On the motion for the Adjournment, Deputy O'Leary gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of the question of which he gave notice to the Chair.
Adjournment Debate. - Old Age Pension Increase.
Mr. O'Leary
What we wish to discuss here is the fact that many persons who are entitled to receive old age, blind or widows' pension increase of 5/- a week, by virtue of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1966 are being refused this increase by the Department of Social Welfare. Earlier this year the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Lynch, announced that pensioners were to receive an increase of 5/- a week. That was on 9th March, 1966. In the sixth edition of the Evening Press issued in Dublin that evening, the banner headline was carried “Pension increase of 5/-”. The meaning and the propaganda of such statements are pretty clear.
We raise this matter because all round the country thousands of people who are in dire need are being excluded from the increase provision by virtue of the interpretation of social welfare officers. To illustrate this, when the Minister was introducing the matter last June, he remarked that it was estimated that some 21,000 old age pensioners or blind pensioners, of a total of 112,000 such pensioners would benefit from the increase of 5/- and that some 6,500 widows, out of a total of 22,000 widows, would similarly benefit. Although the forward announcement of the increase was made in March, 1966, the actual implementation did not take place until November, 1966. On 23rd November, some months later, we find that in answer to a question on this matter, the Minister informed the House of the number of people who were in fact benefiting under the new arrangement. He said the figure was 10,090 pensioners our of a total of 111,868 at that period. We have a difference then of almost exactly 100,000 between the promise of the Minister earlier in the year and the effective number participating in November of the same year.
Will the Deputy please give the references?
Mr. O'Leary
It is Dáil Reports, volume 225 for the question regarding the actual numbers, and volume 223 for the Minister's announcement. The position is so bad that one must be absolutely destitute in order to get this 5/- increase and the definition of destitution is left, as far as we can ascertain to the arbitrary decision of the Department of Social Welfare. In fact, it is arguable if the possession of a suit of clothes at the moment would not exclude one from the benefit of the extra amount. I recall a case presented to the House some time ago where the Minister defended in the House the action of one of his official who ruled that a woman who had a cottage in which she lived alone and a garden which she was unable to till and could get no use out of, had an income of £3 per week, so that the woman was excluded from the benefit of the provision.
Small farmers, agricultural labourers, town workers and people living with their relatives are all in categories which can, in fact, be excluded from the extra payment. This is a provision which was used unscrupulously earlier this year in drawing up enthusiasm for a discredited Fianna Fáil administration. Mark you, the brass neck of the Ministers of this Government has them touring areas of Kerry and Waterford just now, telling people about this 5/- increase which none of them is entitled to, or able to get. In the Killarney area alone, three per cent of all the pensioners benefit by the 5/-pronouncement made earlier this year.
The 5/- increase amounts to 8½d per day. This Government earlier stood over, without criticism, and appeared to approve, the payment of £8 10s a day as a pension to the former chairman of CIE in a new job. This happened at a time when they cannot pay 8½d per day to people in dire need— the Government who try fraudulently to make the people believe that they are attuned to the principle of social justice as it should exist in the year 1966.
We want to discover if there has been such a cutting down in the number of pensioners benefiting, from the 21,000 the Minister promised would benefit, to the 10,000 who appear to be benefiting. We want to know if something similar happened in the case of the number of widows who were supposed to benefit, 6,500. How many in fact benefited? I want to find out what scales the Department officials bring forward in their definition of what constitutes absolute destitution, the condition which, it appears, is the only one that enables people at the moment to get this extra 5/-.
We have heard of the case in rural Ireland of an old man who, as the result of the kindness of a neighbouring farmer, lived in a pretty broken-down house on the farmland. We find this has been estimated as income to that old man and that therefore he is excluded from the 5/- increase. Similarly, in this city, in the case of old age pensioners living with a son or daughter, if it can be proved that they have so many meals with their relatives on so many days a week, is it true that they are excluded at present? If this is a country which prides itself on its defence of freedom, we may ask what flimsy or tattered freedom is left to old people at the mercy of the officials of the Department of Social Welfare who make a personal inventory of every little item in their possession——
That is the responsibility of the Minister, not of any official.
Mr. O'Leary
The Minister supervises the affairs of the Department and I am bringing to the attention of the Minister what is going on, with or without his knowledge, at present. I declare this to be a disgraceful situation. That is one of the motives in bringing this matter before the House. If the Government cannot, having introduced this increase, ensure that it is given to those who are truly in need, old age pensioners living on paltry incomes and so on, and if the Government are so hard up that they must operate what is practically a secret police system to inquire into every facet of these people's lives, surely it is time for the Government to come out openly and say what the financial position is and explain that it was so dark and severe that it forced the Government to such limits as to inquire into the personal affairs of people to this extent. Surely if the Government are driven to this limit to avoid meeting their responsibilities to the needy, we might ask ourselves what kind of system it is that has as its priority the giving of a pension to a man of £8 10s per day, and seeing that as a main priority, and refusing to give 8½d a day to people all around the country who can prove that theirs is a sorry lot.
We have already had the position where for the meanest of political Party motives, the announcement was made in March this year, while the implementation was delayed until November; in other words, the pensioners were told to live on Party propaganda until November and when November comes, they are told they do not qualify for this increase. This cynical, brazen approach to the crying needs of this section of the population must be exposed for what it is, political opportunism of the lowest kind, of a type that we thought had had its day here but seemingly this Government are cynical enough to use this type of propaganda to maintain their grip on power. The pensions position already cries to heaven for some kind of justice. We look upon ourselves as a country that wishes to be part of a larger European community. How can we look forward to fraternity with other nations in the modern world when we appear to allow this kind of barbaric treatment to continue of a deserving section of our population, when we allow the situation to continue that officials of a Department are forced, evidently as a result of the Government's ruling, to comb out the personal income positions of old people in town and country?
If we as a society wish to leave our old people with what is most desirable at their age, a little independence, surely this kind of hounding to the last item of their personal possessions is calculated to remove whatever little independence they have left? The provision we make for our old people in the community is bad enough. We submit that this inquiry into the means of old people should cease forthwith. We call upon the Government to live up to their March promise of the provision of an increase of 5/- a week to old age pensioners. We call upon them to cease this harrying of old people, to put an end to this ridiculous situation of old people being disqualified from the 5/-increase because they have an arrangement with their relations whereby they eat in the relations' house, or because, in a rural area, they may be in possession of three scraggy hens or, in a city area, may get free meals from sons or daughters. Surely a Government who stand over a situation where these things are itemised in a balance sheet so as to exclude these people from the provisions of this legislation, should bow their head in shame. This Government have what we call the chrome-Mercedes mentality if they allow this kind of thing to happen.
Deputy O'Leary sounded somewhat surprised at the way the so-called increase of 5/- was being administered by the Fianna Fáil Government. I am not so surprised, because quite clearly the increase of 5/- as it was announced last March by the Fianna Fáil Government to old age pensioners, widows and blind pensioners, was nothing more than a further confidence trick on the people by Fianna Fáil for the purpose of securing their support in the Presidential election. This is the type of politics that the Fianna Fáil Government have engaged in for a long number of years. One would think it would be a hard thing to make an announcement to old age pensioners in the plight which the vast majority of them, if not all, are in, that they could look forward to an increase of 5/- per week, and then to ensure by the way the means test would be applied to the increase, that no more than one-tenth of the people who were entitled to this increase actually got it.
Deputy O'Leary has referred to the situation where because a son or a daughter invited an old age pensioner, a mother or father, to the home at weekends for a meal, the old age pensioner could be disqualified. If a son or daughter working in England or in the United States or Canada, where they are forced to go to earn a livelihood by the same policy pursued by the Fianna Fáil Government, sends home a £5 note, the recipient can be disqualified from receiving the increase of 5/-, although he may have no other means whatsoever. By virtue of the fact that a son or daughter sends home a £5 note at Christmas, Fianna Fáil will pounce on that to disqualify him. There is bankruptcy and bankruptcy, but when we reach the stage where we will go to any lengths to deprive old age pensioners of 5/- we have really hit the bottom, and this Government have undoubtedly hit the bottom.
They are hitting the bottom of Dingle Bay at the moment —sounding.
Their soundings may not be too good.
They have the engineers down there at the moment—the same tactics.
If they were really to consider the situation in detail, they might even find that they are spending more money depriving the people of the 5/- by the number of investigators roaming the country and prying into people's affairs than if they paid it and lived up to the promise they made in March of this year.
Under this system, even talking about the one-tenth who got the increase, the old age pensioners, the people who were responsible for building up this State, people who in their younger years helped to found this State, people who were so misled as to put the Government into power, if they want to qualify for the 5/-, must debase themselves publicly as being absolutely and completely without means of support. We think that this type of practice by the Fianna Fáil Government should be exposed and our purpose in raising this matter on the Adjournment was to expose it.
I must intervene. The Deputies have had 20 minutes. I must give ten minutes to the Minister.
I shall conclude. As the Minister who introduced this measure has since left the office, we would appeal to the present Minister to do justice to the people depending on old age pensions.
I welcome this opportunity to say something about this extra 5/-granted to persons with no means. There is a good deal of deliberate misrepresentation about it. If I were to believe this motion was genuinely in the interests of the old people, I would take a different line from what I am going to say now. I am not at all satisfied that the proposer was not doing what he accused Fianna Fáil of doing—trying to cash in on the aged for the purposes of the two by-elections due to take place.
I would not expect you to appreciate a humane act.
I did not interrupt you. I have only a few minutes left.
We did not misrepresent the situation.
On 16th March, 1966, the Minister for Social Welfare was questioned by the Chief Whip of the Fine Gael Party as to the number of people who would qualify, and he replied that it was estimated that 21,000 would qualify. In supplementary questions he was asked what type of person would qualify and he said only those with no means. That was elaborated on in a series of supplementary questions. I quote now from column 1839, vol. 221 of the Official Report of 16th March last:
Mr. L'Estrange: If he has a shilling a week, he is disqualified.
Mr. Boland: A person who has a right of residence and maintenance is in a different position from a person who has not.
Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan): I would like the Minister to clear this up now. Will a right of residence alone, as distinct from a right of residence, support and maintenance, disqualify a person in relation to this increase?
Mr. Boland: Any means will disqualify.
Surely nobody was being misled when it was made perfectly clear as far back as March last that only people with no means would qualify?
The lead-up to all this is very simple. I have been a member of an old age pensions committee for 14 years. I know also what benevolent societies do for certain groups of old age pensioners. The case is frequently made that there are different categories in receipt of old age pension and that those with no means are in a special category of their own and could not possibly be expected to enjoy the same standard as those who have some means. In 1965 the Minister brought in what I might describe as the split level allowance, in which he granted 5/- to those with means of £26 and 10/- to those with means up to that figure. That was hailed as a fair and equitable thing to do with the amount of money he had at his disposal. He followed that up in the same way in 1966 by taking what money was available to him and giving it to the most necessitous section of old age pensioners. He made it clear it was going to those who had no means. It is easy to blame officials. The Minister must take absolute responsibility for his Department. The only record the Department have to go on is the original record as to whether the person has means or not. Taking those records, they have given out in the first instance to all recorded in the original assessment as having no means the extra 5/-.
You misled the people.
There was no misleading whatever.
Mr. O'Leary
The Minister said 21,000 would benefit.
This is merely an election stunt at the expense of the most impoverished section of the community.
It is quite open to anybody who feels he has no means to make application now. Many have done it. The applications are still coming in.
(Interruptions.)
Take your medicine when you are getting it. I am going to tell you the truth.
Explain the discrepancy between 21,000 and 10,000.
The Minister should be allowed to conclude his speech.
He will be finished after Wednesday.
You are afraid to listen to the facts.
(Interruptions.)
Order!
The system of assessing means now is exactly the same as operated since the Pensions Acts were first introduced in this country.
But which the Taoiseach said would be altered.
That system was unchanged during two periods of Coalition Government, in which a member of the Labour Party was Minister for Social Welfare.
(Interruptions.)
They gave two lousy half-crowns.
We gave them. We did not cod the people.
You did not amend the means test. We relaxed the means test. We gave twice as much in one year as you gave in your six years. I am dealing with the hypocritical allegations made. The people in Waterford and Kerry, to whom you are talking this evening, have good memories. They know what they got from you people during the years you were in office. You insulted them. You did not make the slightest effort.
You packed off 10,000 of them from the homeland.
We gave them more in one year than you did in all your time. You took a shilling off the old age pensioners. We never did.
You gave them the emigrant ship.
You are afraid to let me talk. When the people who introduced this motion talked about everything except the 5/-, I did not say a word, irrespective of whether the case they were making was correct or otherwise. I had only ten minutes to reply and I expected to be left without interruption. Are you afraid that I will put on the record for the purposes of the two by-elections the dirty record you had during your years of office? I say now that in no period of Government in this country did the old age pensioners get a worse deal than they got from the Coalition.
The Minister said 21,000 and only 10,000 are getting it.
If you would just shut up, I would answer you. There might be more than that. We have quite a number of applications still coming in. You kept the means test and we relaxed it four times.
Do you stand over what is being done?
There might be more applications. We do not know. The only thing worrying you is that we gave more than you ever did. The amount which is being paid is being paid according to the record of those stated to have no means. Any persons who feel they have no means can still apply. I am dealing with thousands of applications at present.
You would want to hurry up.
Any person who feels aggrieved is entitled to apply. If people living with relations are obliged to contribute from their old age pension, they are entitled to be regarded as having no means.
What happens if they get a meal?
That is not taken into account.
It is.
It is not.
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
It was regarded as means when you were in power. Do not cod yourselves. In regard to living in a house, unless it is a legal right, it is not regarded as means. The person so assessed has a right to be taken as a person of no means. When all the applications have been dealt with, we will see whether the Minister's estimate was correct. I hope it was. We are proud of our record of increases in old age pensions and we ask the public to compare it with the two lousy half-crowns they got from a Coalition Government——
But they got it.
——dominated by Labour.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 6th December, 1966.