Old Age Pensions—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

This House considers that in view of the extent to which the value of money has depreciated in recent years, old people who depend for their subsistence on old age pensions are suffering undue privation and hardship which should be remedied, and requests the Government to introduce proposals for the purpose of providing a proper standard of maintenance for old people who have retired from remunerative employment.—Senator Duffy, Senator Tunney.

Mr. Duffy

When the debate on this motion was adjourned, I was discussing the conditions under which old age pensions are payable in various countries, and endeavouring to draw attention to the difficulties which will arise here if the provision we make for old people falls substantially short of the provision made in other countries. I do not think it is necessary to cover any portion of that ground again. Although the Minister is absent, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is familiar with the discussion which has taken place, and I will not weary the House by recalling any portion of the matter we discussed on the last occasion.

I want rather to draw attention to a question which is frequently asked in such debates as these: how much must we provide in order to maintain an old person? Frankly, I cannot answer that question, and I do not think there is anybody in the House has any data available which would enable a conclusion to be reached as to what is the minimum sum which should be provided for an old age pensioner. Neither do I think it reasonable that we should debate the matter on that basis. Surely we have not reached a point at which we say: find out what is the lowest possible standard of living which will keep an old person alive; what is the least sum we must give in order that an old person may live? That is what it amounts to, and I personally am not willing that we should debate the matter on that basis. We should look around instead and see what is expended in their old age by different sections of the community.

I draw attention to the fact that, without any means test, we provide a fairly reasonable sum for a judge, for a police officer and for the professional people in the employment of local authorities, who retire, to enable them to live in a reasonable state of comfort during the declining years of their lives. We do not apply any means test in their case. We do not ask a county surveyor who goes out on pension whether he has a private income or not, and we do not ask a judge whether he has profitable investments, or whether he owns his house or not. In more recent years, we have taken the precaution of providing pensions for Ministers, and we do not in their case apply any means test. I suggest that this idea that a person who applies for a pension at the age of 70 must not have an income over 16/- a week is antiquated, unreasonable and inhuman.

I have endeavoured to ascertain the sums expended by certain institutions on the upkeep of persons no more meritorious than old age pensioners and I find that, in Portlaoighise Prison, the cost of food alone is 11/- per week, and, as I pointed out on the last occasion, that food is bought in bulk and a certain proportion of it is produced under prison conditions and by prison labour, and therefore at a lower cost than the figure at which the same quantity and same class of food can be produced outside the prison. I have compiled a copy of the dietary scale provided by the Dublin Union, and, on 10th July last, the cost of purchasing that dietary as supplied to an inmate of the Dublin Union worked out at 17/- per week. That is for food alone; yet we allow an old age pensioner 10/- per week as a maximum.

Senator Hawkins shakes his head; he is evidently thinking of the supplemental allowances. I will come to them in a moment. What we provide is a pension of 10/- per week to buy food, pay rent, buy clothes and to provide some amenities, always assuming that the person who has reached the age of 70 is still entitled to amenities—a pipe of tobacco, and I claim, too, without apology to anybody, that he is entitled to a "pint" if he wants it. I am glad that Senator Hearne accepts that view. I think we should not regard the old person who has reached 70, as being compelled by economic conditions to break with his past, with his traditions, and to forfeit all claim to the amenities which perhaps in his youthful days he enjoyed.

I can give a copy of this dietary scale to any Senator who is interested, but I am not going to weary the House by referring to the items, or the quantities of food supplied in these institutions. Some Senators seemed to dissent from the view that an old age pensioner was given only 10/- weekly to live on. There are supplements no doubt but these are subject to certain tests. In the urban areas the supplement consists of a food voucher, and in rural areas, of a cash allowance. I think the cash allowance is limited to 2/6 per week. The food vouchers are valued at varying sums, dependent on the cost of bread, milk and butter, but it may be assumed that their equivalent in cash does not exceed 2/6 per week. Let us remember this, that, in allocating these supplements, new tests are applied in the case of applicants. In the case of the rural old age pensioner two tests are applied. In the first place, the home assistance officer has to be satisfied that the person who is an applicant for the 2/6 supplement is in necessitous circumstances and in the second place he must be satisfied that the money is available to permit the payment of the supplement. If it is not, there is no supplement.

I have evidence of that which I picked up during the last week. I have here a copy of the Tipperary Star for July 20th. The report opens like this:—

"We get a certain amount of money and we split that as best we can. If we give it to one, we must take it from another."

That statement was made to Tipperary County Council by the county manager and, after an argument which lasted for some time, as to whether certain people merited an allowance, the manager concluded the discussion by saying:—

"Because you have only a certain amount of money to give out, there are more people with 10/- a week than the money you have."

So that if there are 50 people in an area getting a pension of 10/- a week, and if the 50 can satisfy the home assistance officer that they are entitled to a supplement of 2/6, the officer must then make a selection from amongst them, because he has probably only sufficient cash to provide £6 10s. Od. yearly for ten, and the other 40 must go without. It may be that he has sufficient money to provide the supplement for 40, but for no reason other than shortage of money, ten are excluded. Actually, in some parts of the country, I am told, there is more anxiety amongst old age pensioners, as to when some of the recipients of the supplementary allowances are going to die than anything else, because when one person who is getting 2/6 weekly dies, someone else steps into his shoes.

That is the manner in which we provide the addition to the 10/-. So far as I know, no old age pensioner is entitled to any supplement unless he is entitled to the full 10/- per week. If he is entitled only to 9/-per week, if he has an income from any other source of 7/-, including the value of his garden or house, he gets an old age pension of 9/- and there he stops. He gets no supplement.

One other matter might be taken into account by the House when considering this motion. Members might consider that the pension which is given to an old person is not a free gift created from outside—something that comes from the Government as such. The claim I want to make on behalf of the old people is that every person, with possibly a few rare exceptions, who is a claimant for an old age pension has been an industrious worker for 50 or 60 years. He may have been a small farmer, an agricultural worker, a road worker, a factory worker, or a docker employed from day to day and getting from three to five days' work a week. There is no chance of a man in that position having anything saved. If he saves anything which gives him an income of more than 6/- a week, his pension is docked. In the main, the persons who are recipients of old age pensions have been producing wealth for the country over a long period. Most of them commenced to work at from 12 to 14 years of age. Is it not reasonable to take the value of their work at £100 a year? The value of our production in the last pre-war year—I am speaking of production in industry—was £213 per head or over £4 5s. 0d. per week.

The value of production in agriculture would be lower although, with all respects to Senator Baxter, I suggest that we never got a true analysis of the value of our agricultural production per head of population. There is no means of measuring the value of agricultural production in the same way as we measure the value of production of a transport company which keeps its accounts in such a way that one knows exactly what it earns and what it pays. However, I shall not go into those details. I want to make the simple suggestion that, of the 147,000 people who are now receiving old age pensions, it would not be unfair to say that, on the average, the value to the country of their production has been £100 per annum for 50 or 60 years. In other words, the capital value of their production is from £5,500 to £7,000 during a lifetime of toil. If we take this figure as representing the capital value of the service given to the community by each of those persons and assess their pension at 1 per cent. of the value of their production, we arrive at a pension of about 30/- per week.

I ask members of the House to look at the matter squarely, to ask themselves if it is too much to request the community who have derived advantage from the toil and industry of our fathers and grandfathers to provide them with a retiring allowance from the age of 70 equivalent to 1 per cent. on the capital value of their contribution to the nation's wealth. That is a very much smaller sum than the rate of pension provided for those who enter any form of employment in which there is a superannuation scheme. The rate of pension in most industries is considerably higher. The rate of pension in the public service is considerably higher. If we are to do justice to ourselves, we cannot offer the old age pensioner a sum which is less than a return of 1 per cent. on the value of his contribution to the nation's wealth.

So far, I have been speaking, in the main, of people of 70 years of age— old age pensioners—but I want to be understood that anything I have said in relation to the old person is equally applicable to the claimant who is blind. No distinction has been made in these discussions between the old age pensioner of 70 and the blind pensioner who is under 70. A pension is provided for a blind person at 30 years of age on the same conditions as to means test and destitution test as apply in the case of the old age pensioner. Therefore, I want to emphasise here that the claim I am making and the arguments I am putting forward, with the possible exception of my reference to the return on the capital value of the pensioner's activity, apply with equal force in the case of the blind person and in the case of the aged person.

The operation of the means test has had the effect, which I think every sensible person in this House will regret, of penalising the most meritorious section of the old people, those who have made provision, in some shape or form, for their old age. Senator Campbell is more familiar, probably, with some of the aspects of this case than I am. He and I have discussed this on previous occasions. It is the case of the person who belongs, let us say, to a trade union having a superannuation fund. Such person pays a contribution which is considerably higher than he need have paid were he a member of a trade union that had not a provident fund. In some cases the contribution is as high as 2/-, 3/-and even 5/- a week.

I do not speak with authority on this but I do know that the cost of the contribution in the case of unions with a provident fund is very substantial. A printer, a baker, a mechanic of any kind who has been a member of a society for 40 or 50 years—I notice that some have been given gold medals in celebration of their 50th year of membership of a trade union—have been paying for all that period into a superannuation fund which enables them on retirement to get a pension of 30/- a week or £1 a week and in some cases only 10/- a week. In the case of the Dublin Typographical Provident Society I think the pension is 30/- a week. Let us say that Pat Murphy retires from Dollard's Printing Works at the age of 65. Perhaps he has gone blind or lost the power of his hands or some of his faculties are impaired. He is no longer able to do the job of typographical operator. He retires on a pension of 30/—not from the employer—but from the society into whose funds he has been paying for a lifetime in order that he might be entitled to that pension. But, when Pat Murphy reaches the age of 70, he gets no old age pension unless the typographical society reduce his superannuation to 6/- a week. I do not know in fact what would happen in that case, but I assume that the society would say: "No; we will make a gift of 10/- a week to the State and continue to pay Pat Murphy his 30/- a week." What happens in the case of a private firm? I know a number of private firms in whose case there is a voluntary superannuation scheme for the employees. When one of the workers retires through ill-health at 60 or 65, he gets £1 or 25/- a week but the firm says: "We are under no obligation to provide this fund. It is purely an act of generosity on our part because this man has not contributed 1d. to the fund out of which the pension is payable." In that case I do know that when the person who is in receipt of this £1 a week pension reaches the age of 70 the firm reduces his pension to 6/- so that he may be entitled to 10/- from the State, but his total income decreases from 20/- to 16/-a week and he becomes a charge on State funds.

The Parliamentary Secretary is a sensible person with his roots deep in the country and he has close personal knowledge of the conditions to which I refer. He knows them as well as I do. Nothing I have said here is unfamiliar to the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to put this to him: One of the worst things that can be said about our old age pension code is that it has the effect, not of improving the position of those who reach 70 but of damaging them to the extent that their incomes are reduced in the circumstances I have referred to. The shopkeeper who has been paying a pension of £1 a week to a vanman for five or six years discovers that that man has now reached the age of 70 and that if he continues to provide the £1 a week the State will go free. He therefore says: "No. I have to pay rates and taxes. I have to pay incometax. I have to pay duty on goods. I will not let the State away with it," and in order that the State may be obliged to pay the 10/-, the shopkeeper reduces his payment to 6/-.

Sir John Keane

He gets it at Christmas, does he not?

Mr. Duffy

If he does, God help him because if the Revenue Commissioners discover that, his old age pension is gone for the next year.

On the last occasion I quoted a letter from a man whose son had joined the British Army and, because the son sent home certain money to pay for laundry and other things, the old man's pension was immediately cut off. If an old age pensioner in a rural area were to buy a goat the local pensions officer would access its value at 10/- a week and the owner would lose his pension. In the case of an old woman who has a couple of hens, I understand the assessment is that the hens day two eggs each per day and at 3/- a dozen, you can see that she would not get much pension. One man I know told me that he lost his pension because he was accused of trapping rabbits. The trapping of rabbits was a criminal offence in the circumstances but the officer who made the assessment did not mind whether it was criminal or not; when he had a suspicion that the pensioner was trapping rabbits, he cut off the pension.

I have received a number of letters, one a most pathetic letter, from a number of men in Cork. I do not intend to read the letter. I shall not read any more letters in connection with this matter. This letter which seems to me a most pathetic letter, bears the names of six men, all over 70 years of age, from the public library in Cork, drawing attention in particular to a matter which I was not previously aware of, that is to say, that where they were getting 10/- a week, 1/- was deducted in respect of a fuel voucher. I had thought the fuel voucher was an addition to the pension. There are certain personal references in the letter which make it undesirable that I should read it and I do not propose to do so. From the number of letters I have received and statements made to me since the discussion opened in the Seanad on the 18th June, it seems to me that there is tremendous hardship, tremendous poverty in the case of many old people. We cannot be complacent about their condition. There is an obligation upon us to face the matter squarely and to ask ourselves whether we are satisfied that we are making the best provision we can afford and the best provision we are in duty bound to make for the old age pensioners.

Mr. Tunney

Senator Duffy has left very little to be said on this matter but I want to express my agreement with him that the old age pension should be increased.

Since the coming of a native Government here, more Acts of Parliament have been passed in this country, by the previous Government and the present Government, than have been passed by any other Government in the world. Although the Acts we have passed have in some way or other benefited some section of the community, it is a sad thing that during all that time not one Act has been passed whereby the aged people would benefit, although we have passed hundreds of Acts. When Britain ruled this country, against our will, she gave 5/- to the old age pensioner, who could have an income of 8/- a week, making 13/- in all. That was in 1914. It was increased to 10/- later and it has remained that way since, so far as this country is concerned. The means test has become twice as rigorous, as I can prove.

There has been put before members of this House, within the last couple of months, a document prepared by those supposed to be the best brains of the nation, the higher civil servants, the men in receipt of £2,000 a year: and that document valued the 10/- at 3/4 per week on the 1914 scale. Everybody knows that, even in 1914, the chance of a person existing on 3/4 was very slight. The 10/- is paid at the present time only if the person is destitute. I have cases before me from County Dublin and County Mayo and from other parts of the country. In making this statement, I would say, in all fairness to the Government, that I do not believe the Government would wish the pension officers to act in the way they are acting. I know of a case in County Dublin where a woman was in receipt of 1/- a week pension. When the pension officer came to review the case, she said: "God forgive you; but for you, I understand, I would have a right pension". He replied: "Because you say that, I will take the ‘bob' off you". This is supposed to be a democratic country, and democracy, as I understand it, is the wish of the people. In that district they have made representations to the Government—from the secretary of the Labour Party, from the secretary of the Fianna Fáil Club, from the two clergymen and from the local parish council; every single person within that parish says it was a disgrace that that woman should not have the full pension. The pension officer, to satisfy himself, takes the 1/- off her, and tells her he is going to do it because she made the remark.

The second case is in another portion of County Dublin. The woman is an invalid—I mention no names, so I hope I am in order—and has to keep a pony to bring her to Mass. The pension officer says she should get out and work the pony and, after feeding him, that she can make a profit of 24/- a year. The third case is of a small tenant farmer in Mayo, of a couple of pounds valuation. He is 74 years of age, which leaves him entitled to the old age pension, and he is also blind. On the first day he made application, apparently he did not agree too well with the pension officer who called. In every way he was entitled to the pension at 10/-, but he did not please the officer apparently and, before he left, the officer told him that he would never get a pension. He was turned down at that time. The local committee granted a pension, but the officer appealed and the Local Government Department refused the pension on the local officer's case. He put in a new application and was granted a couple of shillings, but the pension officer made another visit to the house. There are three houses together and this man has no sheep. In one field near the house there were a neighbour's sheep. The pension officer says he counted 72 sheep and when he was questioned on that—note the tragedy of this—and asked how he knew they were "Pat Murphy's" sheep, he said that the initials in tar or pitch-blende, P.M., were on the side and he saw that distinctly. I want the House to remember that, since the Order was made in connection with clean wool, the practice of tarring sheep has been discontinued and no sheep in this town-land were tarred. Yet this man was clever enough to say that, last winter, he saw the initials P.M. on the sheep, although they had been shorn two or three times since the Order came in. Is it honest to have a scoundrel of that type going around in the service of a Christian country? Is it honest or right that a man in County Dublin should take the 1/- pension off an old woman?

Mr. Hawkins

On a point of order, I think no Senator should be allowed to call an official of the State "a scoundrel" and I would ask the Senator to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Tunney

I will withdraw it and say he was a heartless and unscrupulous man. There is another case of a lady in County Mayo who has an I.R.A. pension, which very few of the ladies in this country are entitled to. Because of her I.R.A. service to the Fourth Western Division, service rendered to the nation, she was granted that I.R.A. pension of £25 a year. That disqualifies her for the full old age pension. That is the reward she has been given for her service to the State in the struggle for freedom— because of her I.R.A. pension, she will not get the old age pension. There are so few cases of ladies with I.R.A. pensions of that age that it was hardly worth the Government's while and the 10/- would never break the nation if she had got it. That is the reason I feel rather sore about this position. Let us not forget that the majority of those old people are the fathers and mothers—and some of them are the people themselves—of those who fought to bring about the freedom we have in this country. These are the peasant proprietors who reared the families who gave the service that brought our freedom, and though we have passed hundreds of Acts to benefit one section or other, these people have been forgotten all the time.

The Constitution says that it is the responsibility of the nation to provide for the aged people. I submit that the Government has violated and broken the Constitution in so far as it expects an old person to live on 10/- a week. So long as that is the position the Government, in my view, is not carrying out the terms of the Constitution. The Border is a sore question in this country, but in view of the fact that the old people in the North are entitled to a pension of 26/- a week when they reach the age of 65, I doubt very much whether even the Nationalists in that area would vote to come down here and expect their old people to live under a republic on 10/- a week. I think that, while that remain the position, you will not get very many Nationalists to vote to come in with us here. This 10/- a week with the means test does not offer very many inducements to the great numbers of our people, who have been forced to emigrate to the other side, to return here in view of the generous treatment given to old people in England. Even in the North, as I have said, the Irish citizens there are being treated as they should be.

I submit that this is a very serious question, and I am not satisfied that a native Government could not have done more for the old people. I fully appreciate all that the Government has done for the development of the country. At the same time, I am afraid that it is going too fast in certain directions, and is leaving some very important questions—this one, for example—too far behind. We hear a lot about rural electrification, tourist development, luxury hotels and industrial research. So far as rural electrification is concerned, I think I am voicing the sentiments of the majority of our people when I say that the real way to bring light and happiness into the homes of our people—small farmers, agricultural workers and all those engaged in productive activities —would be to give them security in their old age. If that were done it would produce light and happiness in every part of the nation. It is poor consolation for those who have spent their lives working hard in producing food and wealth for the nation that, in their old age, they are put in the position of having to approach the type of gentleman of a pensions officer that I described previously, and that after being with him they may have to go to the relieving officer. Long before we got a native Government the desire of the majority of the Irish people was to keep far away from the relieving officer. I am sorry that we have gone far down the road since then. In other days, a person in rural Ireland would feel it a great humiliation if his circumstances were such that he was forced to go to the relieving officer.

The point that I want to stress is the different treatment that is meted out to the various sections of our community. Pensions are provided for judges, the police, teachers, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. The money for these pensions comes out of the wealth produced by the ordinary people. What I want to know is, why should some classes be put in a privileged position, while those who have spent their lives producing wealth for the nation are not treated in the same way? I think that is a grave injustice so far as our aged people are concerned. It is certainly not real Christianity.

A fortnight ago we had a Bill before us proposing that pensions should be provided for district justices after they had given 20 years' service. May I say that I have nothing but the greatest respect for our district justices, but my point is that the man who has spent 50 years toiling to produce wealth for the nation should, at least, be entitled to a pension of £50 a year. I do not want to belittle the classes that I have referred to or to say that they are not entitled to their pensions. All that I am doing is to point out the difference there is in the treatment accorded to various sections in the community. I would like to see every man with a good wage and a pension in his old age. I do want to say, however, that I do not think any class of pension should be given to young people.

In my opinion there are three classes in the community that are being neglected: the old age pensioner, the sick and the widow. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is here to deal with this question. He understands the conditions in rural Ireland; he has mixed with all classes of the people and I feel that he will help us on this motion. I would appeal to Senators in all parts of the House to support it. I would remind them that it is not something that has come from the Labour Party. It is a motion that all classes of the people, irrespective of their political views, whether they are Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, would like to see adopted. That has been my experience in discussing the question with various classes of people. They are all agreed that the conditions for the old age pensioners should be improved. I feel quite certain that members of the Government Party on the other side of the House have been requested by members of their organisation to back up this case for the old age pensioners.

As a matter of fact no demand has ever been put forward upon which the people are so united as they are in regard to assisting old age pensioners. We have tried to set a headline for the world so far as Christianity and straight dealing are concerned. It is my wish that we should not do anything that would endanger that reputation. I, therefore, appeal to the Government and to every Senator to support this motion so that we shall not lag behind any other Government in the world in meting out justice to a class who are most entitled to it. I am not mentioning any figure because the figure might vary from time to time but I have in mind some amount that would keep these old people in a reasonable standard of comfort—at least something related to the standard enjoyed by the rest of the community even in this country. I am satisfied that not one Senator will suggest here to-day that at the present time these poor people are in receipt of an amount that would be even half sufficient for their needs. Every one of us knows that the old person who gets 10/- pension on Friday has not a penny of it left by Monday.

On the question of subsidies, I would say that as far as the food vouchers in the city are concerned, if they were issued automatically with the old age pension at the post office I believe the idea behind them is a good one. These vouchers would ensure that no matter how scarce food was, these poor people would get a certain quantity. I do not, however, like the idea of sending pensioners to the home assistance officer. I am constrained to correct the statement of Senator Duffy that all old age pensioners get 2/6 from the home assistance officers.

Mr. Duffy

I did not say that.

Mr. Tunney

In County Dublin I can vouch for the fact that there are not 50 old age pensioners whom I know—and I have a fairly wide knowledge of the county—who are in receipt of the allowance of 2/6 from the home assistance officer. As a matter of fact, apart from a few really destitute people who reside alone, hardly any of the pensioners get this allowance. So far as the means test is concerned, I think the whole principle behind it is wrong. There should be no means test for an old age pensioner any more than there is for any other section of the community. That is again an instance where there is one law for one section of the community and a different law for another section.

Although from an economic and national point of view, I sincerely hope that the Border will be removed with the support of our Nationalist brethren across the Border, we cannot hope to secure the support if the old people there are faced with the prospect, on the abolition of the Border, of having to suffer penury and poverty in their old age. Similarly, many old people who left this country for England in the bad and evil days of the past and who had hoped to return to spend their declining years here will have very little encouragement to come back if the allowance is kept at the present very low level. I would, therefore, appeal to the Government to accept the motion and to increase the old age pension allowance to a figure that will enable these old people to enjoy a reasonable standard of comfort in their declining years.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I do not intend to speak at very great length in support of this motion, but I should like to be associated with it and to give my own evidence that I believe the circumstances of old age pensioners throughout the country at the present time are such as to warrant an increase in the amount of their weekly pension. Some years ago the Government authorised local authorities to make a supplementary allowance to old age pensioners because, I suppose, of the increased cost of living due to the emergency through which we were passing. As has been pointed out in the course of the debate, the form of the supplementary allowance varied as between urban and rural areas. In the rural areas, it took the form of a cash allowance. I know one particular county where the council in its anxiety to embrace the greatest number of persons within the supplementary allowance decided on making the allowance 1/- per week. Anyone who sees the manner in which the old age pensioners queue up for that allowance, when it is being paid by the home assistance officers, must come to the conclusion that only the gravest privation would induce them to submit to the indignity that that application must undoubtedly impose upon them.

I can recollect a time when people who were really destitute, because of a sense of pride which should be fostered rather than decried, refused to apply for home assistance, or poor law relief as it was called, to which they were legitimately entitled. Whether we approve of it or not, a stigma has undoubtedly attached to people who were driven by the unfortunate conditions in which they happened to be placed, to apply for home assistance. I know of several cases of persons who would have been bona fide applicants for that form of relief and who because of the humiliation which they felt an application would involve did without such relief. The fact that at this hour of the day under a native Government, old age pensioners as a body can swallow their pride and queue up in front of the home assistance officer or the relieving officer, as he is called, for such a miserable pittance as 1/- per week, is the best evidence that these old people are suffering privations as a result of the inadequacy of the pension paid them now in view of the high cost of living. I think that is the strongest point that could be made for a sympathetic consideration of this motion by the Government.

I also agree with the statements which have been made in regard to the unfairness of the means test. The means test as applied at present is no incentive to thrift. I am personally aware of cases in which old people in receipt of the pension, who made provision for a decent burial for themselves out of contributions received from children who happen to be exiled, suffered in consequence the total loss of the pension or a substantial decrease in the amount paid to them. I trust that the arguments that have been put before the Seanad this evening may impress the Parliamentary Secretary and lead him to give some indication of the possibility of an early and favourable consideration of this question. I know that there are several demands, increasing demands on the Exchequer at the present time, but with Senators Duffy and Tunney I say that the old age pensioners are entitled to some consideration and I am quite satisfied that the House will be unanimous in that demand. There is no need for me to say anything more than that I support the motion whole-heartedly.

Mr. Hayden

As a member coming from a rural area and as one who is a member of the county council and chairman of the council for a number of years, I have experience of the poverty that exists amongst old age pensioners. When you consider what an old age pensioner can buy to-day for 10/-, you will come to the conclusion that he must be living in poverty. In 1908 an alien Government gave our old age pensioners 5/- a week, which was increased to 10/- in 1916. Thirty years have elapsed since then and still the old age pensioners are on the same figure. I consider that the Government should be generous to these old people who in the past have toiled and worked and produced wealth for the nation. Now, in the winter of their lives, they are destined to live in the most miserable conditions. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that we are giving a supplementary allowance to these old age pensioners. In my county, for the year 1946-47, that allowance amounted to £3,181. The Parliamentary Secretary may say also that it costs the Exchequer £380,000. Day after day I get letters from old age pensioners pointing out that they have been deprived of that supplementary allowance given by the local authority. For instance, I have received the following letter:—

"9 Phelan Street,

Rathvilly, County Carlow.

3/5/46.

Sir,

I take the liberty of writing a line to let you know what the Carlow County Council did to my husband. He is 82 years of age and has lost one eye. I am 74 years myself. We have nobody to do a turn for us or to earn a shilling.

We both have the old age pension, 10/- a week each. We were awarded 2/6 each by the council as relief. That gave us 25/- a week to live on, pay rent, get food, turf, light and clothes. In April the relief officer cut off the 2/6 from my husband and in the middle of the month my 2/6 was also stopped. Now we have only 20/- a week to live on. When we pay rent and rates we are in a state of what I call starvation.

I do not know why this money was stopped by the relief officer except that we have a young lad, a nephew, staying with us. The relief officer said he could be working.

I am letting you know my circumstances so you can bring it up at the council.

Elizabeth O'Toole."

Week after week I get letters as chairman of the county council asking me to get people a supplementary allowance, which I call a system of outdoor relief. These poor people have to go to the home assistance officer to get this paltry sum of 2/6. Why not have that supplementary allowance paid to them in the post office on their old age pension book? Would it not be a far more decent way in which to treat these people? Surely old age is worthy of veneration.

I do not say that the Government have not done a good deal. I know they have done a good deal for social services in my town and other towns. But I believe that the Government should do something to alleviate the lot of these old age pensioners by giving them an extra allowance so that they can live in frugal comfort. In addition to being a member of the county council, I am also a member of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Week after week I go round on visitation work and I must say that it is appalling to find the conditions under which old age pensioners are living with only 10/- a week to support them. They look to the St. Vincent de Paul Society to supplement the amount they are already getting. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to do something for these old people. It may be said that it is hard to find money. I believe that the money can be found. I hope that we shall never have war again, but during the emergency the Government had to expend £8,000,000 yearly on the Army. Other countries say they cannot find money for the relief of the poor or the destitute; but, when war starts, money can be found. I say that the Government can find the money to increase the old age pension of 10/- and help these old age pensioners to improve the conditions under which they are living. Some of them are dying in a state of pauperism. I do not come here to make exaggerated statements. Any statements I make, I can stand over.

There has been a litany of cases recited here showing how the means test is applied. Some Senators have condemned the investigation officers. I do not blame the investigation officers. I think they are only doing their duty. The law is there and it is up to the Government to amend it. The officers in my district make a very strict investigation but, at the same time, I consider they are only doing their duty. I do not agree with the application of the means test. What I want is a complete abolition of it. Poor people who have tried to save in their earlier years and who have been thrifty are penalised by this means test. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the present old age pension is increased so as to alleviate the widespread distress amongst this deserving section of the community.

Mr. Hawkins

I should like to say at the outset that I and, I am sure, the other Senators on this side of the House have as much sympathy with the old age pensioners and understand their conditions just as well as other Senators and would be anxious to do what can be done to make their lot much happier than it is under the present conditions. We were asked on the Adjournment last night that this House should meet to-day to consider this motion in relation to old age pensions. I have listened to the arguments put forward by those who support it. I have read Senator Duffy's statement on the last occasion when introducing the motion. It is because I have sympathy with these old age pensioners that I feel compelled to vote against this motion. We have not heard from the mover of the motion what the motion really means and what he is anxious to achieve.

The motion requests the Government, in view of the extent to which the value of money has depreciated in recent years, to introduce proposals for the purpose of providing a proper standard of maintenance for old people who have retired from remunerative employment. We have heard during the debate that these old age pensioners are destitute people. We know that a number of those people, when they come to the age of 70, are not in any employment. More often than not they are unemployed. If we accept the motion, I suggest that we are depriving old age pensioners of whatever consideration the Government might otherwise give them, because, in order to benefit under this motion, a person must have retired from what is termed here "remunerative employment". If the mover of the motion takes the trouble to look up the meaning of that phrase, I think he will find it conveys very much more than what he seems to think.

Mr. Tunney

Is farming not?

Mr. Hawkins

Mr. Duffy

I do not know how the Senator stands with regard to Irish, but he evidently has a very poor knowledge of English.

Mr. Quirke

I suggest that the Senator be allowed to make his speech. Senator Hawkins did not interrupt Senator Duffy when he was speaking.

An Cathaoirleach

I suggest that Senators should address the Chair and not other Senators directly.

Mr. Hawkins

In introducing the motion, Senator Duffy made the admission—it must have been because we talked so much yesterday about science and scientific methods—that it was not very scientifically drafted; but if he has the interest and welfare of the old age pensioners at heart, he and the organisation he represents here should have sufficient commonsense and ability to draft a motion for submission to the House on which the House could consider what he really wants. As it is, we are asked to support a motion to benefit only a small section of the old age pensioners—those people who have retired "from remunerative employment".

Mr. Duffy

What others are there?

Mr. Hawkins

I say that I personally cannot accept it, and I suggest that all the other statements which have been made represent an exaggeration of the position. Possibly, when pleading on behalf of certain people, and particularly on behalf of the old age pensioner, one feels that exaggeration is a good thing, but if we are to get anywhere, if we are to do what we would like for these people, surely we should consider the position as it exists, and particularly as it exists in rural Ireland. We know full well that, no matter what any Government does there will always be some persons whose position will not be as good as that of their neighbours, but, if we are to consider this question seriously, we must bring to our minds the position in rural Ireland.

We have heard from both Senators of the contribution which these old people have made to the wealth of the nation. We agree with that, but we also hold that these old people have made a contribution to their own holdings, their own land and their own homes, and I believe that, in a Christian and Catholic State like this, it would be well that we should hold on to that support by, and sympathy of, children for their parents and that it would be bad if the State took over the entire maintenance of such people. There will be cases, although not many, in which it might be necessary for the State to intervene and to be more generous, but we must admit that, on the whole, a great advance has been made, in view of the fact that the amount of money spent has increased from £2,000,000 to £4,000,000, including both old age and blind pensions. I suggest that Senator Duffy would best serve the interests of the people whose interests he proposes to serve by withdrawing the motion, because the views he put forward in moving it are not embodied in it. If it be accepted, only a very small section of these people would benefit, and, for that reason, I am compelled to vote against it.

Mr. Douglas

Senator Hawkins has dealt with this motion as an attack on the Government, which he, therefore, must defend. I think that was a mistake and rather unfortunate. I have much sympathy with him in his endeavour to make the most of an extremely difficult case. I do not propose to follow any of the speakers. I simply want to state what I believe is the view of a very large number, if not the majority, of people, that the time has come when we should examine, with very little delay, the whole question of the provision for old age, including the provision for such of our old age pensioners as are destitute or would otherwise be destitute—whether they should be treated differently from those who have family or other support—and should examine in an expert manner the question of the provision for people in their old age who are in what is described in the motion as remunerative employment, by which I mean earning a wage which does not allow for saving to provide for an adequate old age position, but which would probably make possible a scheme of contributory pensions.

This is not a matter which ought to be discussed on Party lines. I think it would be unfortunate that elections should be sought to be won on the basis of for or against the old age pensioner. It will not do him any good and certainly will not do our national credit any good. I do not think it matters very much whether this motion is passed or not. It would be quite easy to pull it to pieces. It is badly drafted, and, if one examines it, one will see that it says nothing at all, but the plain truth is that the matter has been before the Seanad, and I think we should say to the Government: "You should not leave this where it is" and should tell them that it will not be sufficient to add on another 1/- in the next Budget, as I would have liked to see done in the last Budget, if there had been a lesser reduction in incometax. That is not sufficient. This requires expert examination. The view of the people is that the position is not satisfactory as it is, and, in so far as the motion asks us to say whether 10/-per week for an old age pensioner who is destitute or who would otherwise be destitute is sufficient, I think there is only one answer—it is not sufficient.

Mrs. Concannon

In introducing this motion Senator Duffy admitted it was not framed in scientific terms. This naïve admission was in reality a strategic move inasmuch as it gave the Senator convenient cover for an attack on the Government. I do not think the figures the Senator gave were sufficient guidance to the House for an examination into what we all admit is a most important question, the making of provision for old people who need help, and who have no income. There are other figures which the Senator did not give, but which must be taken into consideration in discussing old age pensions. Senator Hawkins referred to the amount that is being provided in this year's Budget in old age pensions. I have looked up the Estimates and I find that on the Old Age Pensions Vote alone the amount comes to £3,919,587, and to that has to be added £176,000 on the Vote for "Allowances in Kind". That brings the total in the Estimate for old age pensions to £4,095,587. We must recognise in that figure one of the biggest items in the Budget. It is very much to our credit that we should care for people who need help in their old age, and see that they get it. The country has really done a great deal in providing £4,095,587. Let us compare that with other items in the Estimates. For children's allowances the amount provided is £2,195,950; for unemployment assistance, £1,750,000; for primary education, £4,237,070; for the Gárda Síochána £2,557,770; for the Army, £4,576,310; and for relief of distress in Europe, £3,000,000.

Therefore it is plain we have thought of the old age pensioners, and have provided for them what is, in a poorish country like this, a fairly hefty sum. But I think it is time to examine whether we could not do better for old age pensioners. Senator Duffy did not suggest what we should do or how we should do it. To my mind—and this is why I am tempted to speak on the motion—we ought to approach this question from a perfectly new angle. We ought to regard old age as one of the liabilities for which we must make provision through social security. In most of the countries to which Senator Duffy referred, such as New Zealand and Australia, old age pensions are provided on a much more liberal scale than ours, because the people themselves pay towards them and the schemes are more or less "contributory" as we have aimed at in the matter of the widows' and orphans' pensions. I think that is what we ought to aim at for old age pensions. While I am very glad that Senator Duffy introduced this motion, I do not think the House ought to pass it in its present form.

Our real aim ought to be to examine the whole question of providing adequate old age pensions, and to see whether there could not be a contributory scheme which would do away with what most people object to, the means test. That would not interfere with the thrift habit which we all feel has to a certain extent deteriorated owing to the circumstances under which old age pensions are granted. The Old Age Pensions Act was introduced at a time when people did not think very much about social security. It was considered to be a great advance that the State should take thought for it at all. My recollection does not endorse what Senator Duffy said about the attitude of the Irish Party towards old age pensions. The Act was introduced in 1908 and I have no recollection of the Irish Parliamentary Party wanting to have this country excluded from its provisions. Surely that is inconceivable seeing that the British Government was paying the cost. It was considered at the time to be a great thing for the benefit of old people many of whom had up to then to live on alms or on whatever amount they received from relieving officers. Nobody in this country is very much in love with Mr. Lloyd George, but I do remember the welcome extended to his Act in Ireland and the blessings he got from the beneficiaries. While I am glad that Senator Duffy introduced this motion I do not think that any section of the House could possibly accept its terms as they stand. The whole question of providing for old people must be considered with other aspects of social security, and in the light of recent advances in that direction.

Mr. Baxter

I regret that I did not hear all of Senator Hawkins' speech, but it occurs to me that there might be agreement on this question if the latter part of the motion, to which apparently he objected, were deleted. I gathered that the Senator objects to the latter part where Senator Duffy wants "to introduce proposals for the purpose of providing a proper standard of maintenance for old people who have retired from remunerative employment". I was wondering whether Senator Duffy would agree to stop at "old people" and not be concerned whether they had retired from remunerative employment or what their conditions were before they reached 70. I suggest that Senator Hawkins and his colleagues should think that over. Before I go into the merits of the motion to any extent, I should like to join with Senator Mrs. Concannon in her reference to what was said by Senator Duffy in regard to the Irish Party's action in the British House of Commons when the Old Age Pensions Act was passed. It would be a matter of regret and humiliation to have included in the records of this House any statement with regard to any men who battled for this country at any period if that statement did not represent the facts. Some searches have been made since this statement was made by Senator Duffy and, so far as these searches have revealed anything, they have not corroborated what Senator Duffy has stated. I suggest to him that that portion of his speech in which he indicated that the Irish Party of that day opposed the extension of this Act to Ireland should be corrected by him.

It is a rather interesting commentary on the speech made by Senator Hawkins and Senator Mrs. Concannon that they reveal exactly the situation which the British Government discovered when the first Old Age Pensions Act was passed. The British were astonished at the number of persons over 70 years of age in Ireland in proportion to the total population. We are astonished now that our expenditure on old age pensions should form so high a proportion of the total expenditure. It is a fact that people here live to an extremely old age. That is a happy circumstance. In another country, there is another philosophy about old people. We should thank God that it is not to be translated into practice here. Our old people ought to be properly provided for. I agree with Senator Douglas that this is not a matter in which there ought to be differences between Parties. The problem we have to face in regard to our old people is a common problem. As regards the figures given by Senator Mrs. Concannon, I agree that the total amount—£4,000,000—spent on old age pensions is a formidable figure. The fact remains that none of us can be satisfied that minimum human needs are adequately served by the State effort in regard to old age pensions. I am prepared to vote for Senator Duffy's motion if it is put to a division but I should prefer to have it accepted with the amendment I mentioned. I should prefer if the attitude and spirit of the House towards the motion were such as to indicate that we all recognise it as a major problem—an intricate and difficult question which requires exhaustive examination. If that could be achieved by Senator Duffy, it would be a considerable victory for him.

In the implementation of his motion, as it is, certain difficulties confront us. The motion requests the Government to introduce proposals for the purpose of providing a proper standard of maintenance for old people. In his very exhaustive speech when introducing the motion last day and again to-day, Senator Duffy revealed that he had put a great deal of industry into the study of this question. That is very commendable. It is very commendable that members of this House should engage in so much industry regarding propositions which they put on the Order Paper. The Senator examined the position in various countries. He quoted for the benefit of the House the conditions in Britain, as revealed by Rowntree's Human Needs of Labour, and he also quoted from that well-known authority, Colin Clarke. There are data available in other countries by which it would be possible to indicate the proposals which would have to be introduced to provide a proper standard of maintenance for old people. In this country, we have not available any sort of social survey which would form the basis on which we could build a structure which we could claim to be sufficient to provide a proper standard of maintenance for our people, young or old. I point that out as a difficulty with regard to the implementation of the motion. Before we can make adequate provision for our old people, we must get a great deal of data and material which are not available at present. I do not think that any member of the House would contradict the assertion that 10/-, 12/- or 15/- will not purchase anything like what these sums would purchase in 1931, 1935 or 1939. We see figures given of farm incomes at present. I do not remember by how much they have increased since 1939 but, in any event, there is no production of goods commensurate with the increase in the income of the farmer.

In other words, values have been very considerably inflated. Production of goods has not been commensurate with the production of money. To the extent that you produce money in greater volume than goods, you are inflating and you make it difficult for persons with small incomes to get a slice of the goods. That is the difficulty with the old age pensioners. Where they are dependent on the old age pension—I say this despite the statement of Senator Mrs. Concannon, for whose opinions and speeches here I have the highest admiration, and despite the statement of Senator Hawkins—that allowance is not bringing those people up to the nutritional level which they enjoyed pre-war. With regard to every section of the community, there are minimum human standards at which a civilised community ought to aim. There will be no contradiction of such an aim from any side of the House. The question as to how that is going to be achieved is a matter for examination, consideration, consultation and discussion. The problem is there. As Senator Duffy's motion is worded, it presents certain difficulties from the point of view of the Government. I do not know what position the Government would find themselves in if the motion were accepted in whole or with the elimination which I suggest. If the amendment could be agreed to, as evidence of the unanimity of the House in regard to the problem of provision for our old people, then I think the motion ought to be accepted. In the implementation of it, even as it is worded, there are certain difficulties, but as an earnest of what we believe should be aimed at, I think the House should agree to accept it. If Senator Hawkins, speaking for his colleagues, is not prepared to accept the amendment, and if it should go to a division, in order to indicate on what side my sympathies lie, I will give even the motion as it is my support. If it can be amended to make it acceptable to every member of the House, I think it would be a far healthier and better spirit.

Mr. Kyle

There is one satisfaction that Senator Duffy can have, that nobody on any side of the House has denied that the value of money has depreciated in recent years. Nor has it been denied that, in consequence of that fact, those who are in receipt of old age pensions are suffering privation and hardship. Senator Hawkins said that two-thirds of the old age pensioners are in receipt of £30 to £39 per year. £39 a year is 15/- a week. If two-thirds are in receipt of 15/- a week, we must presume that the other one-third are in an even worse state of privation. Roughly, 50,000 represents the one-third that even Senator Hawkins admits are not in receipt of £30 to £39 a year. Therefore those 50,000 are in a state of privation and suffering hardships which in the opinion of the House should be remedied.

The motion requests the Government to introduce proposals for the purpose of providing a proper standard of maintenance for old people. It does not say that the Government should not introduce proposals for the alleviation of the position of others who are not old people. It provides an admirable opportunity for the Government to introduce any proposal that they care to introduce in regard to social security, whether it is based on any plan that has been put before the representatives of the country or not. This opportunity might be used by the Government to introduce legislation to establish social security or at least to attempt it. It might be along the same lines as Senator Duffy has suggested are practicable in other countries. As Senator Mrs. Concannon has said, many of the social security proposals and plans in other countries are based to some extent on contributory schemes. This motion does not preclude consideration of that type of solution for this particular aspect of the problem.

Like other Senators who have spoken, I do not want an unnecessary division in this House on the question of the treatment of old age pensioners. I think everybody feels the same as Senator Duffy, Senator Hawkins and Senator Mrs. Concannon who have stated that their sympathies lie with the old age pensioners who are suffering privation and hardship. Senator Hawkins made the point that, simply because the motion specifies old people who have retired from remunerative employment, that would preclude certain sections of the people from any advantage. Quite frankly, I do not see his point, because the housewife, who keeps the home, is in remunerative employment, the farmer who reaches the age of 70 has been in remunerative employment, the mechanic, the artisan, the labourer, have been in remunerative employment. I cannot see the point that Senator Hawkins endeavoured to make that the motion will leave out somebody and that for that reason, and that reason only, he was not prepared to support it.

I do not think any argument that has been used here to-day need necessarily upset the Government or anybody else in this matter because we are all agreed that the old age pensioner needs consideration. Senator Hawkins also used the argument that, because Senator Duffy had not talked about the means test, that was another reason why he could not support the motion. I am sure that he, like the rest of us, does not approve of the means test. We take it for granted that more or less intelligent men and women would agree that we are in favour of the abolition of the means test, as we have been advocating the abolition of the means test, either in whole or in part, in regard to old age pensions for a considerable number of years. The argument that has been adduced in that respect from these benches is that it is a penalty on thrift and that it is obvious that it is a penalty on thrift. A man can be a loose liver all his life and never attempt to provide for his old age and he will get a pension of 10/- per week while the man who tries to take care of himself and his family and to save up for his old age—and, by the way, that is a bit of a job—is penalised to the extent that if he has any income by way of superannuation or in any other form, he is denied the benefit of his thrift.

It is quite obvious that so far as the majority of ordinary sensible, decent people are concerned, they are in favour of the abolition of the means test in regard to old age pensions. It may be argued that if the means test is abolished it will mean that you will give a person with £1,000 or, say, a retired Parliamentary Secretary with £300 or £400 a year, a pension of 10/-a week at the age of 70. If that argument is used, I concede that point. There are people who really believe that the Government ought to introduce proposals for the alleviation of this particular grievance that old people have and, whatever the method the Government adopt to alleviate their hardships, I hope the proposals they introduce will have the earnest support of the members of this House. I will support the motion.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Very large sums have been quoted, running into millions, by Senator Hawkins and Senator Mrs. Concannon. The quoting of large sums like that is very cold comfort to a person actually in need of additional assistance. The question that we should put to ourselves on this motion is, are there any people—are there 10 people or 100 people—in the country dependent entirely on an allowance of 10/-? There may be a good deal in what Senator Hawkins has said, that two-thirds of the pensioners are in receipt of supplementary allowances but, as was pointed out by Senator Smyth, the fact remains that quite a large number are undoubtedly in need of assistance. If we regard the matter from the purely logical standpoint, we see at once that if 10/-, in 1931 or any other period, was considered necessary, logically, we must admit that as 10/- is no longer 10/- in the original sense, something should be done about it.

We are told the £ is worth only about 6/8 now compared to 1914, so it is clear that the 10/- no longer serves the purpose for which it was designed originally. We know it is the Government's duty to try to conserve the funds of people and everyone must expect a certain amount of opposition, but on the other hand it is our duty, as we are in touch with the people and know their wants, to make it plain to the Government that there is a national desire to have something done in the direction indicated by the motion. I agree with Senator Baxter that if the last few words of the motion—

"providing a proper standard of maintenance for old people who have retired from remunerative employment"—

were left out, it would be better. The first words—

"old people who depend for their subsistence on old age pensions"—

are the kernel of the motion and mean that it is intended to benefit those people who depend on the pension. The fall in the value of money has taken place and yet there has been no increase in the basic allowance in proportion to that fall, in order that those who depend entirely for their subsistence on the pension may be able to live in a decent manner.

Senator Duffy referred to the unions who provide for a pension scheme of their own and said that, as soon as that becomes known, such people are handicapped as regards the allowance from the State. I do not know if I am in order or not, but I should imagine that that type of assistance is an ideal one. No matter what form the State assistance takes, it is a degradation to some extent and I hope that, when the idea of vocational organisation permeates further through the people, the assistance of this kind now administered by the State will disappear and the vocational groups will be entrusted with funds for this purpose. I am prepared to admit that there are many cases where it would be an injustice on the part of the State to give additional assistance. We all know there are many exceptions, but the question is how we are to get to know those cases. Evidently, one needs some local body and one example is that of the St. Vincent de Paul society, the members of which are in contact with the people. On the other hand, there is a more human way of administering assistance of this kind, by payments to a vocational body with which the old people were associated during their active life. That would be the better way, as it would be the members' duty then to administer such a fund in the most economical way and they would be familiar with the various circumstances. If such a body could be entrusted with the fund, it would be the best way of doing justice to all parties concerned and it would lessen the stigma of the old age pension, particularly when people have to go to the local relieving officer for the supplementary allowance.

People associated in active life with vocational bodies would then look to those bodies for support in their old age, and a more human element would be introduced into the whole question. I am sorry this bigger question has not been tackled during the discussion and suggest it for the consideration of the Minister and the Government. I do not know what the attitude of the Government is, but judging by recent legislation it would appear that there is some approach to the idea of vocational organisation on the part of the Government. Let us hope that approach will continue and that the Government will begin thinking, in connection with social security plans, of the advantage of administering this form of State assistance to vocational bodies. Unemployment assistance should be given in the same way. I do not know what the attitude of the Labour Party would be to that, but I think it would tend towards the dignity of labour and the independence of man and would stop this continual dependence on the State for relief in every shape and form.

Mr. Smyth

Let me deal with this motion from the point of view of the rural worker. When the Old Age Pensions Act was introduced in 1908, the farm worker's average wage was 10/- a week. In a recent debate, Senator Counihan said that, even in County Dublin, that was the average previous to 1914. So that, in 1908, a farm worker and his wife reaching 70 years of age and receiving the full pension got 10/- a week, which was equivalent to a farm worker's wage at that time. In 1946, if a farm worker and his wife are entitled to the full pension on reaching 70, they get £1 a week. The Agricultural Wages Board in its recent order granted a minimum wage of 54/- for County Dublin. In 1908, the pension was equivalent to half a farm worker's wages, while in 1946 it is equivalent only to 18 per cent. of his wages. The majority of the old age pensioners are agricultural workers, as agriculture is our largest industry and gives the largest amount of labour. That shows the difference between 1908 and 1946. On that basis, the old age pension at present should be 27/- a week and, if it were that, the pensioner would be getting a pension of the same value as was given when it was introduced by the British Government in 1908.

In 1916 it was doubled and made 10/-a week. The average wage of the farm worker in 1916 did not exceed £1 a week. In 1918 the Agricultural Wages Board was set up by the British Government, under the Corn Production Act, for the first time in this country and the first return made was a wage of 20/6d. Two years previously, the pension was 10/-. So far as the rural worker was concerned, basing it on that, the present rate is totally inadequate. It should be at least 27/-a week.

In 1908, also, the pensioner was allowed an income of 8/-. He could have a 5/- old age pension as well as the 8/-, making 13/-; but at present the pensioner is only allowed to have 6/- which, with the 10/- pension, makes only 16/-. We all know that the extra 6/- to-day is only the equivalent of 2/- in 1908. In 1908 a man and his wife who were entitled to the old age pension could get a total sum of 26/- a week. That was made up of the 5/- old age pension and the allowance of 8/—a total of 13/- for the man, and an equal sum for the wife. The cost of living to-day is three times what it was in 1908, yet the most that a man and his wife can get to-day is 32/- a week, or the equivalent of 11/-per week in 1908 when allowance is made for the cost of living to-day.

I know a good deal about the means test because I have been a member of an old age pensions committee for many years. I would not be inclined to go as far as Senator Tunney in condemning all investigation officers. They, of course, have to do their duty. At the same time, it must be said that, in their approach to old age pensioners, they act much in the manner of a prosecutor in court. They put legal questions which many of the old age pensioners are not able to answer. The latter try to be honest in giving the information asked for and, as a result, they are victimised. They may be asked if a son or a daughter who is away is good to them and, naturally, they will not deny that. In the case of small farmers, the old woman may be asked if she has a room of her own in the house, and gets enough food. On the old age pensions committee all parties are represented. We have some very large ratepayers on it. The claims that we recommend for pension are invariably turned down by the investigation officer.

Some Senators have spoken of the valuation that is placed on certain articles in connection with the application of the means test. If a man or a woman has a garden, there is a valuation put on the produce from it, although actually it may not be producing anything at all. There was a good deal said to-day about fowl and eggs. As regards the valuation that is put on eggs by the investigation officer, in many cases it is not a question of a hen laying two eggs a day, but in some cases she was supposed to be laying golden eggs. Some Senators spoke about thrift and of the premium which this means test puts on thrift. We all know what the position is, that ne'er-do-wells who never did a day's work in their lives can put in their claims and get the full pension when they reach the age of 70, whereas decent, hard-working people who saved a little during their lives are victimised. If they have saved some money that is taken into account and there is a deduction made in the amount of pension allowed to them. I am against this means test altogether. There should be no such thing so far as the social services are concerned. It does not apply in the case of the Children's Allowances Act which has been a great success.

Another matter referred to was the supplementary allowance. I have a good deal of experience of its administration, because I have been chairman of the county council in my county. As Senators know, there is only a certain sum of money allocated for this purpose to each county council. In our county we endeavoured to give the allowance to as many people as possible. We tried to do the best we could under the rules and regulations laid down by the Government. In order to get it, a person has to be destitute and to go to the home assistance officer to look for relief. Now, in the old Sinn Féin days, one of the ideals that we had was the abolition of the workhouse and of everything associated with the poor law. We thought that when we had our own Government we would hear no more about the poor law system. But now we find that it is being applied in the case of old age pensioners, many of them fine, old, decent people who never had to approach a relieving officer. Of course, to-day the poor law institution is not called the "workhouse". It is called the county home, and the relieving officer is called the home assistance officer. But, even with these changes, the stigma of the poor law sticks. These old people do not want to have to go hat in hand to the relieving officer to get the 2/6 allowance. I agree with other Senators that it would be much better if this allowance had been added on to the pension and paid at the post office. The present method of paying it is not a success. It is not right that the old people should have to go to the relieving officer in order to obtain such a paltry sum.

The old people in rural areas may not be in the same position as old age pensioners in towns. They have not the same opportunity of getting charity and other allowances. In my opinion they are being victimised to a much greater extent than the old age pensioners in the towns and cities. Owing to the high cost of living many of them are now being forced to go into the county homes. In 1922 when the Dáil passed a law abolishing the poor law system, one of the ideals that we had was to take the people out of the workhouses and to give them assistance in their own homes, but, as I have said, owing to the high cost of living, many of those old age pensioners are to-day obliged to go into the county homes. They are maintained there and are allowed a certain amount out of their old age pension. That is the position to-day, despite all that was done by many of those people to abolish the poor law system. It is right also that I should point out that not everyone who is entitled to the supplementary allowance of 2/6 is getting it. That is due to the fact that each county council gets only a certain sum of money for that purpose. The county council distributes it as far as it will go, but the allocation is not sufficient to meet the claims of all who would be entitled to receive it.

A number of Senators have pointed out that many of the old age pensioners of to-day are the fathers and mothers of those who carried on the fight for the independence of this country. They are the people who produced wealth for this nation, and now this is the treatment they are receiving after their many years of labour. We have been told that there are 21,000 people getting the 10/- a week. The old age pensioners in Britain and in Northern Ireland have had their pensions increased under the Insurance Acts. I might point out that the cost of living is lower in Britain than it is here. Senator Hawkins spoke about the old age pensioners being well organised. I read some reports recently which indicated that in Great Britain, even though the pension rate is higher there than it is here, the old age pensioners are not satisfied, and are protesting against their present allowances. Surely if all other classes of people in this country have the right to organise the old age pensioners have the same right. Senator Hawkins made a threat that action may have to be takes against them as a body because they were attempting to organise and to look for an improvement in their benefits. Notwithstanding what he has said, I hope the Government will do something to meet the demand made in this motion. I know, of course, that motions like this have previously been turned down in this House and in the Dáil. There is not much use in bringing forward motions of this kind if they are to be treated in the way that Senator Hawkins has suggested. In conclusion, I hope that something will be done for the old age pensioners. They are a most deserving class. After all, it would not cost a lot to give them some small increase in order that they may be enabled to live in frugal comfort during the remaining days of their lives.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Smith)

When the good news was conveyed to me that I should represent my Minister at this discussion I did what Senator Duffy presumed I had done—I looked up the speech which he had made when moving the motion two weeks ago. I read the speech carefully and I, of course, saw that he had given, as Senator Baxter has stated, some considerable thought to this whole question of old age pensions and that he had armed himself with statistics as to the conditions that existed in some countries which he named. In my opening remarks I referred to the pleasant news which I received of having to come here and discuss this motion with members of the Seanad. I referred to it in that way because when a mission like this is your responsibility, you may know, speaking for the Department which regards itself as the most important Department in the State, that however sympathetic your own feelings may be towards a particular class—and I am glad the point has been emphasised by most Senators here that all of us would like to be kind and generous to that particular section of the community which is under discussion this evening—when you are discharging for the Department of Finance the responsibility connected with that Department, you are scarcely ever in a position to be as generous as you would like in dealing with a section which seems to make such a strong appeal to all our hearts.

I did detect in some of the statements made by Senator Duffy on the first occasion—although I must confess that it was less evident in this House than in the other House when a similar debate took place—a tendency to attribute to myself, to my colleagues and to members of the Government generally, an attitude of indifference, an attitude of conservatism, an attitude of not wanting to be helpful, an attitude of grinding down the particular class of the community to which this motion refers. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I do not object to members of this House, nor to others of our critics either inside or outside the House, taking that line. It is a legitimate line, if it is likely to secure for them and to take from us, some of the general political prestige that a Party in power possesses. While I say that is a fair game on the political field and while not disputing their right to take that line, I want to say that I repudiate that that is our attitude. Members of this House generally have admitted that this is a matter that concerns all of us and that the truth of the situation, in fact, is that every one of us would be glad if the country were in a position to do the generous thing for this particular section of the community.

I have not come here to make any set speech. I have a file which has been provided for me by the Department I am representing but I am going to try to make my own speech on the subject. I have taken a few notes here at random and I shall try to keep myself to dealing with these. I do not like to be forced into the position, in dealing with a matter of this kind, of having to repeat, parrot-like, some of the arguments and the reasons why this thing cannot be done, why that demand cannot be conceded, why some other concession would not be very wise and so on. While what I have to say may mean something, I do not like to have to say it in the way in which the Department of State, I suppose, would have me say it.

Mr. Duffy

You are on dangerous ground.

Mr. Smith

I may be on dangerous ground but the Senator will find that I shall steer my ship safely into harbour. In Senator Duffy's speech—and this is what I am trying to say in a different way—and in all the speeches that have been made here and, to a great extent, in many of the speeches that have been made on a similar motion in the other House, two facts have been omitted. Although the outlook of Senator Duffy and those of his Party who have supported him in this motion would appear to be different from the outlook and the approach which I have to a number of problems, I think no matter where Senator Duffy attempts to take this House—whether he switches us over to New Zealand, whether he tells us of the standards of the old age pensions in that country and the age at which these amounts are provided, whether he takes us nearer home to Britain and tries to describe what is being done in that country or whether he transfers us to Sweden and paints for us the picture there—I must confess that I have not read so extensively as the Senator of the conditions that obtain for this particular class of the community in these parts of the world. I would ask the Senator and the Seanad, however, to remember that, however much it may benefit us to see what the outside world is doing, we have got, when it is all over, when we have read all that is to be read and seen all that is to be seen, to come back here to our own country and to ask ourselves a number of very simple questions. We have got to ask ourselves what are the population and area of the country and what we, as a community of 3,000,000 souls, are being called upon at this moment to contribute in order to maintain the services we have decided up to now to provide. We have got to remember the fact to which reference has been already made, that an extraordinarily large number of our people, thanks be to God, as compared with other countries, live to an age exceeding 70 years. We have got to ask ourselves what percentage of the tax income of this country is paid out in pensions.

If Senator Duffy put a direct question to me or a set of questions that I know he could put to me, I would have to agree with him. If you single out in the City of Dublin, Galway, Limerick, or any other city, a small number of old age pensioners who were not married and who had no relatives, who found themselves in occupation of one room and in receipt of 10/- a week, especially since 1939 when the war started and prices started to soar, and put the direct question to me: "Having regard to the decreased purchasing power of the £1 and the rent which these persons have to pay, do you think it is fair or right or possible for such persons to live on 10/- a week?" I would have to admit that they were cases of exceptional hardship. Even when you consider the additional provision which has been made for such persons in the last few years, not only by the State but by charitable organisations and people, you are bewildered as to how they can eke out an existence. But, even if I were to admit that these were peculiar cases of extreme hardship, my admission would not in any way simplify the problem for those who have to look at this old age pension problem in the broader sense, who have to think in terms of the population of the country, the area of the country, the wealth of the country, the number of those in receipt of old age pensions, the amount that that service is costing and has cost all down the years and how it has increased, and who will be forced into the position of saying: "What would it cost this State and the community? What should those people have in order to ensure that the very worst off amongst them would be protected from want? What amount would be necessary to achieve that purpose?" Once that amount was determined, how and where is the money to be found? It will be admitted that it must be found by some form of taxation.

Assuming that we are prepared to impose upon the community the necessary burden in order to be in a position to give that minimum that we have already determined, what effect do you think that imposition would have upon a number of other classes of the community who are not too well protected from the point of view of the income on which they are obliged to live? When I ask myself what would be the effect of imposing that burden upon the community, and when I relate that to other recommendations which have been made by Senators who have referred to the means test, I cannot help saying —and this is a personal point of view in the main—that I disagree entirely with Senators or Deputies or public men or those who are not in public life who have the point of view to which expression has been given on this matter of the means test.

When thinking of the old age pensioners and of the lot of that particular class of the community, especially the small section that we find living in our towns and cities, having no relatives and being more or less alone in the world, I want you to think also of the other sections of the community, such as the widows and orphans, the unemployment assistance recipients who have not reached the age of 70, and are not able to engage in manual work for which a good physique and general fitness are required, and of the present provision that is being made for them. I want you to think of the effect the imposition of the necessary taxation to apply Senator Duffy's standard to old age pensioners would have upon those other weakly protected sections of the community—the man, for example, in receipt of national health benefit who is unfit because of his physical condition. Think of the effect of imposing upon classes like these the taxation necessary in order to give the standard of pension which, apparently, Senator Duffy would be glad to give and which, perhaps, without sufficient thought and consideration, many Senators would find themselves enthusiastically supporting.

Much has been said about the means test. I am not particularly keen upon the means test as such. I do not like the means test; I have no love for it. It involves an investigation officer going into the homes of our people in towns and rural areas, sitting down at the fireside, and having a little chat with the old lady or the old man of the house, asking them how the daughter-in-law is looking after them and trying by various other means to get information about the general circumstances in the home. At the same time, when I say that I would hesitate to support the abolition of the means test, I would like to give my reasons for that attitude. I want to make a purely personal statement on this matter. If I had a vote, and if I could by that vote cause the abolition of the means test as it applies to old age pensioners, and if I could divert by my vote almost £750,000 to people over 70 years in the Twenty-Six Counties, I would not give it. If £750,000 were lying in the Exchequer and if I were asked what purpose I would apply it to, I could find many other services. I could think right off of two, three, four or more services that would have a prior claim upon such a sum over those people who are excluded by the means test as it applies.

I admit a means test in anything is objectionable. A means test is costly. There are many people who, not examining this matter very carefully, come to the conclusion that by abolishing the means test you would almost make good the amount necessary to give all those who have reached 70 years a pension at the fixed minimum rate of 10/- a week. There is no reason for coming to such a conclusion. I understand that the means test, as applied, has the effect of saving £750,000, and if there was any question of that sum being available for the improvement of social services, or the protection of certain classes of the community who have very little of the world's goods, I would not give my vote to divert that sum towards a class that is, taking it in the main, better protected than other sections to whom I have referred.

When dealing in the Dáil with a motion similar to this, my Minister gave the assurance that this was one of the matters to which attention would have to be given in the near future; that this whole matter of our social services was one that would in a short time be under examination. I will confess that it puzzles me, and probably it puzzle members of the Seanad and people outside, how some of those old age pensioners, who are circumstanced as I have described, managed to pull through the years since 1939. Even at the present time the conditions are no better in so far as prices are concerned. While I agree that there is great hardship in the case of old age pensioners, the State can hardly be expected all the time to keep pensions and prices always balancing each other. In the years that have gone by, I admit that great hardship must have been endured by those whose incomes were small, but in 1933, 1934 and 1935 the cost of living was low and the State made no attempt then to adjust pensions and prices.

I think it is not reasonable, at a time when prices are high and are likely to go up, to say to the Government: "You must adjust these pensions in order to compensate for the increased cost," when, on the other hand, at a time when costs fall you simply say: "The pensions are to remain as they are". There are many people in this and other countries who have suffered as a result of the conditions which prevailed during the past six or seven years. The Government have not contended that all classes have not been called upon to suffer. There have been standstill Orders and a regulation of wages. The object was to ensure that the classes to which these Orders referred would make some portion of the sacrifice that was demanded from the people in a general way.

I admit that the class of people to whom this motion refers is deserving of more sympathy from us inasmuch as they have reached a stage when they are not able to do anything for themselves. As well as that, the amount of their pensions is so low that it does not permit of being whittled down. Its purchasing power, even without being whittled down, leaves them in a very bad position. But it is only right to say that the percentage of old age pensioners who are so affected—I cannot give any reliable figure—must be small. I say to those members of the House who have spoken rather severely of the supplementary allowance provided by the local authority, with the assistance of the State, in rural areas that I cannot for the life of me see, having regard to the amount being spent on this service, what justification one could offer for the payment of a supplementary allowance in cases where the general economic circumstances were such that there was no need for it.

We all know fairly well the general conditions in rural areas, and I say to those Senators who have been rather severe in their castigation of the method by which these supplementary allowances are distributed in rural areas that it is a mistake to convey the impression that members of the Dáil, Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers are out of touch with, and have no personal knowledge of, conditions in rural Ireland. We know that thousands of people are in receipt of maximum pensions—and these pensions are not grudged to these people— but there are known to many of us people who are not in need of any supplementary allowance to tide them over the situation brought about by the increased cost of commodities and so on in the past six or seven years. Is it suggested by these Senators who have made that case that the taxpayer and the ratepayer should be called upon to supplement the pensions of persons such as these?

I also repudiate entirely the suggestion thrown out by Senator Smyth that these unfortunate people are obliged to go with hat in hand, and so on, to collect this money. These are expressions which, in the world in which we live, mean nothing whatever. I know the methods and the machinery set up by local authorities for the investigation of such claims, and there is no such practice now as that of any old age pensioner having to go, hat in hand, to secure this allowance from a local official, provided that he or she is entitled to it. No matter how sympathetic we may be, no matter how much we may desire to raise the standard to a plane which would satisfy those who would like to see it at its highest, no matter what we may find in regard to the conditions that prevail in other countries and no matter how enthused we can be about all these schemes about which we read, I say to the mover of the motion that it cannot be divorced from the hard, cold fact that, if you decide in its favour, you must make the provision, and, in making that provision, you must impose burdens, as I contend, upon other sections of the community who are not too well protected either.

It is because these facts should stare us in the face that I ask the mover and the Seanad to realise that, while we all can have sympathy, while we all would like to be generous and would like to ensure that no person of that age would go unprotected, or in want or need for any length of time, while we may all desire and would strive to reach that standard, we have to face up to the problem that it can only be done with money. In terms of money, it means that every 2/6 you add on to the pension of people over 70 years of age will cost on the fringe of £1,000,000 per annum. Whatever method Senator Duffy might decide upon to finance a scheme of that kind, it would have to be financed, and that is what it would cost. Every additional 2/6d. given to the old age pension means that you must go to the community and say: "We want £1,000,000 from you". My contention is that, in asking for that £1,000,000 from the rest of the community, you would be hitting the widow, the orphan, the unemployment assistance recipient and the person in receipt of national health benefit—all those who are living and striving to exist on small incomes of one kind or another.

While saying all that and giving what I regard as arguments which cannot be challenged, arguments that should convince any body of men that this motion is not one which should be accepted by this House, I give to the Seanad the assurance given by my Minister in the other House that this is one of a number of questions which will in a short time be the subject of examination.

What will be the outcome of such examination, what new system, if any, may be introduced as a result of it, I am not in a position to say. I admit that there is a case for that examination and I claim that the Government and the Department for which I speak are, and have been, fully alive to the needs and the hardships of the people whose conditions have been discussed here this evening and—possibly in what some Senators would think a rather feeble way—have tried to come to the rescue. But to the extent to which it may appear to some Senators to have been weak and feeble, it has been weak and feeble only because some of the factors to which I have referred are present every time you proceed to examine a question of this kind and cannot be ignored by those whose responsibility it is, not only to say that such a thing should be done, but having said it should be done and having decided to do it, to provide the ways and means of doing it.

Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Theastaigh ón Seanadóir Ó Dubhthaigh rún a chur síos agus theastaigh uaidh é a chur síos ar shlí go bhféadfadh sé a lán a rá. D'éirigh leis, agus, ar nós cuid de na daoine eile a labhair, admhaím go raibh abhar spéisiúl cainte aige.

Chomh fada agus a théigheann an rún, níl mé ar a shon. Ag an am chéanna, ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil mé ar aon intinn leis an Seanadóir Ó Dubhthaigh go mba chóir dúinn an oiread a dhéanamh ar son na sean-daoine agus is féidir. Déarfainn an méid seo freisin, dá mhéid dá ndéanamid ar son na sean, ní dhéanamid leath an oiread agus ba mhaith liom a déanfaí.

Tá an rún lochtach agus tá sé lochtach ar níos mó ná slí amháin. Is é an príomhlocht atá agam air, ámh, go bhfuil sé le léamh ann go bhfuil bochtanas go láidir agus go forleathan sa tír. Sin rud nach bhfuil aon bhunús leis. Tá sé le léamh ann freisin go bhfuil a fhios ag an Rialtas go bhfuil an bochtanas mór sin ann agus nach ndearna siad aon rud le fóirithint air. Níl an bochtanas mór ann ach cibé bochtanas atá ann is léir go bhfuil iarracht mhór déanta ag an Rialtas cheana lena mhaolú. Níl fúm figiúracha a luadh anois tar éis ar tugadh díobh anseo le linn na díospóireachta.

Ach tá mé in aghaidh an rúin ar chuntair eile. Is iad na cuntair sin gur fhuagair an Taoiseach níos mó ná uair amháin go bhfuil faoin Rialtas. Aireacht speisialta a bhunú le gach gné de na seirbhísí sóisealta a iniúchadh agus moltaí a dhéanamh ina dtaobh. Is é an dara cuntar, gur pléidheadh a leitheid céanna de rún sa Dáil go gairid ó shoin agus ní dóigh liom gur ceart, ar an abhar sin, an rún seo a chur síos le am an tSeanad a mheilt. Admhaíonn an Seanadóir Ó Dubb-thaigh gur cheap sé a rún go dona. Mholfainn dó é a tharraing siar—mar is rún é nach ceart dúinn glacadh leis.

I want to say that if I am asked to express an opinion, as to whether we are doing as much for the old people as I would like to see done, I have no hesitation in saying that I am not at all pleased. The old people deserve well of us. I want to say this, that no matter how much we may ever do for them, I believe we will never do half as much as they deserve. Senator Duffy decided to put down a motion. He did so. Furthermore, he wanted to put it down in such a way that he would have as wide a field as possible to cover. He did so and has covered it. Some Senators referred to the value of his researches and the value of the information he gave. I should like to say with them that I appreciate all he has done. However, let me say that more than once I expressed the view that, generally, the comparisons some of us are making between Ireland and other countries do not quite stand the test; they are not quite fair. I hardly know of any country that is really comparable with our own. It seems to be exceptional in almost every way. I may have taken the figures up hurriedly, but I think I am right in saying that the number of old people over 70 years of age in New Zealand is about 21,000. In any case it is one of the lowest in the world. The number of people drawing old age pensions in this State, to the best of my recollection, would be 150,000. I am not quite sure how many people there are actually in Ireland of the age of 70 and above it, but I would be surprised if the figure is not well over 200,000.

As I pointed out before, the economic circumstances of the two countries are not quite comparable. Where there is a small population, as in New Zealand, where there is such an amount of land available, where the holdings are of such an extent, where you have specialisation in production to the degree that you can have it there, it is clear that the comparison is not quite a fair one between it and our country. Again, when these comparisons are being made, one would have to take into consideration the type and the extent of the social services available in them, and reduce them to some level or standard in order to compare the extent and quality obtainable here. I did try in the case of a number of small countries to get a comparable measure but I gave up the task because I discovered that it was such that one person could not properly do it. I tried to get an idea, with regard to smaller countries, of the extent of their social services and their value, and to reduce them to some level that we might use to compare with the position in this country. I will not quote my figure, because I know how defective it would be. Nevertheless, I would have no hesitation in saying that the extent and standard of social services in this country compare very favourably with the best provided pre-war in any of the small countries of Europe or outside it.

My approach to the motion would be more on the lines of Senator Douglas, I would rather that we would not have any dispute over it if that were avoidable. However, there is one thing in the motion that makes it impossible for me to subscribe to it, and that is the implication that there is undue privation and hardship existing in this country, to such an extent that it is a big problem. I agree that if one person suffers unduly that is not right, and that everything that can be done should be done to alleviate the condition of that person. Unfortunately in this motion it is implied, if not specifically stated, that the problem is one of considerable magnitude. Even worse than that, there is the implication that the Government are indifferent and have not attempted to find a solution, indifferent to such an extent that we feel ourselves bound to come in here and to call upon them to examine the matter and provide a remedy. If it were only for that reason—and I think it is reason enough—I feel as far as my support of the motion goes, I could not give it. I agree with Senator Douglas, sociology has so progressed, our views have so altered, circumstances and conditions have so changed, that the time is ripe for a full investigation of the whole problem of social services and, a term I do not like, social security.

I was rather surprised that Senator Douglas, careful reader and thinker as he is, did not refer to the fact that the head of the Government stated very definitely recently his own determination and the determination of the Government to institute a special Ministry, and to appoint a special Minister to carry out an investigation into every aspect of the social problem. In view of that statement and furthermore, in view of the fact that a motion similar to this was discussed recently in the Dáil, I think there was no point in putting down this motion and having the House spend its time discussing it. That is not to say that I take a tyrannical view, that Senator Duffy was not entitled, if he thought fit, to put down the motion.

That is his right and if he feels that it should be done, it is his duty to do so. I have expressed my appreciation of the work he has done in pleading the motion but, at the same time, I am entitled to express the opinion that, in view of everything, it is hardly reasonable that it should have been put down at all.

There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. It is, of course, a matter that will be investigated whenever the new Ministry is set up but it was dealt with at length in this discussion, that is, the question of the means test. I have no hesitation in subscribing to the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening that it is desirable that we should retain the means test but at the same time I have no hesitation in saying that, in view of the changes that have taken place, for instance, the change in the value of money, the time has come when the raising of the level of allowed income should be considered.

In regard to the wording of the motion, Senator Duffy has dealt with it and he is not at all happy that he has cast it just as he would wish it to be. It is defective. As we hear so often in discussions in this House, we can go only by what is written into the law; similarly, in this case, we can go only by the wording of the motion and if we are to be consistent, as the motion is worded, apart from the considerations that I gave in the first instance, the House could not reasonably accept it.

In conclusion, I want to say that with Senator Duffy I agree that everything we can do for the aged ought to be done and with Senator Duffy I would pray that that should be done as soon as possible but, in view of the fact that the determination of the Government to have the whole problem investigated has been made known, we ought to leave the matter at that. I would therefore ask Senator Duffy to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Quirke

I had not intended to intervene at this late hour but, in view of what has been said, it is only right that somebody should point out that there is a little more in this than the question of backing up the old age pensioners. I think I would be right in saying that, as far as sympathy for old age pensioners or any other section of the community goes, as much would be found on this side of the House as on the other. If anybody has any doubt about that, he need only advert to the figures which were given here to-day to discover what has been done under the present Government and to compare that with what was done under the previous Government.

I think it was Senator Douglas who rose up in wrath at the suggestion that Senator Hawkins interpreted the speeches made as an attack on the Government. I make no bones whatever about it and I say definitely that the speeches made could not be interpreted as anything but an attack on the Government. That is all right. Some Senators who spoke were not here five or six or ten years ago. Some Senators on the opposite benches were not members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government when that Government was in power. But we have here the remnants of that Party, such as it is, such as it was, and we have that same policy still represented here. What was the attitude of that Government when they were in power and when the old age pensioners were at their mercy? Instead of increasing the old age pension, they took 1/- per head from the old age pensioners. It is difficult for me to accept as sincere the statements made here to-day by some of the Senators who were and are associated with that Party.

Of course, the argument has been put up that the cost of living has increased. Nobody will deny that, but Senator Duffy went to great rounds to prove how bad we were here and how badly treated the old age pensioners and the other sections of the community are. Surely Senator Duffy knows that, while it is a fact that the value of money has depreciated in this country, it has depreciated far more in other countries. Previously I had not been as well aware of it as I have been for the past couple of weeks, but in the past couple of weeks I was in England and I can assure Senator Duffy that whatever chance there is of getting by with £1 in this country, you would not get far with £1 on the other side of the Channel. It is most unfair to suggest that there is any comparison whatever between the cost of living here and the cost of living across the water. I do not for one moment suggest that the cost of living has not increased here, but I do suggest that, under the present administration, various sums of money have been made available to old age pensioners which were not available in 1931. The figures have been given, but there is no harm in repeating them. In 1931 the expenditure was approximately £2,000,000 odd. In the present year the expenditure is to be £4,000,000 odd. I do not think the cost of living has increased to that extent. That is, I suppose, debatable but in any case I do not think it has. In 1931, the total expenditure on social services was approximately £3,000,000 and in the present year the total expenditure is approximately £14,000,000. These figures will stand investigation and, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that most of the criticism of the Government that we had to-day—and it was nothing else—was not based on actual facts.

We on this side of the House have expressed our views on this matter on various occasions, and as a Party we have put our opinions into effective operation. As a result services have been made available to the people of this country which were unheard of until the present Government came into power. Even now they are unheard of in any other country. I do not know whether it has been suggested by anybody else or not, but it is a well-known fact that a new Department is to be set up to deal with social services. I take it a new Minister will be appointed and I am quite sure that he will undertake a general overhaul of the social services as such. I would suggest that Senator Duffy should withdraw his motion and not force a division on a matter of this kind.

There is no sense whatever in pretending that this thing is not political. If a vote is taken, that vote will show whether or not this is a matter of politics. I believe that politics are being played and if you get any number of the people who normally support the Opposition in this House—I suppose that is the best way to say it lest it might be suggested that I am accusing anybody of being a politician——

On a point of explanation, would the Senator say if a man, for some reason or other, retires at the age of 60 and waits around until he is 70 years of age to apply for a pension, will he be deemed to have retired from a remunerative occupation? I do not want Senator Counihan to march into the Division Lobby behind Senator Tunney on a misunderstanding, and that is my only reason for asking the question.

Mr. Duffy

I do not know what has come over the Senator this evening. I believe the Galway Races finished this evening, so I conclude that he must have done well. I expect that accounts for his frivolous, and, if I may say so pointless interjections. It is sufficient for me to say that if Senator Hawkins has any doubt in his mind on the point that he raised, the explanation which I have given ought to satisfy him. We are not proposing that there should be any interference with the present law so far as it affects the pension payable to a person who has an income. We say "all right" if the law says that he shall not have a pension. The motion does propose, however, that where a person has ceased to work and has reached 70 years of age, he is entitled to something more than 10/-a week, or to something more than the permissible 16/- which is the maximum sum that any old age pensioner is entitled to have in this country. If the motion is passed, I could understand it to be taken as a direction from the Seanad to the Government to review the situation and to introduce proposals decided upon by the Government for improving the rate of pension provided for old people in the circumstances I have mentioned.

I think there is a feeling amongst some Senators that because this matter was debated in the Dáil, and because the Government made certain promises that is the end of it. I want to call attention to the fact that this House has its obligations. We are all citizens of the country, and we have been sent in here to perform certain functions in relation to the parliamentary institutions of the country. I think it is reasonable that any member of this House, who feels that certain social conditions should be altered, should be free to invite the House to express an opinion on the subject.

This is not an attack on the Government. I could see circumstances in which the Government might be very glad to have an expression of opinion from this House in favour of doing something which they would like to do but which they believe could not be done in the existing state of public opinion. Actually, that is precisely what the head of the Government did two weeks ago. He went to the Dáil, and very properly so, with a motion, the purpose of which was to ask the Government to make application, when they thought fit, for admission to the United Nations Organisation. He simply put his cards on the table and put a motion before the House. If Dáil Éireann turned down the motion that was the end of it.

If Senators think that they cannot even ask the Government to review the present arrangements regarding the payment of old age pensions, that is their business. I shall not blame any member of the House if he feels conscientiously that he must refrain from making any suggestion at all to the Government; that is his business. But I have the feeling that if I were a member of the Government Party, which God forbid, I would feel bound in conscience to say in this House that I thought this was a matter in which the Government might be encouraged, by at least the section of public opinion represented here, to make an investigation and on that basis I would vote for the motion. I hope on that basis members of this House who are ardently supporting the Government will also decide to vote for the motion.

Motion put.

The Seanad divided; Tá, 12; Níl, 14.

Tá

Butler, John.
Camphell, Seán P.
Counihan, John J.
Duffy, Luke J.
Hayden, Thomas.
Kyle, Sam.
Moore, T.C. Kingsmill.
O'Donovan, Timothy J.
Ruane, Seán T.
Smyth, Michael.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tunney, James.

Níl

Clarkin, Andrew S.
Concannon, Helena.
Corkery, Daniel.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Hawkins, Frederick.
Hearne, Michael.
Johnston, Séamus.
Lynch, Peter T.
O Buachalla, Liam.
O'Donovan, Seán.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
Quirke, William.
Stafford, Matthew.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Smyth and Tunney; Níl, Senators Hawkins and Hearne.

Motion declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until Tuesday, 13th August, at 3 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 1 Aug 1946