Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1955

Vol. 44 No. 19

Social Welfare Bill, 1955—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Corish)

The object of this Bill is to obtain legislative authority for the increases in old age and blind pensions, and widows non-contributory pensions, which were forecast by the Minister for Finance in his financial statement on 4th May, 1955, to come into effect as from Friday, 29th July, 1955.

For old age and blind pensioners, the increase is 2/6 a week, added to each of the present statutory rates, which are 21/6, 16/6, 11/6 and 6/6. About 166,000 pensioners will benefit by these increases, including about 6,000 blind pensioners.

When the inter-Party Government took office in 1948, the maximum rate of old age and blind pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts was 10/- a week. Cash supplements to pension were also being paid, at 5/- a week in urban areas and 2/6 a week in rural areas. Public assistance authorities had power, in rural areas, to grant a further supplemental allowance not exceeding 2/6 a week to pensioners in necessitous circumstances, recovering 75 per cent. of the cost from State funds. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1948, new inclusive pension rates were fixed, the maximum being increased to 17/6 a week, and the various supplemental schemes were discontinued.

Early in 1951 the inter-Party Government decided to increase these pensions still further, and to raise the maximum to 20/- a week. This was announced in the Dáil on 2nd March, 1951, by Deputy Norton, who was then Minister for Social Welfare. Before this promise could be implemented, there was a change of Government, but the new Minister, my predecessor, promoted legislation which gave effect to it in the Social Welfare Act, 1951, under which the increases were allowed as from 5th October in that year.

Under the Social Welfare Act of 1952, the maximum rate was increased to 21/6 a week as from 4th July, 1952, to counter-balance the increased cost of food when subsidies were reduced. The present Bill will bring the maximum up to 24/- a week.

I feel sure that there will be little, if any, objection to granting these increases to the aged and the blind. On the other hand, there may be some who will say that 2/6 a week is not enough. To these I would point out that the Government would be very glad to give greater increases but for the fact that even a small increase for each pensioner involves finding a large additional sum when there are so many to be paid. The 2/6 increase now being provided will cost £1,085,000 in a full year. This, added to the provision for old age and blind pensions in the current year's Estimates, which is £9,420,000, would bring the total for a year to £10,505,000.

Approximately 28,000 widows who are in receipt of non-contributory pensions will also get increases of 2/6 a week as from 29th of next month. If the widow has one dependent child, she will get an additional 1/- a week, and if she has two or more dependent children the addition will be 2/- a week, along with the 2/6. The yearly cost of these increases will be about £199,000, which will bring the total estimated cost of widows' non-contributory pensions in a full year up to £1,799,000.

When the inter-Party Government took over in 1948, widows' non-contributory pensions were being paid at 11/6 a week in county boroughs, 10/- in urban districts, 7/6 in small towns and 8/- in rural areas. All these figures are inclusive of the cash supplements which were being paid with the pensions. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1948, the supplements were discontinued; and the pension rates were increased to 14/- a week in the county boroughs and urban districts and 10/- a week elsewhere.

Widows' non-contributory pensions were again increased by the Social Welfare Act, 1952, when the maximum pension for a widow with two or more dependent children became 32/- a week. The present Bill increases this to 36/6 as from 29th July, 1955, so that in such cases the increase is 4/6 a week.

The total number of persons who will receive increases of from 2/6 to 4/6 a week under this Bill will be about 194,000. This will bring the total annual cost of old age and blind pensions, and widows' non-contributory pensions, up to about £12,304,000. This is a large sum in relation to the total expenditure by the Exchequer, but it will not be grudged as it helps to make life easier for the most necessitous and deserving classes in the country.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Ní mór atá le rá agam ar an mBille seo. Cuirim fáilte roimis mar gheall ar go bhfuil beartaithe ann méadú a thabhairt do phinsinéirí sean-aoise agus do phinsinéirí ar lag-shúla agus do bhaintreacha, ach déarfainn go raibh súil ag a lán daoine le níos mó. Éinne a chloisfeadh cuid de na polaiticeoirí atá ag cabhrú leis an Rialtas inniu mar gheall ar an ndroch-bhail a bhí ar chuid de na h-aicmí atá i gceist sa Bhille seo bheadh súil aige le i bhfad níos mó cabhrach dóibh. Chomh maith leis sin tá a lán daoine a thagann fé'n gCóras Sóisialach ná beidh dada sa bhreis le fáil acu fé'n mBille seo.

I welcome the Bill because of the increases envisaged in it, increases that will be available to old age pensioners, blind pensioners and widows after the operative date, 29th July. I do not say that these are anything like what many people expected, in view of the many pronouncements made about the necessitous classes of people mentioned in this measure, but of course it is always found that, when people take responsibility, the money is not so easily procured as it would seem to have been before these people took responsibility.

This 2/6 a week in the case of old age pensioners, blind pensioners and widows scarcely makes amends to these classes of people for the way in which they have been treated in the distant past. I suppose it can be truthfully said that the sum of 2/6 a week at present is not worth any more than 1/- was in 1939 or 1940, so that, according to the changed value of money, what we are actually doing in this measure is giving the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners and the widows 1/- extra. However, we have to be thankful for small mercies.

There is one thing which I cannot understand, that is, the omission of widows' contributory pensions from the provisions of the measure before us. While we are grateful for the consideration that is being given to those widows in receipt of non-contributory pensions, I say it is an injustice to exclude those widows who are in receipt of contributory pensions, especially when one recalls that their deceased husbands were paying their contributions over the years. The Minister and the Government may have some idea of doing something for them in the future. If so we would like to hear about it.

There are other sections of the people who come under the heading of social welfare, who are not mentioned in this measure at all. It cannot be denied that the impact of the increased cost of living falls heavily upon them also. However, we will have another time to discuss that particular aspect of the matter. I welcome the measure and I know that the Seanad will pass it through quickly, so as to make the benefits available to old age pensioners, blind pensioners and widows as quickly as possible.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I would like also to welcome this measure and congratulate the Minister on its introduction. It is evidence of the fact that the Government has decided to concentrate, at the earliest stage possible, on relieving two of the most deserving sections of the community—old age pensioners and widows. Though Senator Kissane refers to the increase as a small mercy and is anxious to discuss the value of money now compared to what it was some time ago, I cannot help feeling that it certainly is a step in the right direction and not in the direction pointed to in a cartoon in the section of the Press that supported the Opposition before the general election.

We were treated then to a cartoon showing a little boy standing in front of a blackboard on which was the headline: "Do not cut a rod to beat yourself." An article underneath pointed out that in the event of a change in Government old age pensions and widows' pensions would be reduced by a considerable amount. I am quite satisfied that those responsible for that foolish prophecy are gratified that it has not come true. There is no doubt that this measure has been received very well by every section in the community as it will bring very necessary relief to those most deserving of it.

Mrs. Dowdall

I would like to add my small meed of praise to this Bill, which gives these additional benefits to the deserving people named. In the country there is dissatisfaction in the fact that the contributory widows' pensions have not been increased accordingly. It appears to those interested that it is another penalty being put on industrious persons who try to look after their wives and dependents. I am glad that the people who have not contributed are getting an increase, but I am sorry, and most people in the country feel likewise to-day, that the people who have been contributing over the years are not getting some recognition and an increase in their pensions also. These people are in a bad plight and they find 24/- a week a very small amount of money. We agree that when it is all added up it is a vast sum of money, perhaps more than this country can afford to give, but in the allocation of moneys I think Governments and responsible persons ought to give credit where people are trying to help themselves—and in this case that is not being done. The contributory widows' pensions should be increased, even by a small amount, in recognition of the fact that they have helped by their own industry to provide for themselves. We are all grateful that these deserving people are getting increases in their allowances.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Minister mentioned that some Senators may criticise the measure on the grounds that it did not give enough, and I think that is the sentiment of many of us here. I intend to speak mainly about the old age pension rates, and I want to establish some comparisons, but what I say does apply similarly and equally to the widows' pensions. I should like to feel that in this country, where we have had the right to govern our own affairs for over 30 years, in the social improvement that has gradually been brought about in certain spheres and that is still being aimed at by successive Governments, the first place is given to those who will be here least long to enjoy such improvements. I refer to the aged. Therefore, I should like to see the aged, the old age pensioners, take precedence when it comes to finding money for increased pensions and allowances.

I am not satisfied that the extra 2/6 on to the 21/6, bringing the total old age pension to 24/-, is sufficient. I do not feel that to-day an old couple of pensioners—who have to be 70 before they qualify—can live adequately on 48/- a week at the present level of prices.

That brings me to the question of the means test. I notice that, though the amount of money being given to old age pensioners is to be raised, there is no suggested change in the basis of means test. I suggest that when the rates were originally devised for this means test the sums involved meant considerably more than they mean now. In those days, £52 or £104 a year meant in value of goods far more than they mean now, yet we are still applying the same kind of means test.

I should like to ask the Minister, and perhaps he would have figures to reply, just how much it would cost the State were he to decide—if not now, at some future date—to abolish the means test in relation to old age pensions. The Minister is a representative in the inter-Party Government of the Labour Party. I can remember Labour Party conferences year after year discussing resolutions calling on the Government to abolish the means test in relation to old age pensions, and that type of resolution always fell into the category of those being carried unanimously. I am convinced that the Minister is sincerely desirous to see the day when that means test can be abolished, and I would put the question to him in a friendly fashion as to how near he anticipates that day to be.

Furthermore, the old age pension at one time was 10/- a week. In fact, I may be reminded by some Fianna Fáil Senators that there was a time when Cumann na nGaedheal slashed that old age pension from 10/- to 9/-. We look back, all of us here, in the same spirit I think, to the days when old age pensioners were getting 9/- or 10/- a week. I think that to-day all of us would recognise that even in those days that was a wretched rate. I think all of us would recognise that it was not enough, and that it enabled people to live only in abject poverty. I submit that this wretched rate, as it was then, nevertheless to be equalled to-day in terms of goods, in terms of purchasing value, would have to be at the very least 25/- a week—and now we are being asked to raise the old age pension to a miserable 24/- a week. I would suggest that, looking back on those days now, none of us here could be satisfied that old age pensioners in those days were getting fair play at 9/- or 10/- a week. I suggest that even were we to raise the old age pension now to the purchasing power equivalent of about 25/- a week, we still should be doing them no more justice to-day than we did then. Therefore, I should like to see it raised above 25/-, which would be the mere minimum modern equivalent of the pre-war 10/-. I find, however, that unfortunately this Bill sets out simply to raise the old age pension to 24/- per week.

It is obvious—it is not a point I will dwell upon—that comparisons will be made between the old age pensioner living south of the border and the old age pensioner living north of the border, where the United Kingdom retirement pension rates apply. I should like to have a look at the rates in the United Kingdom. We here, to a couple of old age pensioners when they have reached the age of 70, give them the equivalent of 48/- per week for the two of them. That represents £124 per year for both of them to live upon. One thing can be said about that and it is that although it entails a means test it is nevertheless—and this is to the credit of our Government—a non-contributory pension. In the United Kingdom, the main retirement pensions are given at the age of 65 to men and at the age of 60 to women, and they are contributory pensions. They would amount to a sum per year of some £169 for the aged couple. There is one provision which, among others, makes it difficult to establish an exact comparison, because while the old age pensioner in the United Kingdom gets his contributory retirement pension at 65, or her pension at 60, there is a provision which allows them to continue working without drawing the pension immediately—to continue contributing, and not to draw the pension—until, in fact, the man is 70 and the woman is 65. In that case, they will draw a yearly total of £247. It is obvious that a strict comparison is not either possible or wholly fair. There are different situations there. There is the fact that this is a contributory pension, and there is also the fact that taxable resources in Britain are greater than here. Nevertheless, I think the disparity—which is a disparity, as I have mentioned, even between the Twenty-Six Counties and the Six Counties of this country—between £124 a year here and £247 a year in Britain is very great.

I do not want, however, to stress overmuch the comparison with the United Kingdom, but I should like to take one or two other countries and mention as briefly as I can what it has been found possible to do in relation to old age pensions there. The first country I should like to mention is Australia. In Australia——

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is travelling outside the scope of this particular Bill. The Chair thinks it inadvisable that we should court discussion here on this Bill of the economic conditions of the whole wide world. The Senator will try and observe that opinion from the Chair.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I shall endeavour to make my remarks as brief as possible. However, I should be grateful if I were allowed to establish what I think could be done in this country. With your permission, Sir, having mentioned the nearest country, which is not comparable for various reasons of economic structure, and so forth, I should like to mention one or two smaller countries, starting with Australia. I can assure the Chair that I will be brief. I will not make a long speech. I should just like to be permitted to mention the fact that I think you could say that the Australian rate is rather comparable to the Irish rate for, although they pay the pension at 65 and 60, the sum is £175 for an aged couple, and those, of course, are Australian pounds. There is also a means test, but it is a more generous one—and that is a point I should like to make here because it does not stop the pension unless there is an income of over £250 a year. Again, of course, it may be said that Australia is not really comparable. I should like to turn now to three of the smaller countries among whom I should like to see Ireland, free Ireland controlling its own destinies, taking its place in the world to-day.

An Cathaoirleach

I want to point out to the Senator that it would be quite impossible for me to prevent other Senators from pursuing the argument which the Senator is now advancing for the purpose of contradicting him. In that way we could have a very wide discussion on a very narrow Bill. I have indicated to the Senator what the view of the Chair is in this matter and I do not intend to permit discussion on the economic conditions of the many countries which the Senator apparently chooses to have discussed here on this Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

With respect, I am not reviewing the economic conditions of those countries. I want to be permitted to mention what they are doing in relation to old age pensions, which is what we are discussing.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair cannot prevent injustice and cannot prevent other Senators from contradicting the arguments which Senator Sheehy Skeffington is advancing. Accordingly, I am not going to permit a discussion on the economic conditions in those various countries on this Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I would not dream of objecting to any Senator contradicting anything I have to say. In fact, it is part of healthy debate——

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair must determine what is in order on this Bill. The Chair is indicating now to the Senator that we are not going to have that type of discussion on this Bill which he is desirous of having. I say that now and I will not repeat it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Perhaps the Chair would not mind explaining the position a little bit further? Do I take it that you rule it out of order that I should reveal what kind of old age pension is paid in Denmark, Iceland or Finland?

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair is not going to permit a discussion on the economic circumstances of old age pensioners or on the economics in any of these countries on this Bill. If the Senator desires to have such a discussion then there is a method by which he can provide such a discussion, but not on this Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Without discussing the economics or the social background or the structure of these countries, might I be permitted to mention the rates——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will not pursue this line. The Chair has indicated its judgment on this matter. If the Chair has expressed an opinion the Senator must respect that opinion.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I feel, A Chathaoirligh, that you would perhaps better understand my question if you were to allow me fully to phrase it before you answered it. Will you allow me to quote the old age pension rates in relation to those countries?

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator must understand that the Chair has indicated that we are not going to have on this Bill the very wide discussion which the Senator is courting. If the Senator were to be allowed to do that, the Chair could not prevent other Senators from travelling over these same fields, and the Chair has no intention of allowing that. In order to prevent that, Senator Sheehy Skeffington may not pursue that line any further.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I think I have understood the Chair to say "no." I will, therefore, terminate, without making these references, and turn to the point as to where the money might come from, were we to desire to raise the old age pension rates in this country, for whatever reason. That is a legitimate question, and I think it is one that anybody in a debate might put either to me, or to the Minister, or which might legitimately be put by the Minister. The Minister or the Government might say: "It is all very well; we do not yield to anybody in our desire to increase the old age pensions, but where is the money to come from?"

That was the final point which I had intended to make in my speech which has come more quickly to its end under your direction. I would suggest that it would be perfectly possible to raise the old age pensions—and although I refer almost exclusively to old age pensions I have in mind the others, widows' pensions and other pension rates—by means of reframing and reassessing the inauguration of structural changes in our taxation system. I think that it would be possible for the sums involved——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will have a much more suitable opportunity to raise this wide issue either on the Finance Bill or the Appropriation Bill. The Chair is now asking him, please, to deal with the Bill before the House, and what that Bill contains, because that is all that is in order in this discussion.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I naturally bow to your ruling. I do, however, ask the Government and the Minister to increase these old age pension rates, and, if the Minister asks me where the money is to come from, I am bound to reply that this is apparently not the time or the place to give him the answer.

I should like to feel that in this Bill, which is a Social Welfare Bill, we were able to make more obvious our desire —I am speaking generally as a member of the Oireachtas—to treat the weak and the under-privileged in this country better, proportionately, than so far we have found it possible to do. I will conclude with the suggestion that if we want an example of civilised behaviour in this matter we would do well to turn our minds to the Scandinavian small countries of Northern Europe.

Mr. Murphy

I shall endeavour to be very brief in order to facilitate the work of the Seanad. I would like to say that I welcome this measure in that it affords some measure of relief to our most hard-pressed people. I think that the swiftness with which the Minister has introduced this measure—he is a member of a comparatively young Government—indicates his enthusiasm and that it should not be taken as the mark or the measurement of what either he or the Government hopes to achieve in regard to social welfare.

With some other Senators who have already spoken, I think it is regrettable that it has not yet been found possible to increase the pensions for contributory widows and orphans. I appreciate that there is some difficulty in that since the principle there is not the same as in the case of non-contributory widows' pensions. I imagine that a review of the benefits for the contributory widows' and orphans' pensions would also involve a review of the contributions, and that the Minister would need to give careful consideration to that aspect of the matter. It might also be that the Minister would favour a more comprehensive social welfare system altogether.

However, without going too deeply into that, I want to say that this measure is very welcome. The increased benefits are very welcome, especially when they are taken, as they must be taken, in the light of the Budget which gives us subsidised butter and is keeping tea at a low price without any increase in taxation. I again welcome the measure and I hope the Minister will soon be back to us with even more comprehensive and improved benefits for all those people who are covered by the Social Welfare Bill that is before us to-day.

Mr. Hawkins

I, like other Senators who have spoken, welcome the Bill. At the same time I must express—and I am sure that in doing so I am voicing the views of many in this House and outside of it—my very keen disappointment at the Bill before us which makes provision for an increase in old age pensions to the extent of 2/6 per week. There is no provision in it for the removal of the obnoxious means test, about which we heard so much in the past and about which so many promises were made, promises for its removal. While the sum set out in this Bill will be appreciated by the people concerned —old age pensioners, blind persons, widows and orphans—it hardly compensates them for the increases which they have to meet at the present time as regards the cost of various commodities. Therefore, their position will not be any better than it was this time 12 months. Take the 2/6 increase that is being given, and then examine how it is going to be expended by the old age pensioners. Coal has risen by 12/6 a ton in the last few weeks. The prices of potatoes, meat, vegetables, wheaten meal, cocoa, coffee, and a number of other commodities which I could enumerate, have all increased, regardless of the promises that were made to reduce these prices. We are all anxious to help the people concerned in this Bill, but, when regard is had to the increases which have taken place in the price of so many commodities, their position will not be any better than it was 12 months ago.

As a result of the Budget, the Government have an extra £3,000,000 to spend and they wisely considered that this particular section of the people was one that could benefit from it. What I am suggesting is that the benefits are not as real as they appear on paper when it comes to the question of the spending of this 2/6 by the old old age pensioners. Senator Sheehy Skeffington referred to a very important matter, that is, the manner in which means are calculated. Any widow with an income of £52 10s. per year will be entitled to only 22/6. I think that the Minister should have raised the figure in the Schedule when he decided to increase the benefits. I should also like to avail of this opportunity to make a special plea for a section of the people who I think are most deserving—old age pensioners living in urban areas. They are certainly in a much more difficult position than those living in the country. The Local Government Department has undertaken the provision of a certain type of house for persons in this group. The rents are high, and the rates are increasing year by year. Taking into consideration the fact that the old age pensioners will have only 24/6 provided under this Bill, they certainly will have difficulty in eking out an existence towards the end of their lifetime. I think the Minister should take this into consideration as early as possible, and improve conditions for that section, rather than have a general increase all round, if it is a question of using to the best advantage whatever moneys we have at our disposal.

Another argument in favour of my proposal is that when the Book of Estimates was presented early in the year we saw a reduction of £10,000 in the amount for old age pensions. We queried that reduction. Some thought there was foreshadowed a possible tightening-up of the regulations in regard to the granting of pensions but we accepted the reason given by the Minister that it had been found, over the years, that the number of persons qualifying for old age pensions was on the decline and that, therefore, there was a saving of something like £10,000 last year. I accept that that would help to explain the reduction in the amount which we are now providing but, if the Minister's explanation is correct, we should have more sympathy with these classes of people and we should do more to make their position better.

Another very important question arises. The public assistance authorities throughout the country are empowered to give additional allowances to supplement the old age pension in cases where it is deemed essential to do so. I wonder will the granting of this additional 2/6 per week result in placing the persons who are already in receipt of, say, 5/-, 6/- or 10/- from the public assistance authorities, because of a reduction which may be brought about by the local authority, in a worse position than they are in to-day? This is a matter about which, I think, the Minister should make a very definite statement. Local authorities throughout the country have, I think, drawn the attention of the Minister for Finance to the discrepancies which have occurred up and down the country in the granting of disability pensions. Here, again, we can have the position of persons worsened if the local authority does not take a more generous view than many of them are taking at the present time.

This is a very important Bill which provides for the granting of increases to old age pensioners, widows, orphans and blind persons. I appeal to the Minister to consider including also increases for those persons who are entitled to the widows' and orphans' insurance on a contributory basis. I do not agree with Senator Murphy when he said that he understood the Minister would have difficulty in making these increases applicable to insured persons, because it would necessitate an increases in contributions. We have had increases already given to persons of this type without having to increase contributions. That was done prior to 1948. I can quite understand the Minister's difficulty, but I think if he were serious he would be anxious to go much further than he has gone to-day. He has a very difficult time because on many occasions we have heard references being made by his colleagues to social services as being a medical chest from which you take a bottle to give to the patient— just a passing remedy which does not create any permanent improvement in the patient's condition. That view has changed somewhat and I am sure that the Minister will utilise all his energies to bring about a complete change of heart amongst his colleagues, and thereby provide for those persons to whom we have referred even greater security, particularly the old age and blind pensioners, in the end of their days.

Mr. Crosbie

In welcoming this Bill and congratulating the Minister on the speed with which he has acted after the action of the Minister for Finance, might I say to our colleagues on the other side of the House that we regret that the increases are not greater than they are? I was glad to hear Senator Kissane, when he was referring to his regret that these increases were not greater than they are, use the expression that he thought they would hardly be adequate to make up to the old age pensioners and the other pensioners involved for the way they had been treated in the past.

I was particularly glad when Senator Kissane accepted responsibility for the treatment of pensioners of all descriptions in this country over a period of 19 years. If the increases provided in this Bill are not as adequate as we should like to see, might I point out. that that is due to the fact that there were two periods of spend-thrift Government by the friends of Senator Kissane and his colleagues—one period of 16 years followed by another period of three years—which left the national Exchequer in the position that we, in the year 1955, are able to help those people only to the extent provided in this Bill? I should also point out to the Senators on the opposite side that we take an optimistic view of the future of the country and I have no doubt that this time next year we shall have the Minister back in this House with another Bill which will give those unfortunate people something additional.

Mrs. Dowdall

Is that a promise?

Mr. Crowley

I wish to offer my meed of praise to the Minister and the Government for the introduction of this measure. I would also like to say that I join with my colleagues in offering him our congratulations on the speed with which the measure was introduced so soon after the election had taken place. I have only one note of criticism to offer on the Bill itself and that is on the point to which several other Senators have already alluded—the exclusion of the voluntary contributory widows' pension from any increase under this particular measure. The point I would like to put to the Minister is that it seems to me that the exclusion of this category of very deserving people appears to be tantamount almost to putting a premium on improvidence. Furthermore, I would suggest that it is far from offering any encouragement to people, as I underStand the present Government is anxious to do, to provide for themselves the means of facing the contingencies and hazards of life from their own resources. Finally, I would like also to suggest that it is time that the Government should consider the complete abolition of any means test before necessary assistance of this kind is made available to unfortunate people who need it most.

Apart from that note of criticism I have nothing but praise to offer to the Minister and the Government for the introduction of the measure. I am glad to hear Senators from the Government side of the House state that they hope it will be only the beginning of some type of future legislation of this kind that will go at least part of the way towards bringing our social services under this heading into line with the assistance given by all progressive Governments abroad.

Mr. Cogan

Having regard to the very much increased cost of living at the present time and the sharp increase which has taken place during the past year and particularly during the past. few months I think it is inevitable that a measure of this kind should be introduced so as to assist those in the lowest income group. No one will suggest for one moment that 24/- constitutes an excessive income for any person who has no other means of subsistence. It is not a livelihood. It is merely a means of prolonging the existence of such persons. Personally, I have often felt that there should be a closer examination of this whole problem with a view to doing perhaps a little more for those who are absolutely and completely dependent upon the old age pension. There are many people who fall into the classification of having no means but in the last resort if there were no old age pension somebody of their friends or relatives would come to their rescue and prevent them from dying of starvation. Such people are not in quite the same category as those who have no immediate friends or relatives, who have to live in a house or room and pay rent for it, and who have to depend absolutely and completely upon this subvention from the State. I would like to see some special investigation with a view to doing something more for such people.

I am in complete agreement with all those who have spoken in regard to the inconvenience, expense and irritation involved in the means test, but I have never been able to accept completely the view that the means test should be completely abolished. I have never been able to convince myself that a person with £5,000 or £10,000 per year of an income should be granted an old age pension. I do not know why this complete abolition of the means test is so frequently advocated, but I would think that there should be a very drastic modification of the means test. There is, as we know, a very large section of the community who must be classed as in the lower income group.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will observe that I have restricted the debate already and that the general principle of the means test is not in issue.

Mr. Cogan

I thank the Chair.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

On a point of order, may I submit that the details of the means test are set forth in Section 2 of the Bill in relation to widows?

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator's submission has been heard and noted. Senator Cogan.

Mr. Cogan

At any rate, if we are to accept Senator Crosbie's promise that there will be a further Social Welfare Bill further increasing old age pensions and other pensions I hope that the suggestions I have made will be borne in mind and that some attempt will be made to eliminate all investigation in regard to people who are ordinary wage earners, people who have what is known as a health card and are, therefore, classed in the public assistance group. I do not think that because such a person is working for his week's wages—it may be only £4 or £5 a week—that should be taken into consideration at all. When such a person, holding a health card, reaches the age of 70 he should automatically qualify for the old age pension. He would qualify if he told an untruth and said he was not working, but I think he should not be compelled by law to tell that untruth. The same should apply to people with a very small valuation. There should be a complete wiping out of investigation in regard to those with small holdings. That would constitute a certain saving of money to the Department in regard to investigation, and that saving could be passed on to the old age pensioners generally.

Senator Crosbie introduced a sort of acrimonious note into this very amiable discussion when he stated that the fact that it is only a small increase is due to our history over the past 19 years. It is rather strange that he did not go back——

An Cathaoirleach

We do not want any discussion on the last 19 years.

Mr. Cogan

I do not intend to have any discussion on it except to say that if we went back further yet than 19 years we would find that the Senator's friends took 1/- off the old age pension when the pension was only 10/-.

Mr. L'Estrange

How many shillings did you take off in the 1952 Budget? Discuss that.

Mr. Cogan

That is a question I hope I am entitled to answer. I think that it is because of the 1952 Budget that our financial position is now sufficiently strong to enable us to provide this increase of 2/6. We were not in a position to provide it in 1952 but we did in 1952 and during the preceding year provide an increase of 4/- in all—an increase of 2/6 in 1951 and a further increase of 1/6 in 1952, making a total of 4/-, as against the 2/6 provided here.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not want a discussion on the 1952 Budget here to-day and I am not going to permit this line to be pursued any further. The Senator will have an opportunity on the Finance Bill, if he wishes to avail of it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

On a point of order, I think you will remember that the Minister in introducing the Bill made reference to what the position had been before, to what the first inter-Party Government had done, and what it had been possible to do since. I submit respectfully that the indication given by the Minister was that he would welcome that approach.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair rules otherwise. We are not going to have that type of discussion on this Bill to-day.

Mrs. Dowdall

The Minister is out of order, so.

Mr. Cogan

I should be glad if the ruling of the Chair could be conveyed also to Senator L'Estrange.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair will do its best in that matter.

Mr. Cogan

I do not think I can add very much more except to say that this proposed increase, small as it is, will cost something in the nature of £900,000. I feel that that money would not have been available without increased taxation, if it were not for the generosity of the people of the United States who provided £1,000,000 towards these services this year.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will not proceed further on that line.

Mr. L'Estrange

And the £2,000,000 from C.I.E.

Mr. Cogan

I feel that we should express our gratitude to the taxpayers of the United States for this measure.

Professor Fearon

One question has been running through my mind—why the half-crown? According to some of us, it is not nearly enough, and, according to others of us, it is all right and we hope for better luck next time. Old age is not a disease; it is inevitable; and if we escape microbes and motorcars we are all going to be old. The expectation of life is steadily increasing. I have worked out the figures and I think we are paying these benefits to one in 30 of the population at present and I imagine that, in about five years' time, one in 29 point something will be receiving them. For that reason, I was rather surprised to hear Senator Hawkins saying that the number was decreasing. I think that the number of old people receiving these benefits is inevitably going to increase. The number of blind people may decrease, but the number of old people, I think, is going to increase. Consequently, in considering the extent of the welfare benefit, we have to consider something which is going to go on and on, and how are we to get a reasonable figure?

One way to approach it would be in terms of the cost of living and I suppose the most reasonable way would be to give a pensioner a bonus related to the change in the cost of living and then it could rise and fall; but I rather think the departmental difficulties involved in doing that would be very great. The other way is to see what fraction of our national income could we divert to the support of our people, not all of whom are unfortunate but some of whom are. These benefits are costing, I believe, £12,000,000 and the cost, I presume, is going to increase, and if we could get an idea of what would be a fair fraction and distribute that amongst these people we would not have the perpetual contentions that they are not being given enough and that these are small sums indeed. Of course, they are small sums, but we accept them as an indication of the pocket and the heart being in the right place.

At the same time I should be relieved if the Minister would indicate whether there is any steadfast underlying policy with regard to this problem of old age pensions, blind pensions and so on. As I see it, it means that every few years we shall have to give a little more of these wretched dribs and drabs, whereas if we had some policy relating the pension to the cost of living or if we decided that a certain fraction of our national income would be diverted in this way, with a rise in the national income the benefit for these people would increase. Naturally, like all men of goodwill, I strongly support the Bill.

Mr. Corish

I should like to thank the Seanad for their reception of this very short Bill. As I said in another place, my only intention in this Bill was to come immediately to the rescue, so to speak, of old age pensioners, blind pensioners and widows and orphans at present in receipt on noncontributory pensions. I should be the very first to say and to proclaim that, in my opinion, 24/- a week is certainly not sufficient for an old age pensioner to live on and I should like to describe this—and it is only intended to be—as an instalment to these people because they have lagged very far behind for the past 30, 40 or 50 years, ever since old age pensions were first introduced and I should like to assure the Seanad that, within my term as Minister for Social Welfare, this will not be the only increase that will be given to these very necessitous people.

I do not know whether some members of the Opposition Party were in earnest when they talked about an increase in the cost of living or whether they had lost their memories. They said that this would only compensate old age pensioners for the increase in the cost of living and I do not think it would be unfair of me to pose the question: Who is responsible for the abnormal increase in the cost of living since the last increase? I want to give one or two short and simple facts. In April, 1952, the cost-of-living index figure stood at 115; in August, 1952, the cost-of-living index figure stood at 122, due to the proposals embodied in the Budget of 1952. The present Opposition Party at that time tried to justify fully an increase of 1/6 per week to provide for an increase in the cost of living of seven points.

Mr. Cogan

What was the cost of living in August, 1950?

Mr. Crosbie

Learn to take it.

Mr. Corish

I am concerned only with this particular period when those who are now in opposition tried to justify in both Houses of the Oireachtas that 1/6 per week increase for old age pensioners was sufficient to compensate them for that increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Cogan

It has increased from 122 to 126.

Mr. Corish

It has risen from May of last year to the present time by two points. I think this Government are taking care of the old age pensioners for the period during which they have been in office, but, apart from that, they are endeavouring to compensate them and others for the irreparable damage done to them in the 1952 Budget. I do not want to say any more than that and I would not have made any reference at all to it, but for the fact that some members on my right hand side described this increase —though not in quite these words—as a niggardly increase.

Senator Mrs. Dowdall raised the question of increases for those in receipt of contributory pensions and I want to assure her and other members of the Seanad that these will not be forgotten. It was not intended in this Bill to provide for them and for those in the insured classes, but I trust that I will be in a position in the future— in the near future, I hope—to provide for increases not alone for those in receipt of contributory widows' pensions but also those who are in receipt of sickness benefit, unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. That is part of the insurance scheme and let me warn the Seanad that it will necessarily mean an increase in the contributions from the employees, from the employers and, of course, proportionately fom the State itself.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington mentioned the means test and asked me to indicate the cost to the State for the abolition of the test. The latest figure I have is £2,602,000. I want to repeat that as far as I am concerned I am for the abolition. I do not say I will be able to abolish it this year or next year or in the near future but I certainly agree with the principle and if it is within my power in the future, however long or short it may be, I certainly will give fullest consideration to it.

I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington would be the first to agree that if the Government or I had £2,500,000 to dispose of, it would be better to devote it to increases in existing pensions rather than to the abolition of the means test.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Would the Minister consider raising the level at which the means test is initially applied, without fully abolishing it?

Mr. Corish

I was going to refer to that. I merely wanted to give this information as requested by the Senator. It was not my intention nor the Government's intention in this Bill to interfere with the means test but I certainly agree with those members here who said that it is due for revision. It is not long ago since it was revised. The Senator was under a misapprehension when he said that the scale now laid down has been in operation for a long time. This scale for the means test was introduced in the Social Welfare Act, 1952. I think there is a case for a revision in certain parts of it and it certainly will have my consideration.

Senator Fearon asked if the Government would consider what part of our national income we should devote to old age pensions or whether we would consider some other means of allotting a certain portion of the State's income to those necessitous people. Senator Sheehy Skeffington also referred to Great Britain and spoke about the rates given there. Having regard to our financial resources, I think we can compare reasonably well with Britain, when I mention that we are devoting 2.4 per cent. of our national income to old age and blind pensions while Britain is devoting about 2.5 per cent. As the Senator himself rightly admitted, their financial resources are such as to enable them to give substancially more than we can.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I wonder if the Minister has got comparable figures for Iceland and Denmark?

Mr. Corish

I am afraid the Cathaoirleach would not allow me to talk about Iceland or Denmark.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister is quite correct.

Mr. Corish

I think these were the main points raised by members of the Seanad, so with the assurance that this is not the full programme but only a small part of the programme in social welfare that the Government has to implement during its term of office, let me again assure Senators that, as far as other benefits are concerned, in accordance with the policy of the Government they will be improved as soon as possible.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to put one question, for clarification. The Minister very kindly gave us figures for the cost of abolishing the means test. Does that mean for old age pensions and widows' pensions?

Mr. Corish

Just old age pensions and blind pensions.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Thank you, Sir.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages now.

Bill considered in Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Kissane

Sub-section (2) says that the date on which the provisions of the Bill will come into operation is the 29th July. No doubt between this and then the necessary machinery will be set up to grant these increases. Reference has been made to the means test. I did not refer to it, but in view of the discussion I would like to ask the Minister if he would agree that in recent times the application of the means test is more rigid than it used to be.

Mr. Corish

That is an allegation that is made on every change of Government.

Mr. Kissane

I do not know if there is any foundation for what I am saying, but there is a feeling abroad that there is a more rigid application of the means test. If there is to be increased rigidity, the benefits we are giving in this Bill will be largely negatived. I would like the Minister to bear that in mind between now and the coming into operation of the scheme.

Mr. Corish

The test of that is that there will be over £1,000,000 extra provided in 12 months. I assure the Senator there is no change in the application of the means test for old age pensions, widows' pensions or any other type of social welfare benefit.

Mr. Hawkins

I take it, then, that the form of operation of this particular section will be that every person who is in receipt of an old age pension or blind pension at the moment will receive an additional 2/6 on the 29th July without any further investigations or being put into new categories according to means or anything else. Is that the procedure?

Mr. Corish

Every pensioner in receipt of the 6/6, 11/6, 16/6 and 21/6 will automatically get 2/6 a week and there will be no review in consequence of this Bill. There will be the ordinary review, but no special review. As the Senator knows, old age pensions are reviewed from time to time but that is a practice that has been going on for years and years. No special investigation will be made to see whether or not this 2/6 is to be given. It will be granted automatically to all pensioners on the 29th July.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.