Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1959

Vol. 51 No. 3

Public Business. - Social Welfare Bill, 1959—Committee and Final Stages.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

On Section 1, which is the section giving the half-crown increase, I wish to say, arising to some extent from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said in his reply, that this half-crown is not enough. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary— he did not advert to it—whether he is now satisfied that the 10/- a week which was being paid by Cumann na nGaedheal was enough, because he is doing no better. It is all very well to say it is not possible to do everything we wish to do but is he really satisfied that the Government, in doing precisely what Cumann na nGaedheal did 30 years ago, are doing the best possible? I should like to hear whether the Government are prepared now to retract what they said then about the stinginess of Cumann na nGaedheal or whether they feel they themselves are behaving in an equally stingy manner. Is the 27/6 a week, which is the equivalent of the 10/-, really enough? I am disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be so satisfied that we cannot do better.

The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken of the institutions, and he is quite right in two points he makes. One is that many of these old people living alone would be better off in institutions. There is no doubt about that. I think he is also right in saying that a large measure of progress has been made in such institutions, though I am sure he will agree that quite a lot more progress must be made. Anybody who has walked the wards of such institutions where you see consecutive wards of 30, 40 and 50 people will realise there is much to be done still.

However, I should like to relate this to the increase of half a crown and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the rough average figure he thinks it would cost to keep these old age pensioners in institutions. He has the figure at his finger-tips and I am prepared to bet it is considerably more than 27/6d. a week. If it is not £5 a week, I shall be very much surprised. I should like to hear his comment particularly since in an institution all the buying, catering and overheads are considerably less—because they are bulked—and because in some cases the institutions cater for thousands of people—than in the case of the individual buying as an individual in the market. The institution's costs are less per individual and yet they cannot do it at 27/6d. a week. Why should we ask our old age pensioners, whether they be living alone or not, to struggle along on an absurdly unrealistic figure?

Mr. Kennedy

The cost in institutions is based not alone on the food consumed but on the cost of the nursing staff, and so on. All the costs are bulked together and the cost per head is taken into account. I cannot give the Senator the cost of the food per individual, but when we talk of institutions and the cost per head, we take into account the physician or physicians, the nurses, the wardsmaids, the medicines and other items associated with an institution. I have no recollection, and I cannot supply the information in this debate, of the cost per head of the food consumed by the individual, but I am sure it is not very high with bulk purchases and so on.

The Senator wants to draw a comment from me about what we said about Cumann na nGaedheal and what we think now. We were criticising 9/- a week that time, not 10/-. There is a big difference between 9/- and 10/- in relation to money values.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Do you say that 10/- was enough?

An Cathaoirleach

Any further discussion on this will be out of order.

Mr. Kennedy

Nobody thinks that anything is enough. I have a very open mind on what is enough and what is not enough, but you are in a world of realism and you have to cut your cloth according to your measure. You reach a point in taxation and expenditure when the game is not worth the candle, when what you give is not worth the paper it is written on. We should like to give more if we could but the last straw breaks the camel's back. A time might come when the State might find it very difficult to meet all its commitments, and there are other commitments. A Government have to look ahead and in planning have to bear that in mind. In those conditions, we are doing fairly well in this Bill.

Mr. O'Leary

I was greatly disappointed when the Parliamentary Secretary said they are doing very well. A few weeks ago in the Dáil, the Taoiseach's Parliamentary Secretary said the pound is worth 7/5d. What is half a crown worth to-day? It is a disgraceful act at this stage, with the cost of living never as high as it is, that we are offering the old age pensioner this meagre increase, after their 70 long years; some of them cannot even get the full amount because of the means test.

The Parliamentary Secretary asks where the money will come from. I have a circular here which was sent out to all Senators and Deputies. It deals with the Land Project and I should like to quote from it to see whether or not we are giving justice to the old age pensioners——

An Cathaoirleach

That would not be in order. Senator O'Leary may not discuss the Land Project on this section.

Mr. O'Leary

A figure of £11,814,428 is shown here for the Land Project, and the Government cannot find £1 million or £½ million for the old age pensioners. That is a question I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary: where do they get these millions for the Land Project when they cannot get anything for the old age pensioners who are the fathers and mothers of some members of the community? Some of them have 5/- or 10/- a week. I have with me a letter from an old I.R.A. man——

An Cathaoirleach

May I remind the Senator that he should have made this speech on the Second Reading.

Mr. O'Leary

I did not think the Parliamentary Secretary would conclude so quickly.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator had his opportunity to speak and he could have spoken, if he had indicated his desire to do so to the Chair.

Mr. O'Leary

I thought the Chair would not allow me, and I think that I am entitled to say that on this section. Surely we are allowed to say that we are not satisfied. I represent the workers and I would be sorry if it went down the country that this measure had been allowed to pass through the Seanad without any Labour man challenging and exposing it to the Seanad.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should be aware that a Labour Senator spoke on the Second Reading.

Mr. O'Leary

I am entitled to speak on this section.

An Cathaoirleach

Provided the Senator is in order.

Mr. O'Leary

I want to criticise the Parliamentary Secretary, his Department and the Government, for the way in which they are treating the old age pensioners and the widows. I am sure I would not be out of order in doing that. If I am, we should not be here at all, because we cannot voice the opinions of the people who sent us here.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will come to the section.

Mr. O'Leary

Senator Carter said that the previous Government did not do anything, but when Deputy Corish was Minister for Social Welfare, he did a lot. He gave 5/-, not 2/6d., and the cost of living was lower then than it is today. After the promises made at the last general election that they would be better off, they are worse off today than ever before. Let us be honest about it because there is no use in being dishonest. They are starving in the midst of plenty. The names of the institutions today are changed. Instead of being called county homes, they are now called after some Saint, but that does not make them a whole lot better. The county councils will not provide enough money. We give six shillings a week to the blind, but we are not allowed to give six shillings extra to the old age pensioners. That is where the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong. I tried a few times to speak at a meeting of my own county council on that but I was ruled out of order. We would like to help the old age pensioners and the widows if we had the power, but no one has that power except the Government and the responsible people in the Department of Social Welfare.

The tax on dog racing was reduced the day after the Budget, as was the tax on dancing, but the poor old age pensioner may wait until after August to get the miserable 2/6, and he will not get any back money. That is a disgrace in this State after years of native government. The cost of living was forced up when the Government withdrew the food subsidies and the Parliamentary Secretary brags and boasts that they are doing something when they are really doing nothing. It is a shame, and I ask Senators who support the Government, to voice their opinions and tell us whether the old age pensioners and the widows in their constituencies are living in luxury. They are not in my constituency, and well I know it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will now come to Section 1 or resume his seat.

Mr. O'Leary

Sections are no use; it is action we want.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will resume his seat.

Mr. O'Leary

I will, but I have said what I wanted to say. Printed papers and sections are all a wash out, so far as the people are concerned.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will resume his seat.

Mr. Kennedy

May I remind the Senator that we are providing in a year £11,462,000 for old age pensioners. He talked about £11,000,000 for the Land Project.

Mr. O'Leary

For pipes in the fields.

Mr. Kennedy

If we did not have wheat, beet and potatoes growing in the fields, and if the fields were not supporting cattle, we would not have any money to give to the old age pensioners or to anybody else, and printed paper would be no good to anybody. Senators like Senator O'Leary must realise that taxation has to be got out of the sweat and effort of the people.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

This is the section which deals with the means test. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the means test level has been changed several times and that the last time it was changed was in 1952. I suggest to him that 1952 is too long ago—it is seven years ago—and if it was considered in 1952 that a person with £2 a week should not have a pension, it should be remembered that £2 a week in 1952 bought quite appreciably more than £2 a week buys now. Therefore, it is high time this means test scale which appears here in the Table was revised. After all, in 1952, the cost of living index figure was 122 and it is now 146 or 147, which is 20 per cent. higher. It is 20 per cent. higher today than it was in 1952 and, therefore, I am not satisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that this scale has been changed constantly and that it was changed in 1952. I should like to see it changed in 1959.

Mr. O'Quigley

When the Parliamentary Secretary was dealing with Section 1, he did not seem to be very au fait with one of the fundamental statistics in relation to social welfare. He could not tell us what is the cost of food, or what is the cost of maintaining an individual, in a single institution in this country per day or per week. One would think that when the Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with old age pensioners and widows and orphans, he would at least know what it costs to maintain a single person as regards the item of food. It speaks very badly for him that he could not give a more clear answer to Senator Sheehy Skeffington's questions.

I referred to the scale of means tests set out in the Table in Section 3 and I was guilty of an understatement when I said that the cost of living had risen by 25 per cent. since 1952. The Parliamentary Secretary again displays a great knowledge of statistics when he throws up his hands and says that I am talking nonsense and that he does not know what I mean. Might I say for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary that the cost of living figure stood at 114 in February, 1952, and in February, 1959, it stood at 146? That is an increase of 32 points which works out at an increase of 28 per cent.

The Parliamentary Secretary was dealing with the difference between 9/- and 10/- in 1932 and he made play with the fact that there was 1/- in the difference—a difference of 10 per cent. When he comes to an increase of 25 per cent. in the cost of living, I would expect that some consideration would be given, as apparently it has not been given by the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government, to increasing the amount of income which a person can have before he can qualify for the different rates set out in the Schedule. I think it is high time that instead of devoting their attention to other things which do not affect the lives of the people in an intimate way——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That is what you think.

Mr. O'Quigley

——the Government should get down to deal with the business they are charged to deal with since the last election.

Mr. Kennedy

It is not the function of the Department of Social Welfare to have statistics about the cost of maintenance of people in institutions.

Mr. O'Quigley

It seems to be very fundamental.

Mr. Kennedy

It is not fundamental at all. I do not accept that. Senator Sheehy Skeffington is right in his figures or Senator O'Quigley——

Mr. O'Quigley

The Parliamentary Secretary may take it they are. We have the figures.

Mr. Kennedy

They do not agree. I made no great play. I hurt the Senator's loyalty and allegiance to Fine Gael when I referred to the simple matter of 9/- and 10/-. If it is hurtful to the Senator, I am awfully sorry because he is more concerned with that than he is with the welfare of the people benefiting under this. The point which Senator Sheehy Skeffington raises in regard to widows' noncontributory pensions is a problematical one. We have attempted in Social Welfare not to have three different scales of means test. We think that, in the long run, it is best to have a means test, say, for the widows and orphans, the old age pensioners, noncontributory pensions and unemployment recipients. We endeavour to have them all on the one level.

Mr. O'Leary

What about the children's allowances then?

Mr. Kennedy

That is a debatable point all right. I am not going into that now.

Mr. O'Leary

It would be a good job because you might be able to give more to the old age pensioners.

Mr. Kennedy

There is a school of thought which represents the view of my Party.

An Cathaoirleach

May I suggest that the discussion of children's allowances would be out of order?

Mr. Kennedy

It is the most important service we have. It even has precedence over old age pensions.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

May I make a point? When I quoted 122 as the cost of living in 1952, I was quoting the August figure. Senator O'Quigley was quoting the January or February figure. In 1951, it was 111. It is very probable that the figure of 114 for January and February, 1952, is correct. I was quoting the August figure in respect of 1952, 122, and 1958, 146. The point I make about the means test is not that there should be different levels for different categories. but that the level is now too low. One hundred and four pounds a year in 1952 meant a level of real wealth which it does not mean today. There is a difference of at least 20 per cent., and that should be allowed for in this means test Table in 1959.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without recommendation.

Bill received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.