Quotations are different. I do not like them myself. I shall not go over the ground already adequately covered by previous speakers. The first reason I decided to speak in this debate was to get more information about status increases. For some months past we have been reading a good deal about them. We are told that the average status increase has been in the neighbourhood of 18 per cent and that in the case of some higher executive officers and other professional people, it has varied from 16 to 20 per cent.
I am not a believer in promoting the type of class-conscious society we apparently have been promoting, particularly within the past 12 months. Everybody has a status. It is not just because you happen to be enjoying a big salary that you qualify for a status increase. The man out in the wind and weather, working on the land, on the roads or building houses is playing just as much a part in the development of our country. This matter of status increases has created a good deal of uneasiness among ordinary workers. I would not be voicing the opinion of the Labour Party if I did not say we have always believed that people with special professional qualifications should be adequately remunerated for their work. By reason of these special qualifications, they are playing a big part in the development of the nation and in advancing the incomes of its people.
At the same time, we must be uniform in the application of any regulations relating to salaries and other matters concerning the public purse. If one section secured a 12 per cent increase in salary and are able to get on average a further 18 per cent as a status increase, I believe other sections are just as much entitled to look for that increase. The ordinary worker has, say, £8. 2. 6. per week to maintain himself and his family. That is the figure a road worker has in Cork county, which is above the ordinary wage earned by an agricultural worker. If a person in the £2,000, £3,000 or over income group needs an increase of 18 per cent to maintain his status in society, I maintain much more so does the man earning from £350 to £450 per annum. If the man with an income of £8 a week got a status increase, I maintain he should get more than 25/- a week.
I do not see why we should confine status increases to special people. I would ask the Minister to address himself to that question. The people I have mentioned have got no relief in the Budget. They are satisfied to make the contribution required for increased social welfare benefits, but it means they must pay more for cigarettes, tobacco and drink. It is impossible for these people in the lower income group to live on present wage standards. There is no justification whatever in our present affluent society, as it is described by the Government, for asking a married man with a family to exist on £8 a week. Even though farm workers' rates are higher in Dublin and Cork, it is extremely difficult for such workers to make ends meet because of the steady decline in the value of money.
We are reaching the stage now where one shilling will be equivalent to what a penny was worth in 1933. So far as the provision of furniture or building a house is concerned, we have already reached that stage. Thirty years ago you could get a good five-roomed house built for £200. Today, that house would cost almost £3,000. That gives some idea of the decline in the value of money in that field. If there is additional money in the public purse to be distributed to our people, it should be distributed to the sections who need it most. The section who need it most are the ordinary workers. Small farmers working within the limitations of their holdings and the infertility of their land, particularly along the western and southern seaboard, find it difficult to live in a reasonable way. The small shopkeepers are being pushed out of business by the supermarkets. Some people may say supermarkets are a desirable asset to our country, but one thing is certain: they are crushing the small shopkeeper out of existence.
We are told our economy expanded by £80 million last year. If we have this money, the greater part of it should be channelled into the pockets of these people in the lower income group. The agricultural worker or small farmer is playing a very important role at present. Were it not for agricultural production and agricultural exports, the picture here would not be as bright as it is today. We are tremendously fortunate that the prices for our agricultural exports, particularly cattle, are reasonably high on the export market. If you had a situation obtaining in Britain, which is our main buyer of farm produce, particularly cattle, where the prices were much lower than they are at the present time, you could appreciate the reaction that would have on the economy of the country. Therefore, the state of the economy is a highly significant factor. The standard of wages of many of those who go out in the morning down the country to milk the cows, bring the milk to the creamery and look after the crops, according to statistics produced by farming organisations, is well below £10 weekly. It is between £8 and £9 weekly.
I know how very difficult it is for the Government to devise legislation, enactments and regulations that will meet such a problem. At the same time, as I mentioned at the outset, when there was so much money available, instead of starting at the top we should have commenced at the bottom and helped the lower paid workers. I think I have made my position clear on that and I am hopeful the new Minister for Finance, in the course of his deliberations within the Government, will bear in mind the position of our rural workers, farm workers and others in the lower income group. If our economy advances further, as we all hope it will, and if there are funds available for distribution by way of salary and wage increases, we should think of that section of the community more than some other sections. While referring to that section of the community I am not reflecting on the other sections but it was surprising to note that the status increase granted to several people in this country is higher than the total annual income of those workers. The status increase alone, in most cases, exceeded more than £400, which is a sum greater than that earned by many sections of our people.
The second point I have to make deals with the question of social welfare benefits. We all welcome, as the Labour Party clearly indicated by its vote in this House, the increased benefits for the old people, the disabled and those of our population who cannot obtain employment. I stress here again, what I stressed on a number of occasions previously, the desirability of some co-ordination between different Departments in the State, particularly Departments which give a good deal of employment, such as the Minister's own Department, particularly the Special Employments Schemes Office, the Board of Works, the Department of Local Government, the Department of Lands and other Departments. There should be some interDepartmental committee which would devise means of providing employment for people in rural Ireland, particularly people who are occasionally unemployed. You may have a scheme promoted by a county council or by a Department and their work is closed down for several months. The workers go on the unemployment benefit list, whereas some other Department may have useful employment for them. They could be asked to do some useful chores such as special drainage work, afforestation work, road repairs or give some other service instead of getting unemployment benefit.
I believe that the majority of our workers, although I am only conversant with rural workers and do not know about the cities and towns, do not want to go near the labour exchange if they can avoid it. They would prefer to work with the council, a private employer or a Department of State at the same remuneration they would get from unemployment benefit. In some cases the social welfare benefits are now higher than the local rates obtaining in councils and even in State Departments. It is a very pleasing thing to find that a great number of our workers do not want to see the labour exchange. They do not like having to go to the Garda Síochána station on Tuesday or Wednesday to sign for unemployment assistance. Instead, they want employment.
We should establish some type of inter-Departmental committee to work in conjunction with the local authorities to try to find employment for such people when the particular scheme on which they are employed closes down. I must say the number would be very small. Any person who is physically capable and able to work, and where work is available, should be able to get it. There is an obligation on every person to look for work and not be on the unemployed list.
I firmly believe that people have to work for survival. On the other hand, there is an obligation on our workers and people to give reasonable service for the remuneration they receive. There is an obligation on them to find employment if for some cause or other they are thrown out of employment on a temporary basis. That position must obtain if the State is to survive.
I do not want to put one class against another in my remarks in this debate but I have in times gone by agitated for and advocated a reduction in the qualifying age for old age pensions from 70 to 65 years. It will be appreciated that it is some 57 years since old age pensions were introduced in this country. I think it was in the year 1908. The then British Government felt that the appropriate qualifying age for such pensions was 70 years. The pension at that time had, in its own way, as good a purchasing power as the pension obtaining today. The pension at that time was introduced for people within a certain income level. The income level for qualifying for the maximum pension was somewhat similar to the income level which obtains today.
We have made many advances in the past 57 years and we should all be thankful to world efforts for that. I know we have gone through trying periods but I consider a case can be made for uniformity in regard to the retirement age for all pensions in this country. There is no justification for asking our people to continue working up to the age of 70 years. This reduction, in my opinion, should take place forthwith. The British Government, who introduced the pension here, the Six Counties and other countries in Europe and throughout the world have reduced the qualifying age for pensions.
What would be the disadvantages if we were to reduce the qualifying age in respect of the old age pension? The Minister for Social Welfare told me in this House that it is all very fine to suggest giving the pension to people at 65 and to put ordinary men in this country, workers, farmers, road workers and many others in the same category as the other members of the population who qualify for pensions at the age of 65 but the question was where was the money to come from and how could we bring about a situation whereby we could pay pensions at the age of 65 years. At that time, when the pension rate was, I think, 35/- weekly, the Minister said it would take £12 million to implement this proposal. Where would the Deputy suggest the £12 million was to come from? I assume that the Minister's figure is correct and that it would take £12 million to implement this proposal and, having regard to recent increases in pensions, we will say that it may now take £14 million to implement it. We should go about finding it. I think the net cost would be not more than 50 per cent of that figure because, once this money is paid out to the pensioners, taking into account every commodity they buy—their drink, cigarettes, tobacco, clothes, food, every commodity pensioners buy—their purchases are taxable and a good deal of that money is bound to find its way back to the Exchequer through taxation channels. It would not be out of place to say that the actual paying of the pension would represent not more than 50 per cent of the gross cost. If we assume that it would take £14 million to pay this pension at 65 years, it is reasonable to say that the net cost to the Exchequer would be half that sum, £7 million.
I am mindful also of the many advantages that would accrue from such a position. First of all, it would give justice and fair play to those people who work in the wind and the rain and all kinds of weather in the fields and on the roads and even to the shop assistant and the smaller shopkeeper, and so on. They are as much entitled to retire at 65 and to get their allowance from the State as are all the other classes of people who are getting it without difficulty at present. We must have uniformity in our laws and legislation. We feel very strongly that it is unfair that certain people should get pensions at 65—more luck to them: we agree that they are entitled to them at that age—while others do not qualify.
Unfortunately, we have had an unemployment and emigration problem in this country down through the years and it is still with us. If pensions were paid at 65 instead of 70, it would mean that workers would retire five years earlier and their jobs would be available for other men and women, thus offsetting a good deal of the emigration and unemployment problem. That would be a very big advantage.
Secondly, farmers, particularly our farmers on the western and southern seaboards and, indeed, in all parts of the country, would assign their holding to members of their families five years earlier than at present. The emphasis is now on youth and youth, if I may so use that term, would take over five years earlier than at present. That would be a very good thing. It would help to solve the problem to which the Taoiseach referred yesterday and to which I have referred on a number of occasions and of which everybody is quite conscious. I refer to the problem of late marriages in rural Ireland and in particular to the problem of the large percentage of our people in rural Ireland who are not married at all. In years gone by, I think that position to some extent could be traced to the fact that the old people held on to their farms and holdings until they had reached an advanced age and therefore did not give the young people an opportunity of taking over.
If we implement this proposal to reduce the qualifying age for old age pensions, then, farmers in particular, would be encouraged to assign their farms or holdings earlier to a member of the family and in that way I believe the problem to which the Taoiseach referred yesterday would solve itself to a great extent. The early marriage rate would increase and the percentage of our people who marry in rural Ireland would substantially improve. We all feel that that is a situation that should be brought about. It is desirable from every point of view. It is a problem that is pressing us very hard at the present time and I was very pleased, indeed, that the Taoiseach addressed himself specifically to it yesterday.
Another advantage, of course, is that, despite what has happened in the past, there is not any great change in the expectancy of life so far as people who have reached middle age are concerned. I must be careful now about what I say in the presence of Deputy Hogan of Tipperary who is an expert on this question but the expectancy of life here for a person at the age of 40 is probably not more than 75 or 76. Then what have we? When people reach 70, they move into the winter of their life. After years of toil, they are not able to enjoy the pension to any extent. With physical difficulties arising in many cases or ailments of one kind or another—pains, arthritis, and so on—they are not in a position to enjoy their rest. That state of affairs would alter very much if the situation obtained in which pensions were paid at 65. The people in question would then have an opportunity of enjoying a well-earned rest just as some others do at present.
I am asking the Minister for Finance to press home this question of a reduction in the qualifying age for pension. He can rest assured that if proposals are brought into this House for such legislation—and such proposals would naturally require money to pay for them —he can depend on the support of the Labour Party. We dislike imposing taxation on the drinker, the smoker, and so on, because we feel he is at present carrying an unfair share of our national burden, but, despite that belief, we voted for the implementation of the taxes because we felt that the other sections of the community were entitled to the increases they got. I think I can speak on behalf of my colleagues in this Party when I say that the Minister may rest assured that if reasonable taxation proposals are brought before this House to find money to reduce the qualifying pension age from 70 to 65, he will find the Labour Party sympathetic. He will have the full support of this Party and I have no doubt that the Fine Gael members also believe in the justice of this claim, and I believe that if these proposals were brought before the House, they would find unanimous approval.
With these few remarks, I wish to conclude and apologise to the Minister if I have kept him waiting too long. He has a responsible task, and I wish him every success and good luck in his new post. Undoubtedly a Minister for Finance does not get much rest. He has to keep in mind all the time the many problems of State and is the controller of the public purse and holds a very responsible position. I would put his position second to that of the Taoiseach and it is only right that, in so far as we can, we should be constructive and helpful in our remarks on public matters in this House. I do wish the Minister for Finance a successful term of office.