I rise in a spirit rather similar to that of Senator Murphy on this Bill. I think it is obvious that we support the Bill—all of us—and the only criticism will be on the question of whether the Bill goes far enough or not. I hold that it does not. The Bill now before us is linked with the Bill we will be considering presently, and I think that in the other House reference to the two Bills was permitted, but this particular Bill deals with old age pensioners, a section of the unemployed and their dependents, wives and children, and blind pensioners and widows.
Our only argument here really will turn upon the rates now offered. It is also obvious that we cannot, in fact, do very much about it. We, as a Seanad, might make a recommendation, but, in fact, realistically speaking, the most we can do is to talk as persuasively as we can and try to convince the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and the Government that, if not now, then at some future date, not too far distant, something considerably more must be done for these people.
I intend to speak mainly about the old age pensioners, but what I say is in general terms, relevant to each of the categories, the unemployed and their dependents, the blind pensioners and those drawing non-contributory widows' pensions. We were told to-day and Deputies were told in the other House that the aim of this Bill and, indeed, of these two Bills is, in fact, to compensate for the effects of the removal of the food subsidies.
The Minister in the other House said that the effect of the removal of these food subsidies would amount to approximately 1/1 per head of the population. We are being asked in the case of the worst off in the whole community to give them not even 1/1. In other words, those who are to be hardest hit are not even to get what would be necessary if an average compensation were to be given. In giving 1/- instead of 1/1, we are, by removing the food subsidies, saving money at the expense of the poorest as well as at the expense of the rest of the community.
The Minister made it clear that we could not afford, as he put it, to subsidise food further, to subsidise bread and butter, because, he said, with a certain logic, that it was not sound economics for the general taxpayer to subsidise the whole community in the buying of such things as bread and butter, to subsidise, as it were, the rich and the poor alike. I think most of us would see something in that argument, and I think we would be satisfied enough with it if we felt that those who would be hardest hit by the removal of the food subsidies were to be effectively compensated.
My criticism of this Bill is that it does not go nearly far enough effectively to compensate the poor, the blind pensioner, the old age pensioner and the unemployed, for what they are losing now.
I should like to put two general queries, the first of which is related to what I have just said. Is the compensation offered enough—does what we are giving in this Bill really compensate for what has been taken away under the Budget?
The second question is: since these are proposed increases calculated upon a given basic sum—the present basic sum for the old age pensioners being 24/- a week—is the Government satisfied that that basic rate was enough? One does not need a very long memory in this country, and in this House, to remember when the previous Minister for Social Welfare was before us asking us to increase similarly the rates for these people. On that occasion, he was—I think I might even say—fiercely attacked by some of the Fianna Fáil Senators because he was not doing half enough, but now I suggest that the present Government is tacitly accepting as a fact that the basic 24/- which last year was "not nearly enough," was in fact really enough then, and is enough now as a basic sum upon which to calculate any future increases.
Personally, I would suggest, on the contrary, that if last year and in 1955, what the then Government was doing for the old age pensioners, the unemployed and the blind pensioners was, in the opinion of Fianna Fáil, grossly inadequate, then there is something wrong with Fianna Fáil when it is in power coming before us and saying that all we need to do in relation to these people is to compensate for any increases in the cost of living which have taken place since Fianna Fáil has come into office. In other words, I deplore the apparent forgetrulness by the present Government of their harsh criticism of this basic rate when they were not in power, and when it was not within their power to introduce legislation to increase it. I might, of course, say the same thing to members of the Labour Party and members of Fine Gael, for, after all, last year they could have raised these rates. Many of them are indignant now that so little is being done, but I do not think we should forget that it was within their power, if they were not satisfied last year and in 1955, to do more, and I feel there is something slightly disingenuous, consequently, in some of the arguments of Opposition Senators.
Senator Murphy made the point which I would very strongly support that it is unfair in relation to the poorer members of our community to calculate the amount of money they are likely to need in order to cope with the increased cost of bread on an average consumption based upon the whole country, because, as Senator Murphy pointed out, the poorer sections of the community rely to a far greater degree upon the main uncooked food—when I say "uncooked," I mean ready cooked—the main food which comes to them ready prepared.
One does not have to labour the point. It is known to all of us that the poorer sections of our community both in rural Ireland and in urban Ireland rely to a far greater degree than the average upon bread in their daily diet. Consequently, to compensate them, as this Bill does, on the basis of the average consumption of bread per head of the population is not to recognise the reality of the situation; in other words, it is grossly to under-compensate them, because a much bigger proportion of bread is consumed by the old age pensioners, the unemployed, their wives and children, blind pensioners and widows— the really poor.
To pass for a moment from that first point I make, which is that this shilling does not in fact compensate these people for the increased outlay which they will have to make weekly, arising out of the removal by the Budget of the food subsidies—as to whether this compensation is adequate or not—I want to come to the point as to whether this increase, upon the 24/- and so on, is based upon a fair principle; in other words, was the basic amount sufficient, and if that basic amount was not sufficient, and if the Government Party were convinced right up to the eve of their taking office that that basic amount was not sufficient, as they said publicly at outdoor meetings, in the Seanad and in the Dáil again and again, why is it that they did not do more under this Bill than merely to attempt to compensate for the sum of money they are taking away from these people? In other words is it not the bounden duty of the Government Party not merely to try to compensate, however inadequately, for what they are taking out of the pockets of these people, but also to compensate for the failure of previous Governments to give these people a basic minimum which would be sufficient?
It is a fact that the old age pension was introduced in this country in 1909 —which brings us back quite a long way, and brings me back, in fact, to the year of my birth. In 1909, the old age pension was 5/- a week, if I am correctly informed. In those days, there were many workers in this city, employed male workers, trying to live on a wage of less than £1 a week, and some of the more privileged workers were not getting much more than 24/- or 25/- a week. In those days, the old age pension was 5/- a week. It does not sound very much now, but I would like to suggest that, since 1909, a great number of things have changed in relation to the cost of living, wage rates and so on.
One of the things that has changed is that labour has become organised, and organised labour has defended its members, the urban and rural workers, and they have wrung from the community, if you like, by organised defence, a rate of wage which, while it may not be regarded as yet sufficient, is, proportionately speaking, far higher in purchasing power than then obtained. But, and this is the point I am making by analogy, the old age pensioners, because they have not got the opportunity to organise their own defence in the same way as the employed worker, have failed to keep pace in relation to their old age pension with the increase in the cost of living to anything like the same extent as the organised wage earning worker.
For that reason, I think we here in this House and the members of the other House have a special duty to protect the interests of these people, in order that it be not said that we can afford to treat them shabbily because they cannot hit back; the blind pensioner, the worker living on unemployment assistance, his wife and his children, the old age pensioners cannot hit back in the way that the employed organised worker, through his trade union, can. Let us not say, on that account, that we are going to treat them far more shabbily than we dare treat organised labour.
We can look back to the days before the war when the old age pension was 10/- a week. There was a time, indeed, when Cumann na nGaedheal reduced it by 10 per cent. to 9/- a week, but it was raised again fairly quickly to 10/- a week. The view of the present Government when it was in opposition in those days was that 10/- a week was not enough as a basic rate. I want to establish that we ought now to compare with that the purchasing power of what we are giving to these people to-day under this Bill. We are going to give them 25/- a week. I suggest we ought to be prepared to compare that with what was considered by the present Government Party as grossly inadequate 20 or 25 years ago—the then 10/- a week.
It is true, as I have indicated many times in this House, that there is essentially a Government view and an Opposition view. Sometimes it seems to me that it does not really matter which Party is in power: they take "the Government view" and the other party, no matter what it is, take "the Opposition view." It seems to me that it is a pair of labels, and not a question of a difference of principle but a difference of personnel. In fact, when I now hear some of the stronger speeches from the Opposition—much stronger than any I heard from them in the two and a half years when they were the Government and not the Opposition—I cannot help feeling that this country might be better governed if there were no Government and we were instead ruled entirely by Oppositions. I find myself more in accordance with the views of Oppositions. Governments seem to lose all their drive in certain directions, once they have the power to do anything about it.
Whatever the views of any of us here, or any of the Parties then in the 1930's, as to whether or not 10/- a week was enough for an old age pensioner, is there anybody here now who, looking back to 1935, thinks that 10/- a week was really sufficient then for an old age pensioner? I should feel ashamed to think that, looking back now and setting aside any question of Party prestige or interest, any of us would be satisfied that, in 1935, say—taking an average year before the war—10/- a week was enough for an old age pensioner.
I suggest that in 1935 the old age pension should have been something nearer to 17/- or 18/- a week. I think it is obvious that I am not exaggerating or suggesting an exorbitant sum. I suggest that, in 1935, 17/- or 18/- a week for an old age pensioner would have been barely sufficient. Yet 10/- it was, and 10/- it long remained, though it could be said that it was frequently supplemented by assistance grants drawn from the local authority rates. Ought it not give us pause to find that our old age pensioners have to be partly on the rates, have to be helped by the ratepayers? The old age pension, by that significant fact, is effectively recognised as not being sufficient. I regard it as highly significant that many of our old age pensioners have to apply for extra assistance.
I hope we could agree then that, in 1935, the old age pension of 10/- a week was not sufficient. However, it is true —as I may be reminded—that 10/- a week in those days had far more buying power than it has to-day. It is true that if we wanted merely to bring the old age pension now to a purchasing value of what it was in 1935—I am disregarding the more recent increases in the cost of living and the figure I will quote relates to the cost of living, before this Government came into power, in February, 1957—if we wanted to give, in February, 1957, an old age pension equivalent to the pretty miserable 10/- a week of 1935, the sum required would be 27/9 a week to compensate for the fall in the purchasing power of the £ between 1935 and 1957.
We should have had to increase the 1935 pension of 10/- a week to the sum of 27/9 a week to compensate for the rise in the cost of living as at February of this year, that is, before the subsidies were removed. Yet we are being asked under this Bill to raise pensions not to 27/9 but to 25/—not as the cost of living was in February, 1957, but as it is now in June, 1957, when it is appreciably more; more according to the Minister's figures, by at least 4½ points.
I do not want to waste time in recrimination as to whose fault it was that, in February, 1957, the old age pension was not 27/9. I suggest we ought to recognise now—and my hope is that the Government will recognise now—that the minimum basic figure on to which we should now be adding ought to be 27/9 a week, and that it is on to that figure that at least 1/- a week should be added to-day. That, without any exaggeration or any exorbitant demand, leads me to suggest that the present Bill ought to be raising the old age pension rates to a minimum figure of 29/- a week. That is based upon the purchasing power of the wretched 1935 10/- a week and compensates only for the rise in the cost of living since then. However, instead of 29/- a week, we are asked under this Bill to raise it to 25/- a week. I think we can do better than that.
A couple of old age pensioners getting 29/-, multiplied by two, a week would get something like £150 a year between them to exist on. Does anybody here think that £150 a year to keep two old age pensioners is too much? I do not know if Senators would like to work out figures as to how they can exist—two people on £150 a year—but £150 a year is not what we are asking under this Bill. We are asking to give them £130 a year between the two of them—and that is at the age of 70, not at 65 as is possible in some countries. In Denmark, such a couple at 65 would get £200 a year non-contributory. In Iceland, where the pension is admittedly contributory, they get £227 a year. In Finland, where it is contributory, but where there is no means test, they would get £287 a year—and each of these is at the age of 65.
I am not satisfied, therefore, that we are doing our best under this Bill for the extremely under-privileged sections of our community. I do not believe the Parliamentary Secretary is out of sympathy with these people. I am quite sure his sympathy for them is just as sincere as mine. He is beset with the problem of finding the money. Where is the money to come from? In the Dáil I think the Parliamentary Secretary gave the following figures in relation to this Bill. The total expenditure under this particular Bill was estimated at £642,000. Of that, £432,000 was to be spent on old age pensioners. That expenditure was on 166,000 people. The proportion of this total amount going on unemployment assistance was £127,000. That was to be allocated to 49,000 people, made up of roughly 25,700 individual claimants for the benefit, and of 23,300 dependents of those claimants. For non-contributory widows' pensions, £83,000 was allocated to 31,600 such widows.
I think those are significant figures. Most significant, I think, is the total figure, which I regard as quite insufficient. When I say that this 1/- is not enough, it is quite obvious that I have to find an answer to the question: where are you going to find more? One answer has been supplied by Senator Murphy and I would agree with him there, too. What we have to find, in fact, is something more than the £642,000 which is being asked for under this Bill.
In his Budget speech, the Minister said he thought it unfair for the taxpayer to subsidise rich and poor alike, but that, in fact, is what he has done under the next Bill we will be considering, for which £1,583,000 has been found. It is not quite three times as much as the amount we are being asked to provide under this Bill, but it is not so very far off it. It represents a portion only of very nearly £7,000,000 which are spent yearly on children's allowances in this country. I see a disparity between those two figures for present increases. The children's allowances do go to rich and poor alike. They go to the children of the unemployed man, but they also go into every well-to-do home that cares to apply for them.
The very principle which the Minister rejected when he decided to abolish the food subsidies—the principle of subsidising rich and poor alike—does in fact apply in relation to children's allowances. I should be out of order if I were to go into the question of whether that is a good or bad thing, but it seems to me, if we take the two Bills side by side, that the sums of money involved ought to be reversed in order of magnitude. We ought to be able to find for the people concerned in the present Bill nearly three times as much as we have in fact found. If we did find nearly three times as much, it would be possible for us to raise the amount to at least 27/- and perhaps a little more.
It was stated in the Dáil—I think Deputy Corish made the point—that the increase for children's allowances represented approximately 5/- a week for five children. That is at column 25 of Volume 162. The children of rich and poor alike on the average get an extra shilling, excluding of course the first child, under the children's allowances scheme and the poorer children get a further shilling under the head of the present Bill. I do not want to speak longer, but I want to say, in conclusion, that it ought to be possible and it ought to have been possible—I now regard it as too late under these two Bills—to make the differential greater, and to place more emphasis on the very poor and less emphasis upon the necessity to increase children's allowance for rich and poor alike.
In concluding, I should like to put the plea to the Parliamentary Secretary and, through him, to the Government, that they very seriously consider, in the light of the sort of contentions I have been putting forward, introducing at a very early date a further amending Bill which, in my opinion, will give for the first time something like justice and something like a decent allowance to the poor, the blind, the unemployed, and the widows for whom this Bill is drawn up.
