We of the Fine Gael Party tabled this motion because we are conscious of the fact that pensioners are finding it extremely difficult to meet the cost of living at present. We are less impressed by the statistics furnished by the Central Statistics Office, indicating the official cost of living, than we are by the daily acquaintance we have with the personal difficulties of pensioners. A fairer assessment of the rate at which pensions have progressed will be found by comparing increases in pensions with increases in wages paid to people who are currently earning. That is a better way of assessing progress, if we can properly call it such, in the pension rate than by comparing pensions with a sometimes meaningless figure of the cost of living.
An indication of how futile a reference to the cost of living figure can be was given recently in the House, when, in relation to proposals to increase rents, we were told the effect of the increase would be to send up the cost of living index figure by only .2 of one per cent. The fact that it may, spread over a whole nation of 2½ million people, produce an increase of only .2 of one per cent does not answer the problem facing an individual pensioner who finds that many of the goods and services he once was able to command are now beyond his reach because the purchasing power of his pension has been drastically reduced. That, we fear, is what has happened in recent years.
To give even a modicum of justice to pensioners of all kinds, both social welfare pensioners and public service pensioners, we should have a minimum of 20 per cent increase all round in pensions. We have in recent years experienced national rounds of wage increases. If these are justifiable, as I believe them to be, it is also justifiable to call for and insist upon national rounds of pension increases. The manner in which a considerable period has been allowed to elapse between increases in wages and increases in pensions has done less than justice to our pensioners. In most cases, even after compelling pensioners to wait for a long period after wage increases, we gave them ultimately a smaller percentage than that given to people still working. That is unfair to the pensioners who survived the timelag which the Government have permitted. But what is grossly unfair is that many pensioners have gone to their eternal reward before even the miserable increase was given to them. To us in Fine Gael it seems proper that the State should in future, in assessing the cost of any national wage increase, simultaneously assess the cost of giving a similar percentage increase to pensioners. The only way in which we can accord fair play and equal treatment to all sections of the community is to give it to all of them at the one time, whether they be pensioners or workers.
In his contribution last week, the Minister indicated what we all know, that is, that certain increases in pensions were given in recent years. The Minister mentioned, for instance, that the last time pensioners were compensated was in relation to the cost of living in February 1964, the date of the ninth round wage increase. That is true for many pensioners, but not for all, unfortunately. That is now almost three years ago. There has been a substantial rise in the cost of living since then, triggered off primarily by indirect taxation which falls, most unfairly, on pensioners and people on fixed incomes, many of whom did not receive compensation in the various Budgets which increased the levies the Government imposed on the necessary expenditure of pensioners. On this account, what was given almost three years ago has been taken back by the State. The result is that pensioners are not in as good a position—I speak relatively—as they were in 1964.
Even in 1964 and earlier we were told, at a time when money was plentiful, when it was spent and misspent on advised and ill-advised projects, there was no money there for pensioners. But now we find, in a situation in which the Government, for the first time, are prepared to confess that something more should be done for pensioners, that it cannot now be done because the money is not available. It is most unfortunate that at the time when money was plentiful, the Government did not do what they ought to have done. Not only is the plight of the pensioner miserable but a number of public assistance pensioners in recent times have had new means tests applied to them. Last year, for instance, we had a new standard of assessing old age pension benefits introduced, when we saw the paltry sum of 10/-a week taken into account. Any person who received more than 10/- a week found he was deprived altogether of the much-vaunted increase in the old age pension last year. This year we applied an even more stringent means test. If a person was not a statutory pauper, not completely destitute, he was deprived entirely of the paltry increase in the old age pension this year. The result is that, while all our old age pensioners were led to believe they could anticipate an increase of 5/- on 1st November this year, if they survived until then, in fact less than one-seventh of the old age pensioners have got the increase the Government boasted about.
What is the position in relation to old age pensioners who over the past 2½ years have received no increase whatever, notwithstanding the increase in the cost of living in the meanwhile? An indication of the growing hardship on pensioners will be found in the substantial increase in the number of appeals this year to welfare officers, that is to say, appeals which are made by people who believe they are entitled to benefit despite rulings that they are not so entitled or, if they are entitled to benefit, that they must get less than the maximum. The average number of appeals for several years was in or about 2,300 per annum in relation to a 12 month period. But this year the number of such appeals in a ten month period has increased to 3,600.
This is a very worrying figure. It is indicative of the more stringent application of the rules. I suppose one cannot properly say at any time that the rules should not be applied—if they are there, they should apply—but I think this figure is also indicative of the fact that pensioners are obliged, because of their dire circumstances, to take every possible step to get even a small increase in their pensions. This has led them to refuse to accept the decisions of the social welfare officers and has compelled them, because of dire necessity, to make their appeals to superior officers, even though we know from experience that the possibility of getting such appeals through is extremely remote.
We in Fine Gael do not pretend that we can have a better scheme of pensions or larger pensions without increased contributions from employers, employees and the State. However, we would have to accept in this country that we have a clear obligation to our own people to give such increases and to accept the burden which such increases would impose upon the community. Unfortunately, in the past five years, the share of the national cake, what we call the gross national product, received by the public assistance beneficiaries in this country has almost halved and this at a time when, if not for the good of our own people, which is our first obligation, we ought for other reasons of governmental policy to be taking a step in the other direction.
In the six countries of the EEC, with which we are led to believe we shall at some time be associated, the economic weight of the social system —that is, of providing pensions and other social benefits—ranges from 14.3 per cent of national income in the Netherlands to 18.1 per cent of the annual income in Luxembourg. We cannot pretend for one moment that we are anywhere near giving such a share of the national cake to our pensioners. We have not got even one-third of the way. Unless we do it, it seems that it will be impossible for this country to be associated with the EEC, if it were decided for economic reasons that it was desirable to be associated with that community, because, in addition to the economic obligations of the community, there are also clear social obligations which are just as stringent as the economic ones even if they are not spelled out in as great detail in the Rome Treaty.
The Rome Treaty provided, in the Preamble, that the signatories pledge themselves "to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action in eliminating the barriers which divide Europe," and "to direct their efforts to the essential purpose of constantly improving the living and working conditions of their peoples." In a statement on social security in the EEC, by the Director for Social Security and Social Services in the Common Market Commission, we read the following:
The social provisions of the Treaty may appear less numerous and, taken as a whole, less detailed than the economic provisions, but this cannot place in any doubt the ultimate social purpose of the Rome Treaty. Quite apart from the texts, this social purpose is inherent in the Treaty, for the establishment of a common market cannot be an end in itself and can only be justified, in the last analysis, if the economic prosperity we expect from it is fairly shared among all social groups...
We in this country are not fairly sharing our own limited prosperity amongst all social groups and, because of that, we in the Fine Gael Party believe there is an overwhelming obligation on the Government to increase all pensions.
In our motion, we did not endeavour to confine our exhortations to particular pensioners. We feel that a great deal of injustice has been done over the years to various pensioners because we have linked their individual pensions to individual wage rates and to individual predicaments. We know this is wrong. Pensioners must be treated as a large and growing proportion of our community and must be given incomes sufficient to maintain their standard of living today. We should like to see the establishment of a social commission which would assess the needs of such pensioners today, not related to what they may have earned in the past, not related to what the State may have paid to people in similar categories 20 or 40 years ago but related to what they actually need today.
I think we can learn from what is happening in Europe in the countries which provide better pensions and better social welfare services. We find that in all the six countries of the EEC there are national committees upon which sit employers, workers and administrators. One of our drawbacks in this country is that we have not got such well-informed committees assisting or superintending the administration and improvement of our social welfare services. We depend upon a limited number of administrators to suggest policy improvements and all that is put into competition with the many Departments of State which make demands upon the national Exchequer. This we believe to be wrong. We shall not have a well-informed social code in this country until such time as we improve the system.
There are particular categories of State pensioners deserving of our special consideration. One of these sections are the Garda pensioners. They are unique in that, when they are members of the Garda Síochána, they make contributions to their pension fund. Other civil servants have these contributions paid for them by the State. The members of the Garda Síochána, who have to retire at an age earlier than the age applicable to other servants of the State, find that, over the years between their retirement and the time they "shuffle off this mortal coil", the value of their pensions considerably diminishes. There is a crying need for a substantial improvement in all Garda pensions.
We in the Fine Gael benches are unanimous in calling on the Government to improve all Garda pensions and to make a special effort to bring all of them up to an equal level. This idea that we still apply here of paying men who retired ten years ago less than we pay a colleague of theirs who retires today is certainly not admissible on any ethical ground. It is difficult to justify the old contention that pensions are merely postponed pay but if we accept that old contention then I think we must accept the obligation that if we postpone pay to individuals by allocating it, instead, to pension funds we have a clear obligation to maintain the value of that postponed pay. If the State or society depreciates the value of a man's pay then the State has a clear obligation to ensure that the services and goods a pensioner can buy should not be diminished because of the depreciation in the value of money.
It is because we consider that the standard of living of pensioners has seriously declined that we believe the Government have a clear obligation to increase pensions. We are not at all impressed by the Government's statement that they have not got the money to do this. We recall that, although it is some 19 years since we in Fine Gael called upon the Government of the day, in 1947, to increase the old age pensions, the Fianna Fáil Party went into the lobby, and, to a man, refused to increase them.
The Government changed and the pensions were increased overnight. The national finances were not, as a result of that, in as unhealthy a position as they are today, nor do we believe that the finances of the State will ever become unhealthy by reason of the State fulfilling its obligations to old age pensioners, and to pensioners of all kinds. Indeed, the Government who fail to attend to the needs of pensioners wil certainly fail to discharge their primary duty by distributing the nation's wealth as equally as possible between all sections of the community so that none suffer hardship. At present most pensioners suffer hardship.
Because we are convinced that this hardship is growing, we tabled this motion. It is an effort to awaken the conscience of the Government of today into doing something for those people. We do not accept that improvements in pensions must await the annual Budget. Supplementary Budgets have been introduced for much less deserving purposes than giving pensions to the needy section of our people. On that account, we urge the Government not to delay any longer in providing a substantial increase in all pensions.
