Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 8 Mar 1946

Vol. 99 No. 18

Private Deputies' Business. - Old Age Pensions—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

Dáil Eireann requests the Government to introduce proposals for the purpose of providing for persons over 65 years of age, who have ceased being gainfully employed, old age pensions at the rate of 22/6 per week; and providing further that, in computing the means of applicants under the old age pensions code, any net income not exceeding £52 per annum will not be taken into account.— (Deputies M. O'Sullivan and Keyes).

Mr. Anthony

The question of old age pensions has been before this House on many occasions. It has been subjected to criticism from all parts of the House. I propose to deal with the matter to-day as briefly as I possibly can. I want to avoid as far as possible any repetition of the case as so far presented. If there is any true Christian charity left in the Fianna Fáil Ministry or if they believe in the elements of fair play to the most deserving class of the community, I cannot see how they can possibly reject the motion that is now before the House. Although the motion suggests a retirement age of 65, I should like to point out to the Minister that while that is a very admirable objective to aim at, it does not always follow that persons engaged in industry or in gainful occupation retire at the age of 65. So that, in any computation made by the Minister and his officials of the total cost of putting the terms of this motion into operation, that factor should not be excluded. Many people who would be entitled to a pension of 15/- or 16/- a week would not retire at that age because they would consider themselves still fairly well fitted to remain in industry. I should like to remind the House and particularly the Minister and his Government that during the régime of a previous Government the old age pension was reduced by the sum of 1/-. It was reduced from 10/- to 9/- per week. I think it would be agreed by all sides of this House, as it is agreed by the electors, or most of them, that that was the main factor that brought about the defeat of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. At that period there was a tremendous hullaballoo raised all over the country by the Minister and his associates. I suppose there is hardly a member on the Government benches to-day who did not make himself vocal in condemning any Government that would cut old age pensioners by 1/-. Let us see what is the position to-day. The old age pensioner, when his pension was cut from 10/- to 9/- a week, was twice as well off as he is now with 10/- a week. He could buy more consumer goods with his 9/- then than he can buy with £1 to-day. Everybody knows that. The merest tyro in the first standard of the national schools to-day would be able to tell you that. As I have said, there was a tremendous hullaballoo raised at that time. The Government were told they were robbing the poor. Again I say that was the main factor which brought about the defeat of the then Cumann na nGaedheal Government.

Like other Deputies, I have to call attention to some extraordinary anomalies that exist in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. I shall quote two cases which I think will satisfy the House that a grave injustice is being done and has been done to some of the most deserving persons in our community. The first case is that of the provident and prudent man who, for a long period of years, in most cases a period of 40 years, contributes to an organisation, whether it be a trade union or a benevolent association of some kind. He contributes to a superannuation fund, frequently denying himself the necessaries of life and most of the luxuries in order to secure to himself at the end of a period of 40 years a sum of 15/- a week by way of superannuation allowance. That prudent and provident citizen who, I submit, is the backbone of this country, the man who stands up to all his obligations, whether it be to the local authority, to the State, to his neighbours, shopkeepers and others, who is a model citizen, puts in an application for the old age pension of 10/- per week. He is told by the State: "No, you will get the large sum from us of 1/- per week." One shilling per week is offered to that decent man, or woman, as the case may be. I will produce figures and facts to prove every word I say. It is so well known that it is hardly necessary to give that guarantee. That deserving applicant is told: "No. We will give you 1/- a week, because your means are 15/- and the State recognises this fact, at any rate, that any person who has 16/- a week is outside the ambit and the scope of this Act."

Now let us take the second case, just to prove some of the anomalies that exist under this cruel, unchristian, uncharitable system. The second applicant has been a liability on the State almost since birth, not alone a liability on the State but a liability on the local authority. He has possibly been reared at the public expense; he has been in and out of the jails of this country over a period of years. He has been charged for assaulting the police, assault and battery of his neighbours, and so on, just by hook or by crook avoiding penal servitude. That person having attained his seventieth birthday applies for an old age pension. He gets the full pension of 10/- a week.

I would ask the Minister who, I believe, has a fairly decent outlook on these matters, does he consider that that is a just, right, or proper thing to do in this so-called Christian community? From the Press and from pulpits in this country we have been abjured to establish savings societies. We were told the virtues of saving. School children were advised to put their pennies, tuppences and sixpences per week into savings in order to purchase Savings Certificates, and so on. What a contradiction of that policy is represented by the two cases I have quoted. Children were told to save. The virtues of saving were placarded on the walls of the country. Savings committees were established. Saving for what? In order to save the Exchequer a miserable 15/- a week when some of these children would reach old age. At a meeting in the Albert Hall the late Mr. Lloyd George said that if his mother were alive he would compel her to apply for the old age pension. It is a well-established fact, according to the statisticians, that a person of 70 years of age has contributed during his life through the customs and excise and other establishments of the State, far more than he could ever get out of the State. Based on these cold statistics alone, the person who is in receipt of 10/- or 12/- a week from a former employer should be entitled to an old age pension of 10/-. This motion asks for an increase in the old age pension. Does it ask too much? If it is said that it is asking too much, then why have you got a tribunal in this country for the purpose of making emergency Orders giving a bonus to the ordinary workers—a belated bonus by the way? Does there not seem to be a contradiction in that policy when a deserving citizen who has worked up to the age of 70, and who retires and gets from his employer a pension of 10/- or 12/-, only gets another 2/- or 4/- from the State? In other words, you are putting a penalty on thrift and providence.

I could quote many cases which would demonstrate strange anomalies which arise out of the Act. Let us take the case of an investigation officer who, in accordance with Government policy, examines an old woman who is applying for an old age pension and who lives with her daughter and son-in-law. Perhaps I should say the inquisition officer, because the Spanish Inquisition is trotting very slowly after the terrible inquisition undergone by these unfortunate people, as if they were criminals or had robbed something from the State, instead of being able to say what they put into the State. At the inquisition this old lady will be asked: "Have you got the use of this room?" It may be a little parlour in a back street. She answers: "Yes." Then she is asked: "Have you a bedroom to yourself?" The old lady, being proud of her daughter and son-in-law, says: "Yes, my daughter and son-in-law look after me very well." Then she is asked: "You have also the use of this room?" and she answers: "Certainly, my daughter and son-in-law deny me nothing in this house." The old lady, being proud of her daughter and son-in-law, may answer the officer truthfully, possibly sometimes exaggerating the decency of the daughter and son-in-law. What happens? The investigation officer reports that the old lady's maintenance is valued at 16/- or 18/- and she never receives a pension. Is not that the negation of what is meant by encouraging filial affection and duty? The young woman and the young man who help the parent are penalised. It seems to me that we are mouthing a whole lot of Christian charity in this country. We demonstrate on the saints' days. We parade on Church holidays and make protestations of our piety, etc., while here we have an instance of pure daylight robbery of old people. Yet, you are a Christian Government and we are a Christian people, moryah!

I believe that there are decent men in the Fianna Fáil Party, that 99.9 per cent. of them are decent men—I will not explain what the other decimal point stands for. I believe that if the Whips were taken off and those Deputies were allowed to vote according to their honest convictions and consciences they would vote for the motion. I cannot see how they could do otherwise. These decent men will tell you in private conversation that they are compelled by the Party Whip and discipline to vote in a certain way. I know what Party government means. I know this has to be done, and I do not blame the individuals. I feel that 99.9 per cent. of the Fianna Fáil Party have some conscience, some sense of justice and Christian charity left. Of course, I know it is almost hopeless to ask the Minister to take off the Whips and allow these Deputies to vote according to their conscience.

Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Keyes, who sponsored this motion, made a contribution to this House which I think is worthy of them and of the House. They gave a reasoned and logical statement of the case. Some of the cases which have come within my own experience are really heartrending. I suppose every other Deputy has a similar experience and has to listen to the complaints of some of these old people who are turned down. There are many cases on the files of the Local Government Department which I sent in either by letter or by 'phone. I am certain that if it were left to any Minister who had any sense of responsibility to the community, and particularly to those helpless ones of the community, a motion of this kind would be passed. A sum of 22/6 per week does not go very far nowadays. I think that figure should be somewhat higher. In my view, this motion should commend itself to the House, and to the Government, which boasts of its Constitution and of the rights of citizens, and of this being a Christian country. I ask the Minister to say whether he agrees with the case I have made in relation to the person who has a small superannuation allowance of 8/-, 10/- or 15/- a week. Does he believe that it is right to penalise a man who might otherwise get a decent allowance from his previous employers, because that is what is happening? Some employers to-day are giving their retired employees a pension of £1 per week, and in some cases 25/- a week, at the age of 65/-, but when these men attain the age of 70, the employers say—and you cannot blame them:—"Well, it is the duty of the State now to give these men 10/- a week, and I will reduce my contribution to 6/-." You are inflicting a hardship upon a man who might otherwise be getting £1 from his employer and 10/- from the State.

Now, I hope the Minister understands that position. Assuming, for instance, that a railway company, or large transport company, or any other big firm, provide a pension of £1 per week for a retired employee, at 65, that man automatically comes under this if he has over 16/- a week, and what happens is that the employer on his ex-employee reaching the age of 70 reduces the £1 to 6/- a week. You cannot blame him for that, he is perfectly justified, as he says that the State makes up the rest. That simply means this: "Thou art prohibited from having more than 16/- a week." I think that that should be inserted in some of the commandments of the Fianna Fáil Government or of any other Government that inflicts such great hardship on the aged and the poor. I hope and trust that at some future date the anomalies I have mentioned will be wiped out, and then we shall have some claim to call ourselves a Christian Government and a Christian country.

Mr. Blowick

I wish to support this motion in its entirety. I think that the mover and seconder definitely are to be congratulated on the very able way they presented it to the House. Now, on this question of old age pensions, the first thing that hits one forcibly is the difference that is drawn between those who should be entitled to an old age pension and many other classes in the State who are entitled to a pension automatically at 65. What I like about the proposal here is the suggestion that some recognition should be given to the old on reaching 65. I hold that, no matter what the amount of the pension is—if it were 5/- a week or even only 2/- a week; I do not care what it is—these people are definitely entitled to some recognition at the age of 65. Most of the people concerned are persons who have spent a life of toil; they have earned their living through bodily toil, and we all know that when we come to 65 we are no longer able to meet the daily round of work in the way that we could formerly meet it. Accordingly, I think that the granting of the old age pension at 65, no matter what the amount is, would be only just and fair, and I think that it is a fair case to put up to the Government.

Now, of course, one of the principal faults in the administration of old age pensions is the means test. A headline was set up in this House some time ago in the case of the Children's Allowances Bill, where a means test was not mentioned at all, and quite rightly so. I think that that Bill did not suffer from the fact that there was no means test, not has the State been unduly burdened because of that. The means test has proved to be a nasty and outworn means of getting away from paying what people should be entitled to, and very often the result is that some people get an old age pension who are not entitled to it. The last speaker spoke bitterly about the humiliation that is often inflicted on those old people when the investigating officers come around to inquire into their means. Well, I must say that some investigating officers are not like others, and they do not poke and pry into small, petty details and, perhaps, details of a very private and delicate nature, but some of these officers do, and I think that any civil servant who is charged with that duty should use common sense and have a little humanity. I could quote cases, although I do not intend to do so now, where investigating officers have proved very nasty and have allowed outside considerations to intrude into their investigations.

Take, for instance, an applicant who has a certain sum of money in the bank. The first thing that happens is that that sum of money, whether it be great or small, is assessed at the rate of 5 per cent. interest for the purpose of the old age pension. Now I am not sure, but I think that there is no bank in the country at the present day that is paying more than 1½ per cent., or even 1 per cent., interest. Why the Government, knowing that the money in the bank is only paying 1 per cent. or 1½ per cent. interest, should have a standard whereby it is assessed at 5 per cent., for old age pension purposes, is beyond me. That was called to the attention of the present Minister's predecessor in office —I was not here at the time—and I do not think that there was any satisfactory explanation given at the time, nor do I think that there is any satisfactory explanation for it now.

Take the case of a man with, say, £100 or £200 in the bank; very often, that is due to the combined efforts of himself and his family. That money would not be there at all if that man had paid his sons and daughters even a small wage for their labour. Take a man with a small farm of land and three or four of a family, between sons and daughters: all of these contribute to the running of the house or farm in various ways. Then they might have outside earnings, and the whole lot is put in the bank. Yet, if that were to be presented in the proper way, it would be found that it actually represented a very small wage for the sons and daughters, who had not received any wage, and the money should not be there at all in the father's name by right, if he had distributed the profits of the place amongst his family, who were the real wage earners in that particular case. Then take the case of an old person, living alone, who might have a small sum of money in the bank to meet his burial expenses. That is a case which is very often to be met with. Surely to goodness, in ordinary humanity, as the last speaker said, if we have any Christian charity, we ought not to take that into account. It would amount to a very small sum, and it certainly would not overburden the Exchequer. I think we should drop all that kind of thing.

Another case that very often comes to my notice is where the money in many cases is the result of accumulated remittances from the children working abroad, and who send the money home, which is the custom in practically every home, at least, in County Mayo. The boys and girls who go across to England try to make the best of their youth and their strength, and they save up, maybe, £500 or £600 and they send it home. It cannot be banked in their own names, and therefore it is banked in the father's or the mother's name, as the case may be. Now, I do not say that in all cases, if representations were made, or if it was proved that the money although in the father's name was actually the property of some members of the family living outside this country, that would be taken into account. I do not know whether that would be taken into account or not, but in some cases that I know of, at least, it was not taken into account and was assessed as belonging to the father.

A great deal could be said to show how objectionable is this means test, but I shall not go further into that question, because a number of speakers have already dealt with that aspect of the matter. Whatever portion of this motion the Minister agrees to consider, I hope he will agree to consider the abolition of the means test. Deputy O'Sullivan gave some interesting figures as to what the investigation of means costs. The figure was £30,000. That would go a long way—or at least some way—towards meeting the extra cost of pensions, and it would wipe out an odious system.

We must look at the other side of the picture. Where is the money to be found? This motion contemplates the giving of the old age pension at 65, increasing the amount to 22/6, and abolishing the means test. That is a motion which should commend itself to the Government and to every Deputy. The last speaker said that, if the Whips were taken off, not a single member of the House would vote against the motion. I believe that that is so. The care of the old and infirm should have our first attention. In many cases, they have to toil until they reach 70 years of age, and then go through the harassing experience of an investigation to ascertain whether they are qualified to receive the pension or not. We have been lavish in our Votes of money for other purposes. The Minister for Defence asked for a supplementary amount of £700,000, and there was not a word about it. On a previous occasion, when I spoke on this subject, the reply of the then Minister was that my proposal would involve putting a halfpenny an ounce on tobacco, and another tax on a pint of stout, and so on. During the emergency, when we had to face up to the task of defending the country—I was not a member of the House at the time—there was no difficulty in finding the necessary money. If our neutrality had been violated, we should have had to find much larger sums, and there would not be a single objector. Not a single voice was raised to the finding of the millions of increased expenditure on the defence of the country. If a larger sum had had to be found and expended, owing to the violation of our neutrality by any of the belligerents, it would have been regarded as well spent.

What I dislike, when an attempt is made to help the old or infirm or the poor, is the question that comes from the Government Benches: "Where is the money to be found?" Then they tell us that Clann na Talmhan and Labour and Fine Gael and Independents want to increase the cost of living. When money is needed for other purposes, there is not a word about it. We should cast that outlook aside. Those who have definitely spent their lives, who have contributed to the upkeep of the country by the payment of taxation from year to year, which every citizen has to do, should get the recompense proposed in this motion and thus raise them out of any pecuniary difficulties which may come to them in the closing stages of their lives. That should be our first care. The Minister will, probably, give us a string of figures and ask where this vast sum of money is to be found. The money will be in circulation within the country. Not a penny of it will leave the country. The result will be the same as in the case of an internal work which would be put in hand in the country. Every right-minded Deputy will support the motion and the Minister should take a reasonable view of it. It has been presented very ably and decently by the mover and seconder, and I and every member of my Party will support it. I hope the Minister will take a favourable view of it.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken)

The deep thought and attention which Deputy Blowick gave this motion was displayed when he said that the saving of £30,000 on inspection costs would go a long way towards meeting the cost which would be involved by its acceptance. In his view, £30,000 may be a long way towards £12,000,000 but I do not think it is. Deputy Blowick blows hot and cold on this question of Government expenditure. To-day, he supports this motion for the expenditure of £12,000,000 or more on old age pensions. When the Budget comes along he will growl very heartily indeed about national expenditure. It is only a very short time since he introduced a motion here complaining of the "enormous and ever-increasing burden of national expenditure." If this sum of £12,000,000 were to be provided by the Government in the coming Budget, I have no doubt that Deputy Blowick would complain even more energetically than before about the "enormous and ever-increasing burden of national taxation." This Government has never been backward in doing what it could, and what it thought the nation could afford in any particular set of circumstances, for desirable social services, including old age pensions.

It is true that, if the Dáil considered that, no matter what else happened, we should provide this additional sum of £12,000,000 or more to meet the cost of this motion, it could be done. When the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme and the children's allowances scheme were introduced some years ago, I think it was generally agreed that extra sums for social services should be devoted to these purposes rather than to increasing to any great extent the weekly amount of the old age pension. I do not think that anybody would suggest that we should meet this sum of £12,000,000, added to the £4,000,000 which we are already spending on old age pensions and supplementary allowances, by abolishing the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme or the children's allowances. The one suggestion that was made for cutting down expenditure in order to meet this demand, so far as I could see, was contained in Deputy O'Higgin's complaint about the cost of the Army. He, in his usual way, exaggerated by saying that the Army was going to cost four or five times the amount it cost pre-war. Deputies will have the book of Estimates in a very short time and they will see that the cost of the Army will be, roughly, twice, not four or five times, what it was pre-war, but that is a rather slight exaggeration for Deputy O'Higgins. If we were to abolish the Army at his request, in order to meet one-third of this new bill, he would be the very first to complain of such a proceeding.

Mr. Anthony

He did not say "abolish". He said to reduce it.

Mr. Aiken

I do not know. He indicated that he did not want the Army.

Mr. Anthony

I do not think so.

Mr. Aiken

Better wait and see. The Deputy can read what Deputy O'Higgins said. He talked about its being a "voracious tape-worm"——

Mr. Anthony

I heard him.

Mr. Aiken

——"on the community in times of peace". It was very lucky that we had the Army in times of peace in order to expand it in the last war. If we had not the Army, it would not be we who would be talking about the amount we should give to our own people as old age pensions. Deputy Martin O'Sullivan and Deputy Keyes indicated that nothing had been done, practically speaking, for the old age pensioner since the Fianna Fáil Party came into office. I grant you that the increase in the cost of living has borne harshly upon all sorts of people with fixed incomes—old age pensioners and others—but the Government has on many occasions indicated that it was prepared to do what it thought the community could afford towards giving the old age pensioner a reasonable standard of life. One of the first things it did, even during the economic war when times were hard, was to remove a number of the disabilities that had been imposed upon old age pensioners by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and to extend the facilities for obtaining old age pensions. The extra cost involved drove the old age pensions bill from £2,800,000 to about £3,800,000, so that an extra million was made available. There is no use in going into the details of the 1932 Act. The fact is there to be seen by anybody that this community is, or was up to 1939, paying an extra million pounds in old age pensions over and above the amount paid prior to the coming into office of the Fianna Fáil Government.

Since the war commenced, Deputies are aware that it was State policy not to allow wages or prices to go into a race one after the other, but, however, at the lowest levels of income some concessions were given in order to compensate, in some measure, people with small incomes for the rise in prices. The old age pensioners benefited by the amount of money—£380,000 or so— which was made available in order to give them a supplementary allowance in the country and in order to guarantee them a certain allowance of food and fuel in the city. Deputy Martin O'Sullivan said that it was wrong to call the various sums of money, which the Government distributed to relieve hardship, social services.

He does not regard, I take it, free milk, free boots, free or cheap fuel, or free bread and butter as social services, but, from the point of view of the State Exchequer, they have the same effect. From the point of view of the recipients, they are receipts in kind rather than receipts in cash. The people who are on the food and fuel allowance are at least guaranteed that their ration remains the same no matter what the price is. In that way it is a very valuable social service, in my opinion, for the recipients.

This whole question of social services will require care and thought in the coming years. Even a list of the various things that have been done, and various schemes that are in operation to relieve hardship, is an indication of the complexity of the social services that are in existence in this country at the moment. Deputies are aware that the Taoiseach has indicated that he proposes to set up a separate Ministry to go into this question of social services to see how they can be combined to the advantage of the community and to the advantage of the Exchequer, which is also the advantage of the community. I know that the first duty of the Minister appointed to take charge of social services will be to examine them and see how best they can be co-ordinated and administered.

Mr. Flanagan

And he will report after the next general election.

Mr. Aiken

He might.

Mr. Flanagan

And nothing more will follow that.

Mr. Aiken

We have very consistently adopted the policy of not promising things at general elections, but of putting them into operation. I challenge anybody in this House to go back over some of the very big social schemes which were put into operation by the Government. They will find they were put into operation after the election, without having been mentioned during it at all.

Mr. O'Leary

I doubt that.

Mr. Aiken

It just happened that way. But if any Government or any Party has a scheme which they consider for the benefit of the community, surely they are entitled, if they wish and if they have it prepared, to go to the people and say: "This is what our policy is."

Mr. O'Leary

You did not tell the old people there was a means test.

Mr. Aiken

There was a means test in operation here always on the old age pensions. What Fianna Fáil did was to reduce the amount of hardship in the means test, to allow pensions to be increased even though the means remained the same. The net effect of it is the extra £1,000,000, not counting the emergency bonuses by way of cash allowances, food allowances, etc. The Department dealing with social services will go into all the social services and see how best they can be combined for the general benefit of the community and the recipients.

Mr. Anthony

Is that meant to be a half promise that you will do something?

Mr. Aiken

It is a statement. If the Deputy wants my opinion about it, I believe that our social services should be improved step by step with the increase in our national income——

Mr. Anthony

We are waiting for a long time for the old age pensions.

Mr. Aiken

——so that the people at the lowest rung will have a reasonable standard of living guaranteed to them——

Mr. Flanagan

For the one step forwards, there are two steps backwards.

Mr. Aiken

——as we think the community can afford it.

Mr. McGilligan

But have we not been stepping back for the past five years?

Mr. Flanagan

We have been stepping back since 1932.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Aiken

We have not promised, and do not propose to promise, to the people that you can immediately make this a land fit for heroes to live in without doing any work. It is better that we should indicate to the people our general lines of policy, but we should point out also that it is related to the national income. Deputies here were talking about the getting of the money. It would be quite easy for us to distribute £1 a head per week to every person within the country. There would be no physical difficulty in that—a short Act of Parliament would enable it to be done and it would only cost about £150,000,000 a year to do it. But would that alter the physical facts of the situation? After all, we can distribute to the old age pensioners, to the widows and orphans, to the workers and to the farmers and employers and to the people as a whole only what the nation produces or what we can import. While a correct monetary and financial policy may help to add to that national income, no monetary policy could substitute the necessity for production.

Mr. Anthony

Hear, hear. That is acknowledged by any schoolboy.

Mr. Aiken

Give me a chance. I did not interrupt the Deputy. We want, therefore, to continue the policy that has been adopted by Fianna Fáil, that is, to increase our social and other government services designed to give a better standard of life to all our people, according as we can see our way to afford and to maintain them. We do not want to be taking a hop, step and leap forward and then a gallop back. Every advance we have made in the line of social services we have been able to maintain. We have not gone back, at any rate. Deputy McGilligan may point out, as it is reasonable to do, that we have not increased the payments to compensate for the increased cost of living. That has to be admitted. However, the State policy in that regard is no secret to the community. It was thought better, during the emergency, not to allow prices and wages to go up too high, as well as various payments, and flop then when the war was over. Deputies can see that, in certain countries where the opposite policy was allowed to operate, they are at the moment in a spot of bother. I am sure there are other Deputies here who wish to speak, and I will not take up very much more time. I do not think that it would be a good thing for the community to inflict this bill of £12,000,000 on them at the moment. If we were to raise that money in taxation in the coming year, we might do a lot more harm than good.

Mr. Norton

Does that apply to any and every portion of the £12,000,000 this year?

Mr. Aiken

I am taking the motion as it stands, which is what we have to vote on, for or against. It would do more harm than good even to the beneficiaries themselves that we should, by way of taxation, raise that amount of money for the coming year for that purpose. If the money were asked for, for a purpose which would increase the total national income, the output of goods and services, which would give us more to distribute, I would welcome it; but if it were to be raised by taking from the present producers £12,000,000 extra, in order to give it to the old age pensioners, I doubt whether there would be sufficient incentive to work left in them. We have seen in some countries recently that, when people have not enough incentive to work, they simply do not go to work; and the pure increase in wages does not cure the situation, as they want something for the money they get, whether that amount of money is big or small.

We can distribute here amongst our people only what our people are willing to produce. We would be well advised, in the coming years, to try to add to our present production and pro rata to the increase to make sure that the distribution end is taken care of. There is no use in having production if you do not have distribution at the same time. That was a dilemma and crux of the years previous to the war. At the moment, the difficulty is to get the goods to distribute. It would be much better for the members of the Labour Party to encourage the men with whom they are associated throughout the country, to add to the national production rather than ask for this sum of money to be distributed in this way. I certainly think it would be much better for Deputy Blowick to do likewise. I hope that, when the Government, in the coming Budget, asks for a reasonable amount of money to carry on State services and develop the country, Deputy Blowick will take up the same attitude as he takes up to-day and will say: “All right, go ahead and get the money”, and not be going back to the terms of the motion which he solemnly introduced and debated here a couple of months ago, when he complained about “the enormous and ever-increasing burden of national taxation.”

I believe this country can afford a reasonable level of taxation, but the smaller the burden in the way of taxation that we put on, the better it will be to give the people an incentive to work and to produce. I do not think that we can ask the people at this moment to face an additional £12,000,000 in order that the terms of this motion might be carried out.

Mr. Flanagan

Since I became a member of the House, I have listened to a number of feeble speeches from Ministers, but the feeblest and most hopeless speech I have ever heard from any Minister has just been delivered by the Minister for Finance on the all-important motion placed before the House by the Labour Party. The motion concerns a section of the community for which we were all thought to have the highest of respect, that is, the older people. It cannot be said that the present Government is treating the older section of the community fairly well. As a matter of fact, any Irishman ought to be ashamed of the low esteem in which the present Government holds the older section of the people to-day. I do not see how any Government can expect a citizen to exist on the miserable sum of 10/- per week. I defy the Minister, or any member of the House, to give us an idea or a table showing how a citizen can get the necessities of life out of 10/- per week.

In Northern Ireland the old age pension is 10/-, but there are allowances which bring it up to 22/6 per week. It is the policy of this Government to bring about the unity of the country. I submit that there is one way of doing that and that is to have a better standard of living in the Twenty-Six Counties than there is in the Six Counties. I suggest that would be an encouragement to the people living up there to join with us. I ask the Minister, who is an Ulsterman, does he imagine that the people in Northern Ireland are insane to throw in their lot for a system whereby they will have 10/- per week as an old age pension with, in some cases, an allowance of 2/6, and surrender the right to a weekly pension of 10/- with allowances bringing the amount to 22/6 per week? The only way we can bring about unity is to have a standard of living comparing more than favourably with what they have across the Border and that will be an encouragement to those people to come in with us.

I believe the Government is treating the old age pensioners with the highest disrespect. I am sure the Minister realises the situation in the country as well as I do. I am sure he knows that there are numerous old age pensioners dying of hunger every week. How could it be otherwise? If the Minister goes down to any of our provincial towns and inquires into the circumstances of the unfortunate people who have gone beyond their years of labour and asks how they are existing, he will find out that they are existing just on their bare rations. Does the Minister realise that every person in New Zealand, man or woman, who is unable to work, is provided, when the age of 60 is reached, with £1 12s. 6d. per week and, in the case of a married couple, the amount is doubled—£3 5s. a week. In addition, they can have £1 a week each as personal income, up to £500 each in the Post Office Savings Bank, and they can own their own houses without that affecting their pension.

The state of affairs that exists here cannot be compared with the state of affairs existing in any other country in the world, because here the conditions are most deplorable; they are horrible and really unchristian when a comparison is made with the conditions in any other civilised country. Take the case of a constituent of mine who lives at Mountheaton, near Roscrea. He applied for an old age pension and it was refused because he had 3/6 a week pension from the British Government—he served in the Boer War—and he also had 10/- a week from the British Government by way of subsistence allowance in respect of his son who is in England. There was no income coming out of funds in this country and yet, because of the few shillings he received from the British Government, he was deprived of the old age pension. It is most unfair that such a system should be allowed to continue.

As to the means test, I believe that the continuance of the means test is the writing on the wall for the Fianna Fáil Party, just as the cutting down of the old age pension from 10/- to 9/- was the writing on the wall for the Cumann na nGaedhael Party in the days of its administration. In order that the local old age pension committees may be able to discharge their duties in a more favourable manner from the point of view of the applicants for pensions, I think it is the duty of the Government to introduce some type of order or legislation —it gave them no trouble at all to introduce emergency powers when it suited them—which will ensure that the local investigation officer will attend all the meetings of the local committees. I have been a member of a pensions committee for several years and I know cases in which the investigation officer reported that certain persons had incomes which, in his opinion, were derived out of a few acres of bogland. He estimates a certain sum—whatever he believes would be the value of a crop on four or five acres of bogland. Any sane human being would know that such an estimate was quite incorrect.

The only way to rectify a position like that is to have the investigation officer at all the meetings of the local committees. He could then give an account to the members of the circumstances in each case. Probably some of the members would also know the circumstances of the applicant and the conditions under which he or she lives. Under the existing practice, when various cases arise before committees, we have to adopt the report of the investigation officer and do as he desires. His word is taken as final. It cannot be questioned by members of the committee. In such circumstances the local committees are powerless. They have no function whatever.

I was expecting the Minister to make a statement as to what he proposed to do, but he evaded the suggestion to give the old age pension at 65. From my recollection of his statement, he could hold out no hope for any increase in the rate of pension. The vast majority of our aged citizens have to continue with the present rate of pension until they go to their graves, having died from starvation and misery and having lived the remaining years of their lives in the height of poverty on a miserable 10/- a week. No difficulty has been found in securing thousands of pounds for other purposes. Look at what we are sending abroad for the relief of distress in other countries, while here nothing can be done about giving a small increase to our old age pensioners. For the upkeep of one individual in this State we have no hesitation in passing a Vote for £22,000, yet we make no provision for the needs of the old age pensioners.

Deputy Blowick inquired where the money would come from. There was no question about where it would come from when it came to passing £22,000 for the upkeep of one man's house, but there are questions raised as to where the money will come from when it is proposed to improve the lot of the old age pensioners who have given 70 years' good service and hard work to the State, and who, at the end of their days, are permitted by a so-called Christian Government to die in the same condition as any pauper. The Minister ought to be ashamed to read out the list of social services—free this, that and the other, free beef, free boots, free milk.

The people are being made paupers. The people do not want anything free so far as social services are concerned. They want decent wages and decent treatment for the old. The less they get free the better. If I had my way they would get nothing free. The people merely want to be independent and to have a good standard of living; they want to be able to die in Christian decency, not to die in starvation and poverty as, unfortunately, the vast majority of our old age pensioners are dying.

It is a disgraceful state of affairs that charity, funds given by charitable organisations, is taken into account in operating the means test. I think Deputy Dillon raised the case here not long ago of a charitable organisation —I think it was the British Legion— which was giving a small allowance towards the maintenance of an old age pensioner. Because of the few shillings per week being given by that organisation, the man's old age pension was considerably reduced. Does the Minister consider that a Christian state of affairs? The old age pensioners of this country are treated as slaves. They are treated with disrespect, as if the Government's attitude was: "They have lived their days and they are useless. Let them starve and go to their graves". I challenge Deputy Gorry, who is always extending sympathy to the old age pensioners in his constituency, and other members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are full of lip-sympathy for the old age pensioners, to prove their sincerity by voting for this motion. If the Fianna Fáil Deputies for my constituency vote against this motion, I shall leave nothing undone to see that the old people in my constituency are made fully aware——

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy keep to the motion?

Mr. Flanagan

——of the fact that the Labour Party tried to improve conditions for them and that the Fianna Fáil Deputies were opposed to it. I had expected good results from this motion but I am greatly disappointed by the Minister's reply. He said that so far as he was aware the Government had fulfilled all their election promises. It was definitely a plank in the Government's programme to increase old age pensions—the Minister cannot deny that—but no increase whatever has been given to them, except the provision whereby local authorities can give 2/6 per week as a supplementary allowance. That supplementary allowance, however, is given only in cases in which, in the opinion of the home assistance officer, it is necessary and the applicants have to go to the relieving officer for it, so that it is another step in the direction of making paupers of the people. I support this motion and any member of the House who believes in Christian charity, who believes that the conditions under which old age pensioners are compelled to exist by a so-called Christian native Government are horrible, will vote for it and do what he possibly can to see that it is carried. I have, however, little hope of the motion being passed while it is not in accordance with the ideas of the Government.

Mr. Norton

Deputy M. O'Sullivan covered the subject of this motion in such a comprehensive speech that I do not desire to dwell on it at any great length, but there are a few points which ought to be underlined, particularly in the light of the Minister's speech. The Minister gave some interesting advice to the Labour Party when he said they might usefully advocate amongst those in contact with them the necessity for increasing the national production. Advice of that kind from the Minister was rather ironical, if not amusing, because the Minister must know that, during the past six years, 250,000 of our people who were willing to work in Ireland to increase the national production were railroaded out of the country to Britain because it was not possible for the Government to provide them with an opportunity of adding to the national wealth. Advice of that kind from the Minister falls on rather barren ground, in view of the fact that his Government neglected the opportunities of utilising the man-power available to produce the additional wealth, without which, according to the Minister, it is not possible to add to our social services.

The basic fact in connection with this motion is that it really asks for old age pensioners something less than what they are entitled to on the merits of the case. Back in 1908, an alien Government gave old age pensioners in this country a pension of 5/- per week; in 1916, that pension was increased to 10/- per week; and in 1946, 30 years later, that pension is still 10/- per week. But it takes, in 1946, approximately 25/- to buy what 10/- bought in 1916, and what this motion says to the old age pensioner who got 10/- per week in 1916 is that, having regard to the increased cost of living, he ought not to get less than 22/6 per week now. If we had been honest and just to old age pensioners every year since 1916, we would have increased their pensions step by step with the increased cost of living. We did not, however, do that. At times we reduced their pensions and then we restored them, but, in the main, we give them to-day the same pittance as we gave in 1916, with the difference, as I have said, that it now takes approximately 25/- to buy what 10/- bought in 1916. The motion, therefore, asks the House to give back to the old age pensioners approximately the same purchasing power as their pensions had in 1916, and I submit to the Minister and his Party that that is not an unreasonable demand. It has not been met in argument by what the Minister said, and no member of the Government Party has attempted to say that it is in any way an unreasonable demand to make on behalf of a very deserving section of the community.

The Minister did not deny that we ought to do better for old age pensioners and, in fact, he did not deny that morally we owe it to the old age pensioners to improve the purchasing power of the pensions they have had since 1916. His attitude might be summed up by saying that it is inconvenient to pay the debt to-day. That may be an argument of expediency, and I doubt if it can be justified or defended on grounds of expediency, but it certainly cannot be defended on the ground of doing justice to old age pensioners.

One has only to reflect for a few moments on what life must mean to old people on a pittance of 10/- per week in 1946—with prices having increased by more than 70 per cent. since 1939 alone and with prices up by over 195 per cent. since 1914. It is in that situation that we ask our old people to subsist on a pittance of 10/- to-day. The very fact that they get 10/- a week is clear evidence that they have practically no resources whatever, because the iniquitous means test— and it seems to me to be a test which is becoming more rigorous year by year—is such that if they have any income whatever, the normal pension of 10/- which they would receive if they were completely destitute is depressed.

In rural areas the position of the old age pensioner is one which begets the sympathy of every right-minded and sympathetic person who sees these unfortunate people trying to exist in their old age on a small pension of 10/- per week, but, bad as is the position in rural areas, it is worse in the towns and cities because there the old age pensioner very often has to try to pay rent and to eke out an existence without the possibility of getting the agricultural aid which it is possible to get in rural areas. I have come across cases, and Deputies on the Government Benches have come across cases, of old age pensioners making a valiant struggle to make ends meet on the miserable pensions they receive, and only able to struggle along merely because we condemn them to a diet of tea, bread and butter as their main source of sustenance in their old age.

To imagine that they could have any other type of food or nourishment on the miserable sum of 10/- a week is to make a mockery of their sufferings. The strange part of the whole business is this, that if a person breaks a window in O'Connell Street he will be arrested, put into jail and it will cost the State £2 a week to keep him there for a week. Nobody questions that. Everybody says: "That is quite right; put him into jail, and keep him there." If an old age pensioner decides to break a window in O'Connell Street, and if he is sent to jail, he will cost the State £2 a week to keep him in Mountjoy. But if he is a good citizen and stays at home he will get 10/- a week. That is all the State will spend on him. If a person who, because of his circumstances, is drawing the old age pension, finds that he cannot continue to exist on it, he can go to the county home, as it is now called, where the local authorities are compelled to pay from 30/- to 40/- weekly for his upkeep. The cost in these institutions has to be related to the fact that local authorities can buy goods at wholesale prices. That gives a clear idea of the cost of a resident in institutions, in relation to the cost of an old age pensioner residing in his own home. While we cheerfully pay the cost of incareerating prisoners in jails, and while local authorities are compelled to pay from 30/- to 40/- weekly for the upkeep of people in county homes and institutions of that kind the State resolutely sets its face against giving old age pensioners anything more than 10/- a week because, presumably, it regards 10/- a week as sufficient to keep a person in his home, while in poor law institutions the cost is three or four times that amount. I should like to know how the Minister can justify the application of economics of that type to the problem of dealing fairly and adequately with old age pensioners.

The Minister mentioned that the State had made supplementary allowances available, which were payable by local authorities. I want to tell him that the application of the supplementary allowances is a positive disgrace. It consists of a means test in its worst and most vicious form. Unless the object is to degrade old age pensioners, why must the supplementary allowances be administered under the poor law authorities, through the home assistance officers? The old age pensioner can get the 10/- at the post offices, but he must go through an inquisition by the poor law officials before he can get the supplementary allowances. I am familiar with what happens. While those responsible under the local authorities have virtually no power, the attitude seems to be this: "Is this another old age pensioner?" One gets the impression that some folk would like to see old people dying at 69 rather than living to an age when they could get the pension and the supplementary allowances. The Minister asked where was the money to come from to meet this claim and to do justice to the old people.

Not so many years ago we had an annual Budget of £21,000,000. The annual Budget now amounts to £52,000,000. In the interregnum nobody asked where the difference came from. During the past six years we raised, because we felt that it was necessary, between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 to maintain the Army. Nobody objected to the raising of that sum or to putting at the disposal of the Army authorities all the money they wanted. Nobody asked where it came from. It is only when we ask for money for social services, with which to rescue people from poverty and destitution, that we are asked where is the money to come from. It is always the poor have to explain where the money to keep them alive is to come from. When other people want money this question, of where the money is to come from, is an issue that never gives trouble. If we could raise the amount of the Budget from £21,000,000 to £52,000,000, I think we ought to be able, by a similar process, to do justice to the old age pensioners and to restore the sunken value of the pension to the value it had when they got it in 1916.

Deputy Anthony referred at length to the penalty that is imposed on thrifty people. A person can be in and out of jail in this country for 40 or 50 years, but when he reaches 70, if he has been thriftless throughout his life, he can get the old age pension. If he was a good citizen, and spent his life in rendering service to the people, when he reaches 70, if he gets a small pension from his employer or from his trade union, the means test will be applied, the effect of which is to deprive him of the State pension of 10/- weekly, or a substantial portion of it. A person who has been the cause of worry to the police, but who lives up to 70, will get the full pension, while the thrifty citizen is penalised for being thrifty because of the imposition of the means test. Nobody who is reasonable or just could defend a position of that kind. Similarly, when members of trade unions receive pensions in their old age, that amount is taken into account. They are deprived of portion of the State pension that they would get if they had not been sufficiently thrifty to provide for old age. How could the Minister or any Department defend that state of affairs? That is putting a premium on thriftlessness, on recklessness and abandon. A good thrifty citizen is penalised, simply because he may have a little income and was truthful enough to disclose it.

I say to the Minister that he made no case against this motion. No effort was made by any of the Minister's Party to make a case against the motion. It can do no harm to test the feelings of the House on it. If the Whips are taken off members of the Government Party could exercise their independence for one day in five years. That would not commit them to an excessive form of liberty. I suggest to the Minister that if members of his Party are given leave to vote according to their conscience, they will vote for the motion. In doing so they will probably do more to help the fortunes of their Party than silence will. I hope the House will vote for the motion. The money can be easily found. It will be a debt of honour to old age pensioners to give them a sum of money which would give their pensions purchasing power no less than that which they had when the pension was given them by an alien Government.

Mr. McGilligan

I disagree with one remark of the last speaker, that no argument has been produced by the Minister in favour of this motion. There has been one, of course, which was taken out of the rather wandering statement he made, and was linked up with other arguments we heard in this House in the last fortnight. The Minister said he was afraid that if the old age pension was increased to the point demanded you might not be able to get people to work. To work at what?—at the wage which the Ministry propose to give them in the near future. This certainly has to be related to the wages policy which has been prominently a feature of the Ministerial policy for years back. We have been told in recent debates that the Ministerial view is that nobody ought to find in this country a life half as attractive as that of agriculture and that half the attraction of life in agriculture is to be measured by the £2 a week wage to the agricultural labourer. The whole thing has to be taken in that setting and that framework and in that setting only is the policy understandable.

There are two main points I want to question on this motion. The first is this matter of the means test. Since I began to think about this matter, I have never understood why there is a means test attached to this at all. It must be on one basis and that is that the old age pension is not intended to be the only provision given to an aged person or aged couple to buy the necessities of life. If it is only intended to be a supplement, then there should be no means test because the mere fact that you speak of it as a supplement means a supplement to something, something which that person or those persons have saved and put past and are enabled to draw in their old years. So, if it is a supplement, there ought to be no means test. We have a means test. Therefore, we must take it that it is not a supplement and when we look at the combination of means test and the pension allowed, we get the Ministerial view of what is required in this country and what is sufficient in this country to enable a man to live after he reaches the age of 70—16/— and that 16/- is worth what 8/- was worth in 1939.

When the present Minister for Local Government on one occasion was speaking about the bonus to civil servants, he pointed out that they had their salaries related by a cost-of-living bonus and one of the features he most strongly criticised in the make-up of the index figure to which that was related was that rent for a civil servant was accepted at the sum of 7/6 a week. That was long before 1938; it was before 1932 when the purchasing power was better than it has been at any time since, when the cost of living was not so severe. His great comment in those days was that dog kennels could not be purchased or leased in the city at 7/6 a week and yet civil servants were supposed to have their bonus measured by a figure the rent point of which was based on 7/6. Very good. Supposing we think of dog kennels being purchasable or leasable nowadays at 7/6 a week and take that back to the 1938 figure, and the present purchasing power of the 16/-, it means that you think of a man with his dog kennel residence and 6d. over to buy food. That is the Ministerial view of how a human creature is to subsist and to keep himself with the dignity that is supposed to attach to his human personality.

The Minister's second comment on this motion has been that old age pensions ought to keep step by step with production. Very good. Let us take that test. The Minister, thereafter, in the course of his remarks, attempts to frighten the people of this country by saying that the proposal here in its fullest form would mean an additional £12,000,000 in a year and wants to know where that can be got. That money is already here. If it was not here, if there was not the increase, not merely of £12,000,000, but of 12 times £12,000,000 purchasing power would not have lapsed. It is because the Ministerial policy has let into this country a vast flood of money not accompanied by extra production in this country that we have got to the inflationary position we now stand in.

The last Budget statement I listened to from the Minister's predecessor talked about national income and said that it had gone up from the figure in pre-war days to a figure he gave as representing last year's figure. He said it was completely and entirely a monetary phenomenon. What was the monetary phenomenon? National income had risen from something in the nature of about £130,000,000 to something in the nature of £250,000,000. It had gone up by £120,000,000. More money had come into the country and, according to the definition given on the other side, which is accepted as the apt one, when you have a big amount of money chasing a small amount of goods, you will get inflation. That is what the old age pensioner is suffering from, and all this motion demands is that of the £120,000,000 that is now floating around this country, which is merely a monetary phenomenon, the old age pensioner should be given his share.

Suppose the motion is carried and implemented, as far as the sum of money is concerned, the old age pensioner has not improved his standards; he is living in the same way as he was enabled to live on a 10/- pension in the pre-war days. It would, in fact, be a lower standard. But, even accepted at that, the Minister says it is £12,000,000. We have £12,000,000 and 12 times £12,000,000 in the country over and above what we had. The trouble is, it is not evenly distributed, and it is because it is not evenly distributed, and because the old age pensioner has not got, and cannot get, his share of the extra money that this motion is called for.

The Minister talks about going step by step with production. Remember, the present situation is not brought about mainly by any decrease in the volume of production in this country, although there has been that, but it is because there has been a vast increase in the amount of money that is at large in the hands of certain people to buy the smaller quantity of goods that is being produced. When the old age pensioner with his 10/- goes to join in the hunt with the people who have a better enjoyment of the monetary phenomenon that the Ministry have brought about, then he finds that he cannot buy what he used to buy and asks now to be put back in the old position. It is the sheerest and simplest justice that that should be done, but the Ministerial view is just as it is about wages: "No, let us keep the wages closed and battened down; let us have the situation hereafter in which we will have a low wage policy."

We will be able possibly to get people here then to produce and possibly have an export trade that we never had before. In the old days British elections were fought on what was called Chinese coolie wages. We are aiming at having something of the same situation here and the Minister's satisfaction to-day at having kept wages battened down and having kept old age pensions battened down is all indicative of that frame of mind, that we are going to swing out into the post-war world with the amount that we have to give to the salaried and the employed classes lower relatively than it ever was before, and then, of course, if we can get goods produced cheaply at home we may get some chance to export and the producers will not get so much but the people who own the producers of the goods— the masters—will.

The Minister then, afterwards, asks us are we going to assist in production? I have asked many times in this House for a policy that would lead to increased production. I have heard that approached from many angles— harnessing up our credit resources, harnessing that to our unused human material and even to our unused other material, to try to get the conjunction between these three things in a country which, to everybody's knowledge, is undeveloped. We have got very little response from the Ministry when we come to a policy about production. We have sometimes a response from the Minister when it comes to a policy about giving more free milk and a little bit more in the way of dole and something more in the way of free meals, because, if all those things can be passed through the Government machine and emerge as relief given by the Government, it is the old policy of Lenin—control the ration books of the proletariat and you control their votes—let it appear as Ministerial benefits and the Ministry must benefit in votes.

Any policy leading to better production at higher rates of wages so that men may have more purchasing power in their hands and call for more goods has met as yet with no response from the Government. What have we ahead of us? As far as I can understand from Government spokesmen this country will be asked to contemplate the expenditure of £21,000,000 extra on a road policy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from this motion.

Mr. McGilligan

I am asking about production. I am going to give a statement as to £90,000,000 that the House will be asked to vote, not on production. Can we take £12,000,000 off that for old age pensions? Would it not be better worth while than any road policy? There is money for Rineanna, more public hospitals— £24,000,000 worth—something more in the way of public health institutions; public assistance institutions, £10,000,000; rural electrification at £23,000,000. About £90,000,000 for roads, Rineanna, public institutions and home assistance, hospitals and that type of thing. £12,000,000 for old age pensioners is a small drop in that vast ocean.

Deputy Oliver Flanagan referred to New Zealand. That is one of the countries that always frustrates me when I hear it talked about in this House. I have seen papers that are very unfriendly, not merely to New Zealand, but to the New Zealand type of government, saying that no country in the world enjoys higher standards than the New Zealanders do and, mind you, that is not in doles and old age pensions and that sort of reliefs, which are generally regarded as indicative of a low standard of living in the community, but it is in wages, in a good policy of production marked by a good wage policy.

I think of that country held up as being bankrupt and owing money all over the world, while we are owed money. New Zealand lives on selling goods of the type we produce in the market we are trying to clamber back into after the Minister tried to dislodge us from it. New Zealand has to send these goods across a vast extent of ocean.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy is getting away from the question of old age pensions.

Mr. McGilligan

I am not.

An Ceann Comhairle

In the opinion of the Chair.

Mr. McGilligan

Perhaps the Chair will allow me another yard or two. One of the schemes they have is an old age pension scheme, as Deputy Flanagan pointed out, far better than this motion asks for. They can afford to do that when they are in debt. They are providing big wage schemes for their employees in productive industry and the fruits of that productive industry have to compete with us in a market which is nearer to us than to them and in which we have considerable advantages. How do they do it? Certainly no Minister stands up and bleats about finding an extra £12,000,000. They have Ministers there who have protected their community from the inflationary policy which has been allowed to develop here, with the result that they do not need, as we do, an increase in the old-time rates of pay or provisions for security of the old age type.

This motion is put down on grounds of the sheerest justice. If, meagre and all as it was, we thought at one time that the standard of life for people who reach 70 years of age was to be measured by 10/-, the present-day equivalent of that would be what the motion asks for. It would be really more, but we will be content with what the motion asks for. In a world which is full of Christian ideals, there are comments everywhere about the dignity of the human person, the fact that he is made in a certain likeness and image and ought to have certain associations of a dignified character attaching to his human personality. When we think of the type of human creatures who are left to drift along under the conditions of the dog-kennel kind of house and the 1/6 or 2/6 to be spent on food thereafter, we ask the Minister to recognise that, owing to the Government's policy in connection with money, the purchasing power of the money we give these old people has lapsed considerably in value and he should restore it. It is a matter of simple justice to do it.

Mr. Everett

I support the motion. Old age pensioners will be disappointed to find that the Minister has held out no hope to them except that under the new Ministry of Social Services something may be done for them at some time or another. The necessity for an increase in the old age pensions has been proved by the Deputies who have spoken. Members of public boards are well aware of the huge increase, amounting to 150 per cent. and 200 per cent. in some cases, in the cost of maintaining patients in hospitals and other institutions under their control. We have protested against the means test. I can never understand why a wealthy person, a highly-paid official, or a prosperous businessman is allowed a deduction from his income-tax for the premium he pays to an insurance company to provide him with a large sum of money in order to give him comfort in his old age, while a poor man, who is in receipt of a couple of shillings a week from his children or from some insurance society or organisation, is deprived of the benefits that the State had intended at one time he should receive. That shows the class distinction and the class treatment we have in this State at present. We are not unmindful of the fact that family allowances and widows' and orphans' pensions are provided.

The Minister expressed his sympathy to-day. He admitted that, while the policy of the Government is to keep down wages, they have been unable to keep down the soaring prices of the necessaries of life. To my mind, no person has a bigger grievance than the old age pensioner living in a rural area.

Those of us who are connected with public boards have found that during the last two years the means test has been applied with a severity such as was not experienced in the previous 20 years. A forestry worker who works until he is 70 years of age is refused an old age pension. The wife of a road worker is refused an old age pension at 70 years of age on the ground that her husband is in constant employment and has over £52 a year. Such cases as that, I am certain, came to the Minister's notice, and should have the sympathy of all sections of the community.

I am not condemning investigation officers who are merely carrying out the law. They are as human as any of us and have sympathy with these people, but they must administer the law as they find it. Within the last two years some secret instructions must have been given to them, because, as I said, the means test is being applied with a severity such as had not been experienced in the previous 20 years. If we are to keep up with another country, we will have to take a good many steps to get into the position which they have reached. I will not go into the question of the necessity for increased production. The policy of the Government at present is preventing increased production. They have a policy of low wages for agricultural labourers and road workers. I am afraid that in the near future the Government and the people of this country will be awakened from their slumbers by a realisation of what may take place. I hope the Government will change their outlook and prevent these things from happening.

I was disappointed with the Minister's statement. We were expecting something more than that the old age pensioners should wait until the new Ministry of Social Services comes into operation. We hope that they will not have to wait as long as that and that in the forthcoming Budget the Government may see their way to do something for them and realise that they have a just claim. I am sure that even the Minister, although he is responsible for Finance, has as much sympathy as we have for the old age pensioners. He is, however, more concerned now with the responsibilities of his office. Deputy McGilligan has contrasted the position in this country and that in a neighbouring country and pointed out the benefits which are being provided there for all sections of the community, notwithstanding the fact that they are in debt to practically every other country in the world. We are a creditor nation and other countries are looking up to us. If we are a creditor nation, surely our first duty is to this most deserving section of the community. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision and, if he is not able to give an increased grant, to arrange, even before his Budget, to remove the means test. I trust that Deputy O'Sullivan will be able to reply to the various points made. I merely want to point out that the old age pensioners have our sympathy. But they want more than sympathy. Our sympathy would be put to practical proof by the grant to the pensioners of the increase to which they have been entitled for a number of years.

Mr. Byrne

A number of us on these benches desire to speak but no time remains.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Sullivan has the right to conclude.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

There is not much to which I have to reply, but I should like to acknowledge, on behalf of my colleagues, the generous measure of support given to this motion. My only surprise was in the reply given by the Minister. I had hoped that, since he was acting for the first time in regard to this matter in his capacity as Minister for Finance, he would take the opportunity to break with convention and precedent and indicate that he was prepared to face up to a situation which is really serious in connection with one of our most important social services —old age pensions.

Not the slightest trace of hope is to be found in any part of the Minister's reply. In fact, it goes lower in the matter of assurance than statements we have had on previous occasions. I quoted remarks from the Minister's predecessor and the Minister for Industry and Commerce which indicated, on previous occasions, at least, the relaxation of certain features of the means test so far as it related to voluntary pensions from industrial and commercial firms. On that aspect of the question, the present Minister held out no hope this morning.

I should like to correct the figure of £12,000,000 which the Minister gave. I gave the figure of £12,500,000 as the cost of the motion which was before the House in 1944. Additional to that would be the extra 2/6—from 20/- to 22/6, which would be not more than about £13,500,000, less the cost of existing pensions—about £4,000,000— so that the cost to be borne would be about £9,500,000.

Mr. Aiken

We are paying about £4,000,000. An extra £12,000,000 would be required to implement the Deputy's motion. That is £16,000,000 all told.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I should like to remind the Minister that the figure I gave was the figure given by his predecessor as the cost of giving effect to the original motion.

Mr. Aiken

The official estimate of £16,000,000, which I have given, is a conservative one.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The only ray of hope, if it may be so described, in the Minister's statement was his reference to the Ministry of Social Services. Deputy Anthony endeavoured to get an amplification of that reference, but the Minister was quite shy about giving it. Lest there should be any idea that something of a definite character will accrue from the Ministry of Social Services at an early date, may I point out that, when the Taoiseach indicated recently that a separate Ministry would be set up, he took the opportunity of warning the House that the probability was that no intrinsic increases, so far as the services were concerned, would take place, and that what was really contemplated was an amalgamation of the services to admit of better administrative machinery? I place the Minister's statement against that of the Taoiseach.

The time is now ebbing. We have done our best in this House to present the case of thousands of people who are in dire want and who have been in very sore need during the past four or five years. I am afraid that the decision which the House will take will be interpreted by those people as one of indifference, so far as their present circumstances are concerned. It will aggravate their position. Their outlook on society in future will be soured and embittered and of a cynical character. The means to aid them are available, but they will feel that this House, having the means, declined to do anything. The decision which will, apparently, be taken will be a confession of absolute failure. I am exceedingly sorry that that should be the effect of a motion of this character.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 41.

Tá

• Anthony, Richard S.
• Beirne, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Davin, William.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Heskin, Denis.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Larkin, James (Junior).
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, William F.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Roddy, Martin.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Furlong, Walter.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• McCann, John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Skinner, Leo B.
• Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies M. O'Sullivan and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Ciosáin and O Briain.

Motion negatived.

The Dáil adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 13th March, 1946.