about a 5/- increase for the social welfare classes, especially the classes to which I have referred.

It is only when we get down to discuss the details of the measure to give effect to the implementation of those increases that we come across the niggardly means test which is applied and which has the effect in a very large measure of negativing the increase proposed. This is hypocritical and fraudulent on the part of the Government. They conceal the fact that by the application of a rigid means test, the increase is of benefit to only a small percentage.

This was demonstrated most particularly in the Budgets of this year. We had two Budgets this year. In the first, we had a 5/- increase for those social welfare assistance classes, the non-contributory classes, only to find that there went with this increase a means test, which was more rigid and more niggardly than the means test of last year in that it stated that the 5/-increase was applicable only to those persons who could be proved to have no means whatsoever. This was, most assuredly, a disgraceful piece of legislation.

The number of people who have benefited by the 5/- increase is infinitesimal. Indeed, we have the figures to prove it. I asked, together with other Deputies, a question of the Minister for Social Welfare on 17th instant as to the number of persons who benefited from the 5/- increase in non-contributory social welfare payments. The answer was that the total number receiving the maximum old age non-contributory pension on 31st October, 1966 was calculated at 73,100. So far the number who have qualified for the old age pension increase of 5/-, comprising those who have no means assessed against them, is 10,074. Only 10,074 persons qualify as against an acknowledged number of 73,100 persons in receipt of old age non-contributory pensions. If ever a fraud was perpetrated on those old people, the most necessitous in our society, this was it.

This was fraud with a vengeance. To purport to give this relatively small increase of 5/- and to negative it altogether by the application of a means test, which meant that only those who were proved to have no means would benefit from it, was surely the most despicable thing ever done to those unfortunate people. Many thousands of those pensioners have been calling on their public representatives within the past few weeks asking why they did not get the 5/- increase. Over 60,000 old age pensioners are asking the question: "Why did I, as an old age non-contributory pensioner, not get the 5/-increase which the Fianna Fáil Government promised me in one of the two Budgets of this year?"

Those people have not got this increase and will not get it. They do not realise that it was filched from them the very day it was granted to them by the application of this means test. Only those who are completely and utterly destitute, without help, shelter and food, can hope to get this 5/-increase; only those who are living virtually by the side of the road can hope to get it at the present time. Certainly many of them who are domiciled in houses and dwellings proper will have assessed against them money for shelter. That will have the effect straight away of disqualifying them.

We extend to all those thousands of unfortunate people our sympathy and our understanding of their sorry plight. We extend to them our sympathy in their utter dismay and disappointment at the confidence trick played on them by the Government and we assure them of our desire to improve their lot to the greatest extent possible, not merely by 5/- but by very much more, because the rate of pension applicable to these categories at 47/6 per week is hardly sufficient to keep body and soul together. At most it provides a subsistence level of existence for these people and God help any of them who are living alone without friends or relations to come to their assistance. We know of them and we know the privation and suffering they are enduring. This 47/6 is totally inadequate, in these times of high cost of living, to maintain a person. The meagre pension is spent within a few days and these grand old people are living on bread and tea—mainly dry bread— until Friday comes again. Meat and eggs and other nourishing foods which they need, and to which they are entitled, are out of the question. It is to be greatly deplored, therefore, that at a time when these people need the active understanding and support of a humane, Christian Government it has been denied to them, in a most callous manner on this occasion.

I am pleased to join with Deputy Fitzpatrick, Deputy O'Higgins and others in pleading for a better deal for these categories of people. I appeal to the Government to end this kind of confidence trick and to end the means tests which deprive so many of what they are entitled to and what they were hoping for and expecting from the Government. The Government's cheese-paring attitude at the expense of the ordinary poor was demonstrated again in recent months in regard to the reciprocal agreement between ourselves and the British Government in regard to British pensioners here. We were very pleased to see this reciprocal agreement evolved in order to ensure that Irish people who are in receipt of British pensions, be they army pensions, retirement pensions or widows' pensions, could receive the increases which were granted in these pensions from time to time. This Party was proud to have played some part in bringing about that agreement between our Minister and his counterpart in Great Britain.

However, we never thought it would have such serious repercussions for the people we sought to help, the people whose standard of living we sought to improve by means of this agreement. We sought nothing more than to ensure that the £1 increase which Mr. Harold Wilson conceded to his people when he entered office some time ago would be applied to Irish pensioners here. This was done as a result of the reciprocal agreement but again the vicious means test came into operation. Social welfare officers rampaged about the country and besieged the homes of these British pensioners and those of them in receipt of Irish pensions were peremptorily told to send back their books to the Department of Social Welfare. The number of people in receipt of British pensions whose Irish pensions were reduced by an average of 30/- is on record in this House. Moreover, in the majority of cases, the Irish pensions were withdrawn altogether. Quite a large number of these pensioners lost their Irish pensions which, you might say, averaged £2 7s 6d a week because the British Government had given them an increase of £1 in their pensions.

No words of mine could ever convey to the House the feelings of disappointment, shock and dismay which these categories of people experienced when this transpired. That because an increase was given by an allegedly foreign country, their Irish pensions should have been interfered with in this tyrannical fashion, reduced drastically or withdrawn, is something which in many cases they cannot comprehend and it is impossible for public representatives to explain what has happened to these unfortunate people. They are still abjectly bewildered by what has been done to them by this Government. These are two instances of the outright callousness of this regime in dealing with the poorest of the poor and yet we have the pretence that they and they alone were the Party who did anything worthwhile for these, the least well-off of our community.

The same could be said in regard to the Old IRA men. This was an important year in our lives, the fiftieth anniversary of the 1916 Rising. We celebrated it with a flourish of trumpets, with parades and much ado on the television, on the radio and in the press. We suitably honoured all those who participated in this great event but we seem to forget that quite a lot of these people are still with us. They are not living in opulence. Some of them failed to jump on to any political bandwagon; they failed to achieve opulence and security and many of them are living in extremely poor circumstances. I know of a 1916 man about whom I had to ask a question in this House. He is living in an outhouse in the most destitute circumstances. He was proved to have participated actively and genuinely in the 1916 Insurrection but the reply I got from the Minister for Defence at the time was, to say the very least, most unsatisfactory, that this man could seek home assistance if he was as badly off as suggested.

This was the year in which we could have honoured those Old IRA men who participated in the War of Independence in 1916 and in 1921 and 1922. We might have done this appropriately by seeking out those who are most in need and increasing their miserable pensions. I have in mind particularly those Old IRA men who have been proved to have had active service during the War of Independence and who have been issued with the service medal for active service. These were people who were proved to have little means, because one had to be of little means to be granted an Old IRA special allowance because a pretty rigid means test goes with this pension.

We had hoped, therefore, that an improvement would take place in the lot of these people but again the means test was applied with a vengeance and, to my knowledge, a very large number of recipients of Old IRA special allowances have had these allowances reduced drastically on one ground or another. Perhaps it was because they had an income from another source, but if their income exceeded £3 a week, they certainly suffered a steep reduction in the Old IRA special allowances. This showed scant respect for these men who had made possible the partial freedom we enjoy today. They made it possible for us to exercise our right to stand up here in a national Parliament representative of the people of at least 26 of our counties. We should have availed of this opportunity to pay tribute to them more fittingly and to ensure that they could at least live out their last years in frugal comfort. Many of them are not in frugal comfort—far from it. Many of them, to our knowledge, are in deplorable circumstances; many are dying in the county homes, as can be verified, bereft of succour and support from the Government they helped to put in power in the kind of democracy we possess and which they helped to create. This is a year of grace: the Government might have acted more generously in respect of these people.

I want to mention other categories of pensioners for whom we could make a case in great detail. I do not want to take up too much of the limited time available on a motion of this kind but I want to mention certain other categories of pensioners such as CIE pensioners about whom we have heard a lot in recent weeks and about whom more will be said on the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power which is still being debated. I want to mention also retired gardaí, teachers, nurses and public servants. These are all categories of pensioners who are unable to engender the kind of support required to make an impact on the Minister or the Government in respect of their plight or who are not sufficiently organised or sufficiently strong numerically to impose their will on any Minister or Government. They are not members of a trade union and, consequently, if we in this House do not have regard to them and help them, clearly they cannot help themselves.

I am not aware that old age pensioners are organised in any group sufficiently strong to make their voices felt here. They are certainly unable to march as many other groups do, and similarly with the Old IRA, retired gardaí, national teachers, nurses and various strata of State servants. These are people we should think of in relation to high prices and high cost of living and we should have regard to the fact that their incomes have been eroded in recent years to a very large extent as a direct result of Government policy in increasing the cost of living. The main increases in the cost of living have come about as a direct result of Government action. The implementation of the penal turnover tax sent the cost of living spiralling. Instead of the 2½ per cent increase which it was stated here would be the outcome, we have had a rise that is nearer to ten per cent.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would remind the Deputy that he now has two minutes.

Mr. Treacy

I hope I am not taking too much time. The standards of these categories of pensioners we are now seeking to assist were deliberately lowered by Government policy in increasing the cost of living. The introduction of the turnover tax, as has been proved, opened the door to every exploiter and extortioner to rob the people and to apply almost any increase in price they liked. The prices control which we pleaded with the Government to introduce, and which is now being introduced in a most halfhearted manner, is proving ineffective. We have had the silly situation in which everybody was crying about the fall in the price of cattle while we all know that the price of meat to the old age pensioner or the housewife has not fallen by even a fraction.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Haughey)

I am sure the Deputy will understand that while the motion speaks of pensions and pensioners in very general terms, only the pensions payable to those who have retired from the public service are immediately and directly under my control. I was certain that this motion was directed to public service pensions in general rather than to old age pensions which have been discussed. If I had known that the motion was intended to refer especially to old age pensioners, I should have asked the Minister for Social Welfare to deal with it in the House.

On the question of old age pensions, I can only refer Deputies to the very full and comprehensive statement which the Minister for Social Welfare made in the Dáil on 20th October when winding up the debate on his Estimate. He then dealt very fully with the whole situation in regard to old age pensions and social welfare benefits generally. He explained the Government's position, their anxiety to be as generous as possible, and he pointed to the records of the past six or seven years and showed that between 1959 and 1966, a considerable improvement had taken place, relatively speaking, and that social welfare benefits, including the old age pension, have been increased substantially greater than any increases that have taken place in the cost of living.

To come to public service pensions, I do not think I need remind the House that the annual cost of these pensions is very substantial indeed, and I think it would be accepted by most fairminded people that the pension terms which are enjoyed by people in the public service here are reasonably adequate, especially when their pension is compared with that of persons in outside employment. Many of those people in outside employment are not entitled to a pension on retirement at all and the vast majority of them who have pensions have them on very much less favourable terms than public service pensions. For instance, outside the public service, pensions are very rarely based on the final retiring salary. They are generally calculated on average earnings over a stated period of service, whereas in our public service, the pension is related, as a general rule, to the salary on the actual date of retirement. That is a fairly important advantage, especially if, as in recent years, substantial increases in salary occur on an average over two or three years, but it is also something which makes it very expensive for the employer, in this case the Exchequer.

In Britain most civil servants' pensions are based on the average salary for the last three years of employment, and in other countries the same position applies generally. It is, therefore, true to say that the pensions which are enjoyed by Irish public servants are as favourable, at least, as those enjoyed by similar employees elsewhere, indeed in many cases much more favourable. We would all agree that the £ today will not buy anything like as much as it would have some years ago and, of course, this affects the earnings in regard to long term contracts; even short term employment contract earnings are affected where the market prices have risen much less than the average.

In the case of public service pensioners, we have not refused to assist them to meet the increased cost of living. They have, in fact, been given pension increases whenever there has been a marked fall in the value of money which would cause them hardship or which would be likely to lead to a considerable reduction in their standard of living. In considering any pension increase, the Minister for Finance of the day must have regard to the extra cost of the increases and also to the position of people outside the public service. The record shows that increases have been given in public service pensions fairly regularly during the past ten years, and the last such increase was just over 12 months ago. Any further increase to pensioners would require an immediate increase in taxation as it was not possible to provide any money for this purpose in this year's Budget.

Quite apart from the undesirable effects on the economy of any further increases in taxation, there is this additional objection which Deputies should keep in mind, that is, that many taxpayers themselves are living on fixed incomes, incomes that are not adjusted or adjustable to changes in the value of money. For instance, there are people on pensions who have retired from industry and commerce in the outside world, and there are self-employed persons. If we were to increase taxation to increase public service pensions, we would be doing an injustice to this type of person.

I am sure Deputies will recall that in 1964 my predecessor established a committee to examine the principles involved in granting increases, with particular reference to the cost of making such increases and their consequences in relation to other superannuation schemes and social welfare benefits. In the report which was presented to the House in May of last year, the committee recommended that pensions be increased sufficiently to compensate for increases in the consumer price index from the dates of the general rounds of pay increases to which pensions are currently related up to the date of the most recent pay increase. In the case of pensions based on eighth and pre-eighth round salaries, the committee recommended they should be increased sufficiently to compensate for the increase in the consumer price index to February 1964. Future increases should be given only when a general pay increase was being granted to serving personnel in all categories. The percentage increase in these pensions should not exceed that granted in pay. The committee recommended that future pensions should be based on pay averaging over the last three years of service instead of on the actual date of retirement to which I have already referred.

The increases that have been granted to date have compensated pensioners for the rise in the cost of living at February, 1964, the date of the ninth round pay increase. Those who retired before the eighth round have had their pensions based on the seventh round plus 14½ per cent. Those who received the benefit of the eighth round have received a nine per cent increase. There has been no general pay increase since February, 1964, of the type which the committee envisaged should give rise to a general pay increase.

My predecessor stated when he was speaking in this House on 18th July, 1962, that what we have been endeavouring to do in relation to pension increases is to disburse whatever money it may be possible to make available within the limits of the Budgetary conditions, to make good the depreciation in the value of money caused by the rise in the cost of living, and any further steps which it may be possible to take will be in that same direction, subject also to Budgetary considerations. As Deputies know, this has been a particularly difficult year financially. All that could be provided in the Budget last March was about £250,000 and that has had to be given to the section of the community which seemed worst off, those with no means or who are in receipt of non-contributory old age, blind and widows' pensions and unemployment assistance

It is all very well for Deputy Treacy and others to weep profusely over the old age pensioner, but at least the Minister for Social Welfare, on this occasion, allocated the very limited sum of money that could be given to him to those in the community who were in most need, that is, the people with no means. I have not the slightest doubt, as the Minister for Social Welfare has indicated, he would have preferred to do a great deal more but in so far as he had only this sum of money available he took the right decision in regard to it.

I do not think any Deputy would reasonably suggest that I should bring in a third Budget at this stage to give increases to public service pensioners or to anybody else. I do not want anybody to think I am unsympathetic to pensioners. I agree with Deputies who have spoken about this, that they are a section of the community for whom the Government must have a special concern and regard because they are not able to fight their own case, perhaps, with the same vigour and energy as other sections. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they have given loyal and faithful service to the community and are entitled, I think we would all agree, in their old age, to be adequately catered for. But, whereas I give that indication and assurance of the Government's concern for these categories, I am afraid that, at this stage, in this financial year, there is nothing concrete or immediate that can be done. We just have not got the necessary revenue to do anything. So, for that reason, I must regretfully ask the House to reject this motion.

Mr. Kyne

Anyone who has had the doubtful pleasure of reading my speeches over the week-end in the Waterford constituency must be fairly well aware that I dealt with most aspects of this subject during my talks before the various people who will be sitting in judgment on the Government, in Waterford at any rate.

Mr. Haughey

I would not doubt you.

Mr. Kyne

No, naturally; I am a good man. Some of the points that Deputy Treacy made this evening were the peak points of my argument. I referred to non-contributory old age pensioners and Old IRA medal holders. Nobody can accuse these of being people with huge pensions. I realise that the motion covers State pensioners of all kinds. While I am interested in CIE men and various other pensioners, I think a start should be made where it is most needed.

I remember speaking on behalf of the Labour Party on this subject some ten years ago. The Minister has asked where is the extra money to come from to give these people an increase. It is a very fair question. The Labour Party have repeatedly suggested a tax on a luxury item, such as wine, tobacco, perfume—some specific thing. Supposing you were to put an extra 6d on 20 cigarettes and, by regulation, imposed the duty on the tobacco manufacturer to enclose within the cellophane wrapper a tax receipt for 6d, which would be specifically donated to non-contributory old age pensioners, I am quite sure that there would be no revolution in the country. If you wanted to do so, that could be extended to drink. If a specific tax were put on a bottle of whiskey or any other spirits, even visitors to the country would be contributing and I am quite sure they would have no great objection. Tourists from Great Britain would not be paying any more here than they are paying in Great Britain. In Britain, the tax is specifically for the purpose of social welfare benefits.

Why is it that this Government think that 47/6d a week is sufficient to keep a man or woman living alone, with no other means, in fuel, light, clothing and food. I would hate to face that kind of prospect. In my view, this is criminal. I believe that a hoax was perpetrated by the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance in promising 111,000 people 5/- a week increase from 5th November. We are now informed by the Department of Social Welfare that only 10,000 of these people qualify. Surely somebody knew there was something wrong there?

As I have already suggested, there is the urgent need for the Minister for Social Welfare to bring out a new book of rules indicating to Deputies and to the public their alleged rights. Most of us do not know where we are because things are changing so rapidly and promises are made that something is to take effect six months or eight months later. That is a new trick. In the old days, on Budget day, people were told they were getting an increase or that they were not getting an increase. Now there are delay tactics by the Government and people are told they will get an increase in eight months, in arrear. It is the lowest form of political bluff I have ever seen that 111,000 people were promised 5/-a week increase on 5th November and only 10,000 of them have qualified. Can anyone tell me who qualifies or how did the 10,000 qualify?

Deputy James Tully asked an after-Mass meeting if there was any old age pensioner in the crowd who got a 5/- increase or anyone who knew an old age pensioner who got a 5/- a week increase and, if so, would he put up his hand. There was not one. I asked the same question throughout the constituency.

I cannot understand the reason for this behaviour on the part of the Government. What gain was there in it? They led people to believe that an increase would be granted and then shattered their illusions. Many of the old age pensioners concerned have gone into debt in anticipation of the increase. I do not think that is reasonable government or that it is fair, even politically. It is a disgusting thing.

On the question of the Old IRA men, I heard the Minister talking about a percentage increase on a three-yearly basis, as in the case of retiring civil servants. Under the last increase, Old IRA men got £4 for the year. Was that a percentage increase? I suggest that it was an insult to these people who formed the State. I had not any hand, act or part in it. I was too young. I am not speaking for any particular person. I am speaking for the people in my area who served the State. Maybe they were not in active service during the days between April and July; maybe they were not actively engaged on those dates but they were there if they were called on and they were there on many occasions standing watch while some of the people with big names in this country were sleeping safely and soundly guarded by these people. Surely these people are entitled to some consideration?

All old age pensioners, and non-contributory pensioners in particular, are being badly treated and I pledge, as I pledged ten years ago on behalf of the Labour Party here in the House, that if any Government, be they Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or any other, bring in taxation to improve the lot of the pensioners, they will not find a single Labour man opposing it, provided that we know it is on a luxury, something that is not essential—not tea, bread, butter, sugar or that type of thing, not foodstuffs or clothing—but drink, entertainment, cinemas, dances, tobacco or cigarettes—any of these things. We will support that. Or if you can invent a newer tax on top-hats or something like that, we will not worry. We will support without question any tax on luxury spending.

When Naas races are held, it is an ordeal to get through the dual carriageway. I do not go to races. I have not sufficient money. But there is a lot of money spent that could be got at. I know the bloodstock business is a good business in Ireland. But there are lots of things, games in particular. I know games are good for the people taking part in them, but I am not so sure if they are good for the people looking at them. If the people looking at them want to enjoy them, I see no reason why they could not contribute 3d or 6d towards the comfort of people who served this country well until deprived of the means of keeping themselves. They never got a wage during their lifetime which would enable them to save something for a rainy day. There is no such thing as compulsory retirement here. We are beginning to think of it now with the contributory old age pension. We should have done so long ago. Apart from the agricultural group, they are a dwindling body. It should be possible to provide them with a reasonable pension even for their remaining years.

I am chairman of an old age pensions sub-committee. Unless three of us turn up, any application for an old age pension, no matter how long delayed it is, cannot be dealt with. We attend on a voluntary basis. We get no travelling expenses, not that I would qualify because we meet in my town. For county council meetings, health authority meetings, vocational education meetings, there is a shilling a mile; but for the old age pensioners, the people looking for charity, you do not bother with them. Let the voluntary workers come if they want to. If they do not come, let these poor people wait, no matter how hungry they are. Let them go to St. Vincent de Paul or the home assistance. Can the Minister deny that that is the attitude of the Government?

This is not a flight of imagination on my part. I know what I am talking about. I deal with these people every day of the week, every week of the year. The investigating officer may disagree with the decision of the committee. We reason with him and try to explain to him. I remember one case where we pointed out that even if the applicant did get £500 eight years ago as a result of being knocked down by a car, he did not earn much during those eight years. He had to withdraw some of it and use it. But, because he did not lodge it in the bank, because he could not prove where it went, he is still assessed with the interest on £500. He appeals the case and it goes to an appeals officer. A Deputy or somebody else makes a reasonable case on his behalf. The case then goes to a deciding officer. Without hearing anyone, without discussing it, this deciding officer can say: "He is not getting it". In social welfare contributory benefit, there is a tribunal on which the worker is represented and where he can plead his case. In respect of social welfare sickness benefit an inspector is sent down and the applicant has the right to be represented either by a Deputy or his trade union. At least, the matter can be discussed. But in the case of the old age pension there is only the deciding officer, somebody in Dublin even Deputies are forbidden to approach. He decides without any investigation other than the written word, which is mainly based on what the investigating officer says.

Surely there is something wrong with the whole system of non-contributory old age pension investigation of and decision on claims? I certainly feel there is. I have intervened only for the sake of this particular group. I realise CIE are a semi-State body. My main grievance is that, because the pensioner qualifies for an old age pension of some sort, CIE immediately reduce his pension. Deputy Treacy has referred to the agreement between Britain and Ireland in respect of the increases granted over a number of years to people who worked in Britain, earned their pension and came over here to live. I took no small part in that. Anyone who looks at the Dáil records for the past five years will see that I have been continuously prodding the Minister. I have also been in touch with British MPs of my own union who did the same prodding when they had a Conservative Government. It was a matter of no small pride to me that I had a small part, as a Labour representative, in a Labour Government in Britain conceding to those people, who had served Britain in the past either by working or fighting for her, the same opportunities as the British people have. But the Irish Government had to come along and, for the sake of about £150,000, be so cheap that they took from these people almost as much as they got from the British Government and made their position just as bad as it was before.

Surely this Government were not that beaten for money that they had to attack the humblest section of our community, or were they? I would prefer to see them reduce the salaries and expenses of Deputies if they were that stranded. Those who have least seem to suffer most under the present Government. Certainly, if a Labour Government did that, I would say the same thing about it. I do not believe in it and I would not be party to it. This motion is an appeal to the Minister. I join with the Fine Gael Party who put it down, not on a Party issue but purely on a humanitarian issue. Even if the Minister has to bring in a third Budget, he should bring it in on the basis I have suggested and give these people, particularly the non-contributory social welfare group, something reasonable that will make it possible for them to offset the increase in the cost of living.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I support this motion. This subject has been discussed on numerous occasions on Private Members' motions in this House in recent times. Every Deputy will agree that one of the most tragic things he meets in his constituency is the number of people dependent on pensions to provide the necessaries of life. We are all aware of how inadequate in most cases these pensions are. I believe that the vast majority of pensioners in this country are the victims of pensions schemes which are unjust and inequitable and that the pensions they are receiving are totally inadequate to meet the cost of living.

Debate adjourned.