Yesterday evening I spoke about the increases introduced in the Bill and some innovations which I welcomed. I expressed some doubt as to whether the increases were sufficient to do anything more than maintain the standard of living which the social welfare class have had, because of the steep increase in the cost of living. We find out that the relative position of some of these classes of social welfare people will be little, if anything, better than it was.
We have to consider one particular item which imposes great hardship on the elderly, that is the great increases in the cost of fuel over the past few months. Indications are that there will be more increases before next winter. It is necessary to protect the old and infirm against these costs. If we were tempted to conclude that the social welfare benefits, in particular the old age pension, were sufficient to enable a person to exist, we would be forced to reconsider that opinion when we become aware of the numbers of these people who have to receive home assistance. Often they have to receive help from the local St. Vincent de Paul Society, especially in winter. I am sure that is a state of affairs which nobody in this House would like to see continuing indefinitely.
The Minister has made an innovation with regard to inducing a male relative to look after aged people; that is very welcome. It is a sad thing that down through the years so many old aged pensioners have been forced to go into hospitals and county homes. Every year, especially from October to March, we have the problem of these hospitals being overcrowded, all over the country, by aged people. It often happens that when a person is in need of medical attention and a particular hospital is overcrowded, the staff have the greatest difficulty in finding accommodation for him because the hospital is overcrowded by aged people who are there to escape the hardships of winter in their own home.
I am sure the Minister will give that active consideration to improving the lot of these people and reducing the numbers who might go into these hospitals by being more generous to relatives who give them assistance and help at home. What he has done in that regard is welcome. If we consider the facilities afforded by domiciliary nursing care and if, at the same time, we give an increase in the inducements to relatives to look after their aged parents we would have considerably fewer elderly people going into hospitals and institutions. I hope that we continue to make progress in that way and that as many as possible old people will be afforded the comfort of spending their last days in their own homes. We would all like to see that done. Every measure which contributes to bringing that state of affairs about will be widely welcomed.
It is a pity that an old aged pensioner who has had the foresight and thrift to have a home of his own should suffer a reduction. We are at the stage when a man is encouraged by State grants to build a home of his own but in the declining years of his life he suffers a loss of pension because he owns that home. This is an unfortunate anomaly in our society. Again, we have those who are thrifty enough to have a few pounds in the bank to provide for the rainy day, and, as Senator Reynolds stated yesterday, to have their funeral arrangements catered for, but as a result they have their old age pension reduced. The State wisely encourages people to save by depositing money in the post office, in prize bonds and so on, but then they are victimised because of that very thrift which the State encouraged them to practise.
This should be looked into and remedied immediately. If a person is thrifty enough to save for his old age and to ensure that the State will not have to bury him it is wrong to lower his pension for this reason. The next Social Welfare Bill should contain measures to abolish that system. If a person who is drawing a pension earns any money through doing some work they suffer a reduction in their pension. People do not wish to be looked upon as being useless just because they have reached pensionable age and so they continue to take light jobs. It is against the principle of social justice to victimise them for earning a few shillings in this way. If, when a man reaches age 70 years, he feels he is useless, is living on the State and serving no useful purpose by being alive, this causes depression and will shorten his days. On the other hand, if he is made more independent because of his pension and can add to it by earnings at light jobs, he feels he is still useful to society, doing his share for the community and helping to keep himself. This gives him a new outlook and optimism. Elderly people should be encouraged to take light jobs rather than be victimised for so doing.
There is the question of retiral age at 65 years and provision for superannuations and pensions for some sections of the community. People who are in full-time employment on reaching age 65 are entitled to a pension or superannuation because of contributions to a pension scheme or because of the number of stamps they have got over a number of years. There are sections of the community who do not come under this and they must continue to work on past the generally accepted age of 65 years until they are 70 years.
I am aware of the cost to the Minister if he were immediately to introduce an old age pension scheme for everyone at age 65 years. We must mete out the best possible treatment from our limited resources to the most deserving sections of the community. It is hoped there will be a general advance in extending the old age pension to people who are under 70 years. When the Minister is considering this he should pay particular attention to the numbers of people who are forced to continue to work past age 65 years to 70 years in order to receive the old age pension.
The introduction of an old age pension at age 65 years as soon as possible is a must if we are to deal fairly with that section of the community who are forced, because of circumstances, to work on past the normal retiral age. Pensions at 65 years should be a priority as soon as the economy can afford it. Those who are in the greatest need should be catered for first.
It is generally agreed that our entry into the EEC will have some increase in the cost of living but not so steep as those who are opposed to entry wish us to believe. But whatever increase comes will impose extra hardships on those entitled to social welfare benefits. It will be possible for the Government to save in agricultural subsidies because of our entry to the EEC to support agricultural prices. Because of a better prospect from agricultural exports in the EEC, it is thought that considerable sums of money will be saved. I hope the Minister for Social Welfare will impress on his colleagues in the Government that a large proportion of this money should go to the social welfare beneficiaries to cushion them against any increase in the cost of living, to extend these benefits still further to those we have not been able to cater for in the past.
The social conscience has become more aware in later years of our obligations to the less well-off section of our community. The extension by the Minister and the Government of further benefits to this section at the earliest possible date would have the whole-hearted support of the taxpayers.