PUBLIC SAFETY (PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES) TEMPORARY BILL, 1924.—SECOND STAGE. - OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL—SECOND STAGE. – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Thursday, 21 Feb 1924

PUBLIC SAFETY (PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES) TEMPORARY BILL, 1924.—SECOND STAGE. - OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL—SECOND STAGE.

Mr. BLYTHE (Minister for Finance)

This Bill is brought before the Dáil to give effect to a proposal which was outlined some months ago. It is necessary, owing to the state in which we find ourselves financially, that a great reduction shall be made in expenditure. That reduction it will be very difficult to effect in full. There is no way of avoiding it, however. We cannot afford to increase taxation in this country. As a matter of fact, even if we did increase taxation, we would not save, say, people like Old Age Pensioners from whatever hardship this cut will involve. Increased taxation would undoubtedly mean an increase in expenditure. An increase in taxation, moreover, would have its result in increasing unemployment, and in further handicapping every industry in this country. Deputies have to bear in mind that at present taxation is on a distinctly higher level here than in Great Britain or the Six Counties. We cannot, if we have any prudence at all, contemplate any increase in taxation.

The only thing left for us is to effect whatever cuts we can effect. The whole question of economy is continually before us. Nothing that has occurred since the proposal to cut the old-age pensions was first mentioned to the Dáil has in any way eased the situaiton. People feel easier in their minds and feel more confident as to the future in consequence of the success of the National Loan. The Loan and the way in which it was subscribed proved that our credit is good at the moment. But our credit could not continue good if we do not balance the Budget. If we follow the example of the man who when in difficulties, through over-expenditure of some sort or bad conduct of his business, succeeded in getting accommodation and then as a result of getting that accommodation felt so easy in his mind that he did not bother to improve his position in any way, it would be a very serious matter. We have been able to borrow, but unless we show that we are in a position to pay, that we are not going to put ourselves in a position of having to borrow to pay our interest, then we will not easily be able to borrow in the future. If we do not take any steps that may be necessary and possible, no matter how difficult and unpopular it may be, the result would eventually be that we would be faced with the necessity which the Government of another country has had to face—that is to say an increase of 20 per cent. or 50 per cent, of our taxation all round. If we had to have drastic increases in taxation it would do more harm to everybody concerned than the economies proposed.

In considering the question of the old-age pensions we must realise that the thing that matters is really purchasing power. It would not serve the old age pensioners to continue their pensions at the present money level and follow a course that would reduce very seriously the purchasing power of the money given them. It would be quite possible for us to adopt a course of inflation by which it would be easy enough to pay 10s. a week. The 10s. a week that we would pay in such circumstances would not be anything like the value of the 9s. a week in the present circumstances to the old age pensioners. We decided on a cut of 1s. because the cost of living figure was 180. That means that the value of the new pension of 9s. a week is equal to the pre-war pension of 5s. a week. There has been some fluctuation in the cost of living figure since then, but that fluctuation is largely due to seasonable circumstances which we have no reason to contemplate will mean that the cost of living is going to be above 180 per cent. As a matter of fact every advice that we can get is that the cost of living will go down considerably below 180. If it does not go down and if it cannot be brought down below 180, it is going to be a very serious thing for this country. As the Minister for Agriculture has pointed out, the main industry of the country is selling its products at something like 30 or 40 per cent. above pre-war prices and it has to purchase at a cost of 180 or more above pre-war. If those costs cannot be brought down it will be a very serious thing indeed to the country. We believe that they can be brought down and that they will come down, and consideration of means to bring them down is going on. Many obstacles have intervened to prevent the cost coming down, but we believe that it can be brought down in some substantial measure.

The old age pension was fixed at 10s. when the cost of living was really between 110 and 120 above pre-war. While the Committee which recommended the increase to 10s. was sitting the cost of living was between 105 per cent. and 110 per cent. above pre-war. By the time the report had been printed the cost of living had risen to 120 per cent. above pre-war. Subsequently it went very much higher than that, but the old age pension remained at 10s. a week. As a matter of fact, the cut which has been proposed will actually leave the old age pensioners a great deal better off, from the point of view of purchasing power, than they were for a very considerable period after the pension was increased to 10s. We are far from desiring to inflict any hardship. We do not desire, moreover, to follow the cost of living down in the matter of old age pensions. That is, we do not contemplate cutting the old age pension another shilling if, say, the cost of living falls to 160. The British Committee which recommended the 10s. pension contemplated that ultimately the cost of living would go down below the figure at which it was when the pension was fixed. The Committee, at any rate, whatever the British Government may have done, contemplated that with the fall in the cost of living the value of the 10s. would increase, and that thereby the old age pension would increase in reality. That is, that the purchasing power, the value of the pension to the pensioner, would increase and would be allowed to increase. We would desire ourselves that the value of the pension should be allowed to increase, and that we should not make cuts as the cost of living went down. We would not propose to make a cut now if it were not for the dire financial necessity under which we labour.

We have other proposals in the Bill in regard to the scale of means. Those proposals were put in because we desired not to make further cuts in the maximum pension. We have not figures at the present time showing the means of the people who are receiving the maximum pension, but investigations that have been carried out show that a considerable number of those in receipt of the maximum pension have private means exceeding 7s. per week. We believe that by effecting a further reduction in the pension of those whose private means exceed 7s. per week, we will be able to save about another £200,000. Our view is that getting in this way £500,000 from this particular service we have got all that we are entitled to take or look for. It has been pointed out to us that at present pensioners over the Border are receiving 10s. a week, and that we propose to cut the pensioners on our side of the Border to 9s. a week. We regret that. It is not our intention to widen that disparity further than the single shilling. We believe that, whatever other things we may have to do to affect Budget equilibrium, we should not take more out of this particular service than we will get by the shilling cut and by the alteration in the means scale. It will be a matter of difficulty.

It is very easy to say you should get £200,000 or £300,000 here or there, but when you come to effect any economies you find it is not such an easy thing at all, and that it requires a good deal of effort to get any economy actually carried into effect. We are hindered in certain particular ways through the Treaty, and also in other respects, because you have to carry your economies through in such a way as not to cause serious discontent or serious loss of efficiency in the service. I do not mind mere verbal discontent, or an expression of the discontent which you are bound to have whenever any salaries or wages are cut, but real discontent is a serious matter. It will be, I know, an exceedingly difficult thing to arrive at Budget equilibrium, because there are always demands for fresh expenditure. These arise out of old promises, as in the case of the resigned and dismissed R.I.C. They also arise out of more recent circumstances. For instance, there is the Army Pensions Act which has come into operation by which a considerable sum will have to be spent on pensions to those who were disabled and wounded. While you are effecting economies you cannot avoid undertaking from time to time certain new heads of expenditure. In the matter of education for instance, you have certain increases pledged to the secondary teachers. I would like the Dáil to realise the extreme difficulty there will be in effecting a reduction of recurrent expenditure to anything approaching a sum of £3,000,000 per annum. That £3,000,000 per annum would suffice to balance the Budget only if we had an Army costing not more than £2,000,000 per annum. Of course, we cannot have that next year. We cannot have a balanced Budget in the year beginning the 1st April next, as there will, in addition to the Army, be other nonrecurring expenditure, such as compensation payments, which will still be going on. I feel that it is absolutely essential for the future of this country that in the following financial year there should be a balanced Budget when all the outgoings should be paid out of income, and that no borrowing should take place other than, perhaps, borrowing for capital expenditure. If we were doing works of drainage or reclamation, it would be legitimate to borrow. In the year after the next financial year we must have no borrowing for expenditure under ordinary heads. We cannot examine a measure like this simply from the point of view of the old age pensioners and their circumstances. While we cannot afford to neglect this element we cannot act on it entirely, and we cannot have regard to this merely from the point of view of the case that some person with a gift for emotional oratory may put up. We have hard facts to face. We have a definite responsibility, and it is our duty to carry the country through the present financial danger and stress, and put it safely on its feet. For my part, I would be quite willing to acknowledge, if we were out of the difficulties we are in, and if we were in a position to undertake any increase in expenditure, that it is to such a service as this I would like to make the first restoration, if restoration was possible. Meantime, we have to do the necessary thing. By making this cut I believe that we are not actually taking anything at all from the pensioners that would not come off them as a result of our neglect to carry out the economies that are contemplated. I believe the immediate result, following any reluctance to take whatever steps may be necessary to balance the Budget, would be a certain tightening of the purse against us when we came to borrow, which would, of necessity, mean increased taxation and a raising of the cost of living on these old people to an extent that might be greater than the 1s. cut. The members of the Dáil who have already discussed this Bill and voted on it, at any rate on the major proposition in it, understand the matter sufficiently so that I think I need not labour it.

With regard to the changes in the scale of means, my feeling is that the people whose case is hardest, when you come to make any cuts, are old persons who have no private means whatever, or practically no means, and who exist, or try to exist, on the pension alone. Their case is one on which we must experience a certain feeling of difficulty in deciding to make the change contemplated. However, when we come to deal with those who have a weekly income of 7s., 8s. or 9s., or more, their case is not nearly so hard. It is not proposed, as a result of this change in the scale of means, that there should be any reduction in the rate of pension below the maximum to persons having means not exceeding 7s. a week. Under the scale, a man or woman having 8s. a week, it is contemplated, will get a pension of 8s. If such a person has 9s. weekly, then the pension will be 7s. We feel that the reduction will not bear hardly on the old people. It will mean such a further saving to the Exchequer as will enable us to put out of our minds the question of further cuts in pensions, unless there is some reduction in the cost of living, which nobody contemplates, and which will very clearly indicate that the whole matter was one that might be taken up again. It enables us to say that there would be no question of a further cut of 1s. if the cost of living figure were to go down to 160, and there would be no question of increasing further than the 1s. contemplated the disparity which will exist between the rate of pension of those on the two sides of the Border. The Bill contains certain other changes with regard to the transfer of property.

Mr. WILSON

Before the Minister passes from that, could he tell us how many persons receiving pensions have no other means of existence?

Mr. BLYTHE

I could not. There is no means of knowing that, at the present time, without reviewing the whole list of pensions. The only returns we have available are those showing that a person has not means exceeding £26 5s. Those whose means are less than that are simply bulked together, and probably nearly 20 per cent. of them would have means exceeding 7s. per week. Nothing but a merely rough estimate of it can be given at the present time. Figures would only be available as a result of a review of all the pensions. In any case, I should certainly say that 80 per cent.—it might be more than 80 per cent., but I could not be tied to a figure because there is nothing firm to go on—or the vast majority of the old age pensioners would have 9s. per week, just as the vast majority of pensioners at present have 10s. per week.

At the present time the number of pensioners in receipt of 10s. per week in the Saorstát is 115,215; the number in receipt of 8s., 3,751; the number in receipt of 6s., 4,080; the number in receipt of 4s., 2,004, and then there are 437 in receipt of 2s. The vast majority of the pensioners receive 10s. per week, and of those the great majority would not be affected in any way by the change in the mean scale. Only one-fifth, or less, would be so affected, and they would be people who would compare favourably, even having suffered a further reduction, with the majority of the old age pensioners. So far as we can calculate, the total saving which would be effected by this Bill would be about £500,000. I move the Second Reading of the Bill.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The question is, that this Bill be read a second time.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister told us in the last few words of his speech that he has not the figures on which he based the proposed reductions; that in fact, the alterations are rather a "leap in the dark," quite arbitrary, that he had fixed on retrieving £500,000 from this expenditure, and that he then proceeded to find a way of doing it. I would have liked, and I think the Dáil had a right to demand, that an explanation of this Bill should be given. We are very far from having had any explanation of what the Bill means or what it is designed to achieve, except the bald assurance that it will save on this service, as it is called. £500,000. That, forsooth, towards making the Budget balance! The State Budget is to balance, and it is left to Providence and the discretion of the old age pensioners as to how their Budget is to balance.

The Bill has been circulated, but I make a guess that not twenty out of the 105 members of the Dáil know what is involved in it or have made any attempt to find out what these old Acts, which are referred to in the Bill provide, or what the actual change is that is contemplated by this Bill. We are in the unfortunate position, by virtue of the defect in the Stationery Department, that access to old Acts referred to in a Bill like this is not easily obtained, and there is quite a considerable delay in getting possession of Acts of the British Parliament which are referred to in Bills presented to the Dáil. I would suggest to Ministers that it is not an unreasonable thing to ask that some explanation should be presented in the printed document of what the references are to old Acts, to which access is not easily obtained. We were told by the Minister some months ago that he was proposing to introduce economies from this service and that he was going to cut down the expenditure by a shilling. In November, he said much the same as he has said to-day. On November 2, he said:—

"The fact must be recognised that the resources of the country are not equal to the present burden of the old age pension charge. The Government, in their desire to extend every consideration possible to the old people affected, are confining their proposal in this matter to the most moderate limit permissible, and accordingly will not ask for a reduction of more than one shilling on the present rate of pension. Legislation on this matter will be introduced almost immediately, and will deal with some points about means and other details, as well as the actual pension rate."

Everybody interpreted that as meaning that there was to be a 10 per cent. reduction, and the sum of £300,000 was mentioned as approximately the amount of saving that would be effected—that is, 10 per cent. of the total. But the Bill that is now before us is designed to effect a reduction of half a million—that is, £200,000 more than was generally believed to be the intention. £200,000 more than they were threatened with is to be taken from the old age pensioners, and the method of doing this is not simply a reduction in the amount of the pension of one shilling, or of 10 per cent.

Deputies who have read the Bill and endeavoured to understand it will realise that the cut is to be effected by two stages, and that it deals with persons who are at present in receipt of pensions and those who will come into receipt of pensions after a certain date. After the first appointed day every person entitled to a pension will receive from 1s. to 4s. per week less than he would have had the Bill not been passed; and in many cases the persons who are now qualified to receive pensions will be disqualified from receiving any pension whatever.

This cut is effected first by a reduction in the actual pension, and secondly by a disqualification on account of private means at a lower level than has hitherto prevailed. I would request the attention of the farmer Deputies and gentlemen of the Independent Party and those other Deputies who come from the country to the very much less favourable method of calculating the annual value of property under the Bill. The general effect of this is not a cut of 10 per cent. only but in reality it is a reduction in the standard of living, purchasable by the income of the pensioner by 20 per cent. That is to say where the existing scheme allows of £1 of a total income, the new scheme will allow only 16s. of a total income— in effect a reduction of 20 per cent. in the standard of livelihood of the pensioners. The Minister has made a good deal of reference to the purchasing power of the pensions and the purchasing power of the incomes of the pensioners, and in every case he has followed the bad example of the cost-of-living index figure, which always dates back to 1914. Why does the Minister choose 1914? When he is comparing the pensions and the value of the pensions surely it would have been more natural to have gone back to the date when the pensions were fixed—1908— the Act came into force in 1909. I submit that in any fair examination of this question we have the right to take the value of 5s., the pension, or the value of the total income allowed under that original scheme—namely, 13s., when making a comparison of the purchasing power of the pension which is proposed. Because bear in mind there was a steady rise in the cost of commodities from 1909 to 1914.

The Minister has pointed out that the increased rate of 10s. was advised by a Committee which reported at the time that the cost-of-living index figure was from 105 to 110 over the July, 1914, figure, and they recommended doubling the pension. The Minister also pointed out that following the fixation of 10s. there was a steady rise in the cost of living, and consequently the pensioners were deprived of some of the advantages due to the lessened purchasing power of their pensions. The Dáil must bear in mind in considering the general conditions in these countries during this time the state of employment, the rates of wages that were ruling, and that every old man or old woman found it far simpler to supplement the pensions then than to-day. Old men and women of the working classes, living with their sons and their daughters, in full work and, indeed, perhaps all the family working, did not feel the effect of a rise in prices upon the pension quite so seriously as the effect would have been at a time when trade was bad and unemployment or short employment was rife. The same applied to pensioners who live in the country districts, and who were able much more easily to supplement the value of their pensions at a time of rising prices in agricultural products than they could to-day.

It is, therefore, necessary to get a true picture to make a comparison of the purchasing power of the pension and of the purchasing power of the pensioners' total income in 1909, with that pension and total income to-day. An examination from that point of view will reveal some very interesting and very important facts from the pensioners point of view. The index figure for household commodities ordinarily consumed in working class households, that is mainly food, is 207 to-day, as compared with 100 in January, 1909.

For the purpose of this comparison I am going to assume that it is simply double, 100 per cent. increase, as between 1909 and 1924. So that to place a pensioner in an equal position to that in which he found himself in 1909 he should be allowed a total allowance of 26s. instead of, as the Bill proposes, a total income of 16s. We are to satisfy the demands of the public for a decent livelihood for the aged by reducing them in their standard of comfort, from 26s. in 1909 under the British regime to 16s. under the Free State regime in 1924 and 1925. That is what we are paying for freedom. That is what the old age pensioners are paying for freedom. The great majority of pensioners to-day are in receipt of the full 10s. That is to say, out of 125,000 in receipt of pensions, 115,000 are held to have an income of not exceeding 10s, and, therefore, are entitled, if other qualifications allow, to a pension of 10s., making a total income of 20s. It is proposed to reduce that 10s. in all cases to 9s. But within six months we are to have a very great change. We are to have the total income—apart from pensions to be allowed—of 7s., so that the total pension and private income must not exceed 16s. The pensioner who is living entirely, as so many do, upon his pension, will feel the loss of 1s. very severely. Those who have been able to supplement that pension by some charity, perhaps, or by the assistance of relatives who may be able to house them, will, of course, suffer accordingly.

I want to ask the Dáil to consider another class of pensioner—those who have a small income, those who have in the past been virtuous in the way that the Minister for Finance and his colleagues, who preached the virtues of thrift in respect of Savings Certificates a couple of days ago, would have them to be. What is to be the position of the hundreds and thousands of men and women who have attempted in their earlier days to prepare for old age, and to save a few pounds or who purchased an annuity, or bought a house, or paid into Friendly Societies, or paid into their Trade Unions for superannuation? I want to ask the Dáil what is to be the position of those men who have had the prevision to think of their old age in the way the Minister and his colleagues are now advocating that the present generation should think? Really, when one reads this Bill one sees very little encouragement to the citizen to make provision for his old age, when two days after the advocacy of thrift he is met with the proposal to penalise him for his thrift, and he realises that had he but been foolish enough, or, shall I say, as he might say, as the old man or woman might say, had the country not been as foolish as to cut itself adrift, he would have been looking forward to no penalty whatever for having been thrifty. He would have read the speech of the British Prime Minister in the late Administration, supported by the speech of the Prime Minister in the present Administration in Britain, both agreeing that they will remove the disqualifications at present limiting the amount of the pension to be paid to those who have been thrifty and also have saved something for their old age.

This is the kind of thing we are to be faced with when trying to persuade our people that freedom meant and should mean a better livelihood. The Minister told us, in November, I think, that the old age pension was never intended to be more than a supplement to other income; that it was never intended to be sufficient to provide a livelihood of itself. Well, nobody who has any experience in buying food to-day will expect that even 10s. would provide a means of livelihood. But I want to ask the Dáil to take into consideration those thrifty people who have made some attempt to provide for their declining years, and desire to save themselves from what they thought the opprobrium of pauperism. In 1909 the person who had through superannuation from a Trade Union, or Friendly Benefits an income of 10s. per week, was able under the original Act to obtain a pension of 3s., making a total income of 13s. To equal that 13s. to-day in purchasing power, which the Minister quite rightly emphasises, he would require to have an income of 26s. a week. If he had at all times been kept abreast of the 1909 standard, he would have required to have 32s. 6d. in 1920. But as has been pointed out, the pensions did not rise concurrently with the cost of living, and, consequently, the pensioner was to that extent the loser, but he was able to bear the loss in most cases easier by virtue of the fact that his friends and relatives were generally in receipt of incomes derived from higher wages and more frequent and more constant employment. I say the thrifty citizen of 1909 still in receipt of 10s. superannuation would now only receive 6s. of pension as the value of the total income has fallen by 39 per cent. It has fallen in its purchasing power from 100 to 61; that is the way we are proposing to make the old age pensioners content with their lot. Well, now take the case of the old man or old woman who thought that he or she was making proper provision for his or her old age by buying a house. Deputy Good will probably be interested in this because it really affects a very large number of his constituents.

Mr. GOOD

They cannot afford a house to-day.

Mr. JOHNSON

No, the old age pensioners cannot afford a house to-day.

Mr. GOOD

Labour is too costly.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am dealing with houses that were built when labour was not costly—when labour was cheap, too cheap—and when Deputy Good and his predecessors were able to take advantage of it, but did not. I mean to say they did not take advantage of it in building houses.

Mr. GOOD

Do not spoil it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Let us take the owner of a house valued at £420. That house would be a very small one to-day. In parenthesis, I would like to know what kind of method of valuation the Minister intends shall be adopted—whether he means a house which might be said to be valued at £420, free to the incoming tenant or purchaser, or a house which has already got an occupant and the income from which is restricted by the Rent Restriction Act. What is the value of this house property for the purpose of old age pension adjustment? That is by the way. We will assume the house is valued at £420.

Mr. GOOD

Not value—cost.

Mr. JOHNSON

We are speaking of the value from the point of view of a sale, which, I take it, is the purpose of this Bill. If the Deputy reads the Bill in conjunction with previous Bills he will realise that this is an important point, because the income, for the purpose of adjusting old age pensions, depends upon the amount of private income they receive from house property or any other property. Hitherto that £420 house would be reckoned in this way—£25 will be excluded from consideration; £395 can be reckoned as being divisible by 20; then one-twentieth of £395 will be taken as part of the annual value, and the other £20 would be reckoned as one-tenth, so that a sum of £20 15s. will be reckoned to be the income of the owner of the house, the value of which is £420. That is to say, the pensioner will be presumed to be in receipt of an income of 8s. per week. Up to the present moment that person would have an income from house-ownership of 8s. per week, and a pension of 10s., which would total 18s.

In the future any person arriving at a pensionable age, and in the possession of a £420 house, will be reckoned in an entirely different way. The first £25 will be excluded from consideration, but the remaining £395 will be treated as though one-tenth is income, and not one-twentieth as hitherto. The effect of it is that his income from the house will be reckoned to be worth £39 10s. a year, whereas hitherto it was only £20 15s. As a consequence, the old man or the old woman who has been thrifty and who bought the house for the purpose of providing for old age, is deprived of any pension whatever. I wonder will Deputies believe that is a reasonable state of things to submit to the country. Is that the kind of message you are going to send to those people whom you desire to be thrifty and whom you encourage to buy saving certificates, so that they will have money laid up for their old age? When they have done so, and when they have taken your advice, the State will then come along and say: "That is enough for you, and we will penalise you and you will be deprived of your pension accordingly."

If those examples do not persuade the Dáil that this Bill should not have a Second Reading perhaps some consideration of another class who are affected by the Bill will persuade the Dáil. I am speaking now of the aged blind, the blind over fifty years of age—those people who come within the provisions of the Blind Persons Act. This country has been somewhat negligent—very negligent I might say—in regard to the treatment of the blind as compared with the treatment of that same class in England or Scotland. The second part of the Blind Persons Act which enabled —I think even obliged—local authorities to make some provision for the blind has not been put into operation anywhere. Under that Act of 1920 old age pensions were granted at the age of fifty in the case of persons who were so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

at this stage took the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

That Bill also provided that local authorities were to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister for Health for promoting the welfare of blind persons ordinarily resident within their area. No advantage has been taken of that Act to make provision for the blind—either for their training or for their industrial occupation, and, as a consequence, we have the tragedy of a very large number of blind people supplicating the public for support in a way which is not desired by the blind and not desired by the public. It has been said— with a certain amount of bitterness, no doubt, but with some truth—that if this country really looks upon blind persons and aged persons as a burden hardly to be borne and as a nuisance that ought to be got rid of, the lethal chamber is perhaps the best method of ridding the country of that burden. I say it was said with some bitterness, but the blind people do feel that under the proposals of this Bill there is an attempt simply to wipe them off the slate and a gesture rather suggesting "we would rather you did not continue to encumber the ground." The number of blind people is not so great that we ought to proceed by way of cutting down their pensions by this shilling, or if they have any property, cutting down their pensions by more than a shilling. I do not know whether the Minister has considered the financial effects of the provisions of this Bill regarding the blind or whether he has simply put it in without thought. I think that perhaps if the Dáil cannot be moved by reason in this matter, they will have a little pity for the blind and allow that pity to prevail even against the mathematical calculations and the financial necessities of the Minister's case. I can quite understand the Minister looking at rows of figures and rows of figures and considering the necessities of his Department, forgetful of the actual human effects of his proposal.

It is all very well for him to say that the country cannot afford it, and for him to say also that but for the destruction of the last year there might have been an increase of two or three shillings, instead of a decrease. I rather anticipate in the course of this discussion that many Deputies will be inclined to throw the blame for these proposals upon the destruction of the last year or two, but I ask them to look at the facts and figures as presented by the Minister. I think if there will be a careful facing of these facts and figures that the attempt to put the blame upon the destruction is quite unjustified. The Minister may retort and say that even without the destruction, even without the expense upon the State that that destruction has entailed, some reduction of the expenditure would be required, and that as some reductions of expenditure are required the old, aged and the blind must be made to bear an equal share with the rest. Well, if he says that, he is entitled to all the credit he deserves, but in view of the assertions that have been made regarding the responsibility for the cutting down of expenditure in this respect, I am going to ask the Dáil to refer to the revised estimate of revenue and expenditure that was circulated some few weeks ago. Eliminating entirely a charge upon the Central Fund of £1,400,000 claimed by Great Britain for the adjustment of revenue, eliminating entirely the £8,000,000 for compensation, and cutting down the army expenditure from £10,000,000 to £2,000,000, assuming that £2,000,000 will be a normal expenditure on an army, we find that the expenditure at present rates, which would have occurred in any case, had there been no trouble of any kind, would have amounted to £25,200,000—that, I say, allowing only £2,000,000 for an army and wiping out all claims for compensation. The revenue to meet that, including even this year's revenue which has been so assiduously gathered in, totals £24,761,000—barely a balance. Now, in view of these figures, what is the use of trying to put the blame for this reduction in expenditure upon the destruction campaign of the last two years? Can we not face the facts and say that the hopes, expectations, and the estimates pre-truce have been belied, and that there was no justification for believing that you could reduce the rate of taxation and that you could increase the services and expenditure on the services?

That, I say, is the truth. If you are simply going on in the ordinary method with the collection of revenue and the expenditure, and if there was no justification for our believing that the finances of the country would be on a better scale under self-government, then that can only be justified by some expectation of a new method of taxation, a new method of raising revenue. I trouble the Dáil too often, I am afraid, and I am often ashamed of myself when I realise how much I inflict myself on the Dáil, but often as I do, I am afraid it is very seldom. I try to do what the Minister suggests, not because I would not desire to do it, but because my qualities do not run that way, that is, to try to play upon the feelings of the Dáil. But, if I were able to, I would like to ask Deputies to think of the state of an old man who came into pensionable age, say, in 1908 or 1909, or round about that time, an old man born in the year of revolution, 1848. He grows up, and his parents, if they survived the famine, or his teacher, taught him something about the views of the Fintan Lalor's and the Mitchell's, and filled him with ideas of what Ireland might become if she were free; he grows to young manhood, and at nineteen years of age he is caught up with the ideas of the Fenians—again the talk of freedom, and what freedom might mean for the people of Ireland. He sorrows at the failures of the Fenians; he lives through the Land League times, and he realises that the Land League agitation, linked up with the Parnellite agitation, all lead to a better life, and a better livelihood for the people. Then, he came to 1916, and he had read what his teachers, Pearse and Connolly, had taught about the desirable things that would happen under freedom. He had for four or five years been in receipt of a 5s. a week pension from the British Government; the execrable British Government had paid him the miserable sum of 5s. a week. "But," he said, looking back upon the past, "if we had freedom what would it mean? A miserable 5s. a week? No, but a reasonable, decent livelihood. We believe these people mean that freedom would be a better livelihood for the people and for the old aged. They would be honoured and looked upon as people who had given their lives to the service of the State, and they would be honoured in their old age." In 1919 the First Dáil, a Declaration of Independence, and, accompanying that declaration, an assurance to the people of the country that old age would be honoured, and that children would be the first care. Old age would be honoured, and not treated as something like a burden. Then the chance comes. The opportunity comes to the Dáil, the Parliament House of the new Free State. That freedom which he had dreamed of, and taught to believe in, had been achieved. This thrifty man who had saved a few pounds and bought for himself an annuity, who had subscribed to his trade union superannuation fund and had been entitled to 5s., 6s., 7s., or 10s. a week, finds that this Free State, the new independence, simply means the cutting down of his livelihood to that below the time when the execrable British Government provided him with 5s. a week pension. That is what the Deputies are asked to subscribe to. This is the first fruit almost, so far as the aged are concerned, of independence, and I say we ought not to support the Government in this proposition. If there is no other way of maintaining the present rate of pensions, then let us rather fulfil our implied obligations to the old aged, even if it is to mean the breaking of some of the Treaty obligations. If you must cut down, if you must save, save on your land purchase annuities, save on some of those obligations to people outside the country if you must. I do not believe it is necessary, I believe we can find ways and means of fulfilling our obligations in that respect; but if everything else fails by all means break those obligations rather than the obligations to the old and the blind, the sick and the poor.

Mr. COLE

In opposing this Bill, I do not wish it to be thought I want to see an increase in rates and taxes. In fact, I would much rather see every avenue explored to find ways and means by which the burden of taxation could be reduced, but, at the same time, I think in introducing this Bill the Minister has started probably at the wrong end. I do not think it is the aged poor he should take first— the genuine old age pensioners. I think he will find it very difficult at the present time to make ends meet. Supposing by the reduction of his pension a man is pressed to apply for admission to the County Home, we could not support him there for the same amount. I do not think it is good economy to do that, because I maintain that the more people you have in a County Home the more officials you will want, and that will mean more expense.

To speak of this as a shilling cut is probably misleading. I will only deal with the two ends of it, so to speak. The 2s. pensioner is deprived altogether of his pension. The 10s. pensioner is reduced by a shilling, but that is on conditions; where formerly the income did not exceed £1 per week the income now must not exceed 16s. Then, if he has still 10s. per week his pension will be reduced by one shilling. In some cases it will be reduced from 2s. to 3s. Instead of making his first attack on the old age pensioners, would it not be better for the Minister to attack some of the larger establishments? In that way the Minister might produce a certain amount of money, perhaps not so much as is now estimated, but it could have been done without causing any anxiety. The people on whom the axe would fall would not have to consider where their next meal was to come from. The Minister could advance as an argument to people deprived of some of their salaries that it was for the good of the State. He could develop further the arguments used here by the President last week. It is not so easy to do that with the old age pensioners, because many of them are illiterate, and they also cannot understand why their case should be put on the same level. They will also probably tell the Minister that their charge upon the State will probably only be a matter of a few months or a few years, that they have come to the allotted span, and that their time is nearly at an end. I would also say that this is a most inopportune time to suggest this reduction. The last harvest was by no means a good one, and, consequently, home-grown produce is very dear. In fact, I have been trying to persuade the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Agriculture that the potato crop has been practically a failure. If potatoes are not scarce at present it is not by any means because they are over-plentiful, but because they have been saved up and not used for animal feeding. When the seed time comes it is possible that they cannot be had at any price.

It has been stated here frequently that the cost of living is 80 points over the pre-war period. I maintain that it is a great deal more than 80 points, and I do not want to go back as far as Deputy Johnson has gone. I will only go back to 1914. Let us compare the prices then with the prices to-day. Potatoes at that time were from 4d. to 6d. per stone; to-day they are 1s. 6d. in the country districts, and in the city I am sure they are a great deal more. Bacon was 9d. to 10d. per lb; to-day it is 1s. 6d. A four-pound loaf was 4½d.; to-day it is 9d. Sugar, which was then 2d. per lb., is now 7d. Flour, which was 1s. 6d. per stone, is now 2s. 6d. These prices deal only with the mere necessities for the poor man's table. I am not going into the prices of luxuries, such as tobacco, stout and beer. If I did they would probably show that the increase is a great deal more than 100 per cent. They would probably show that it is 200 per cent. Rents and clothing also have advanced accordingly. Even if the same prices prevailed as when the pension was 5s. these poor people would be still entitled to the 10s. The Minister should have tried every means of reducing the cost of living before he brought forward this Bill.

Might I take this opportunity to protest against the unfair means very often adopted in connection with genuine applications for pension. We all know that it is a very difficult matter for applicants to prove the date of their birth. Although they prove it in an indirect way through school-fellows and others, that evidence very often is not taken. I think there should be more latitude allowed to such applicants. I would again appeal to the Minister to reconsider this Bill. I would also appeal to Deputies, who maintained at the last election that 10s. was not sufficient for these pensioners, and that they should have 15s., to support the opposition to this Bill.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The time of this assembly has been largely occupied up to the present in enacting in the name of public safety measures for the destruction of personal liberty. We are now engaged in discussing a Bill designed to reduce poor old people to a lower state of poverty. We are told that we must pass this Bill in the name of economy and that unless we agree to do it the State will drift into bankruptcy, that its financial stability can be secured only by snatching 1s. from the miserable pension of the aged poor. I would like to say to the Government that they are proposing to take from the old people what they never gave them. I ask Deputies to bear in mind that it was the alien Government which has been driven out of this country that conferred this benefit on the poor old people. The Ministry entitle this measure of spoliation—for they are really despoiling the old people—"a Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions and Blind Persons Acts." I think they should style it "a Bill to curtail and destroy these Acts," because that is what it amounts to. It is a confession of hopeless impotence to say that to save the State we must rob and raid the old people who are on the brink of the grave.

The Minister has argued that the old age pensioners are much better off now than they were prior to the increase from 5s. to 10s. per week. That is a puerile argument, and I think I may say that it is even unworthy of an advanced school boy. Our purpose here, I think, should be to improve and not to make worse; and as was held out to the people of this country as the ultimate object of the fight for freedom, to raise up and obtain a better standard of living for the people. The Government policy is progress backwards. Their legislation is designed to add to the misery and to increase the poverty of the people. The Minister and several other members of the Ministry have argued that the mad campaign of violence is responsible. Deputy Johnson, I think, has dealt with that matter sufficiently. I only wish to say that I do not think that plea will be accepted by the people of this country, as the nation, even if it were so, would feel dishonoured that it is the poor old people that should be compelled to pay for the loss and the waste of that campaign. The Minister has also dealt very fully with what is termed the income of applicants for the pension. As this is a matter of vital importance, at least to Deputies on this side, I would like to give an illustration of how income is estimated. Some twelve months ago a poor old man, owing to inability to work, became destitute and had to seek shelter in Nenagh Workhouse. The workhouse was burned some time afterwards by the Irregulars, during the war about words and phrases, and this poor old man was driven out and had no place to shelter him. The Board of Guardians allowed him 9s. a week outdoor relief to enable him to exist. He then reached the age of 70 years, and made an application for a pension. A pension officer came to make inquiries about his means and how he had existed up to that. The old man told him he was in receipt of 9s. a week outdoor relief, and said he was able to get two or three shillings more from people whose horses he cared, and as charity. The nine shillings weekly and the two or three shillings that he said he got for charity were estimated by the officer as income, and the old man got a pension of 8s. a week instead of 10s., notwithstanding the fact that the 9s. he had from the Board of Guardians as outdoor relief, ceased when he reached the age of 70. That is how some of the incomes the Minister speaks of are estimated by some of his officials and pension officers. We, on this side, desire economy. We desire economy of the right kind. We do not desire economy that means more want and more misery for the poor. The opponents of the Ministry, and not a few of the friends of the Ministry, have robbed banks, post offices and private citizens, but now the Ministry, through the process of law, propose to rob and raid the meagre State incomes of the poor. They are going to do a meaner thing than the bank robber, as they are going to take the pennies from the blind man's hat. That is what it amounts to, the most despicable kind of robbery that was ever known. We hear the cry. "We must balance our Budget." Certainly, I say it would be better to leave your Budget unbalanced and better increase your taxation—it would even be better for the Ministry to go out altogether—than to proceed under this Bill to despoil the poor people. If they persist with it, this Government will be execrated in the country.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Last November the Minister for Finance announced his intention of effecting certain cuts. Two cuts were mentioned at that time. This is one of them. He then said the cuts were necessary in order that Budget equilibrium might be achieved. It was conspicuous that every person who spoke in the debate that followed his statement on that occasion agreed with him in this, that it was of the very first importance to this country, especially then, as it was about to undertake the issue of a loan, that such equilibrium should be maintained. There seemed to be at that time a note struck that it was a little unfortunate that the Ministry should have first struck at the old age pensioner. I spoke then and said I was opposed to that course. This Bill has now been put forward presumably to implement the intention then announced. I am moved to protest quite formally because it does not implement that intention only but carries that intention to a further point. The Minister stated that he intended a 10 per cent. reduction on the old age pensions. That is to say, taking the Estimates of last year, an amount of money equivalent to £360,000 was to be saved in the expenditure of the forthcoming year. The Minister has announced to us that under the provisions of this Bill the actual saving will be not £360,000, but £500,000. There has been a change of intention. If it were unfortunate before that there should be any necessity for his original intention so much the greater is the pity that that intention should have become so far widened and so far broadened that we are now getting not a ten per cent. reduction but a reduction considerably higher than ten per cent.

The Minister announced in his opening speech to-day that the change in the scale of means as embodied in this Bill will achieve over and above the ordinary ten per cent. reduction such further economies as would amount to something in the nature of £150,000. I assume from the scanty figures accessible that to be the sum achieved by these economies in the change in the scale of means. In addition to an ordinary cut, such as was announced last November, we have now further cuts under this Bill bringing the sum up to that larger figure. I said then, and I say again, that I do not believe that the figures which have been available would be the figures put before the Dáil if the original Acts were administered as they might have been administered. I leave out the question of the £500,000 now announced. I keep myself to the original intention of the Minister to achieve a saving of £360,000 by an ordinary 10 per cent. cut, and I say that if the original Acts, without being amended at all in legislative form, had been administered as they might have been administered and might still be administered, greater economies might have been effected than were effected in the past—economies that might amount to the greater part of the sum announced by the Minister as being his intention to save last November. The Minister knows, in his experience as Minister for Local Government, that he has already instituted such changes of administration in the Local Government Department as to achieve a very considerable saving in the estimate of expenditure submitted last year. We have not got the new estimates for the coming year yet, but I venture to say —I put this forward rashly in the spirit of prophecy—that when we do get the new estimates we will find that the estimates calculated for the past year were very considerably larger than the actual expenditure in connection with old age pensions—that because of tighter, closer and juster administration. I believe that that course of administration could have been carried still further, and further economies effected, without doing the injury that the economies announced and presaged in this Bill will affect. Very deep injury will be done by them. The Minister and every Deputy here knows in his own part of the country instances of men who are in receipt of old age pensions who are not in urgent need of the money. I will not say that if the State were in more affluent circumstances than it is it might not be desirable that they should continue to receive these pensions, but they are not urgently needed. Deputies know instances of men who, when they pass the age of 70, having farms of quite decent size, passed these farms over to their sons, and who are now without visible means. They are without visible means to the extent that their children could put them out to-morrow if they so desired, and they are receiving certain pensionable sums because they are past the age of 70.

It is within the knowledge of Deputies that some such persons spend the moneys they receive not in the way of ordinary livelihood, but mainly in the way of luxuries. Once a farmer described the pension to me as "the old man's tobacco allowance." Now, it would be a pity if that had to be cut, but if we are pressed to the necessity of effecting savings, administration could effect those savings more justly than an all-round cut of 10 per cent. from many persons whose only means of subsistence is the 10s. per week that they receive. I should wish there were some Deputies here now who are absent at the moment. I happen to know very well the circumstances at the present moment in which the people are living in the West of Ireland. I know cases where the potato harvest of last year has given out completely. The last of the potatoes were consumed in cases within my own knowledge a fortnight ago, and the people over 70 years, in receipt of 10s. per week, with just a small plot of land that would have given them just sufficient potatoes to see them round until the next harvest, are living on what is known in that part of Ireland as "dried chuck," or dried bread. That dried bread was purchased with the 10s. per week pension, and it is that dried bread that will be cut as a result of this Bill. The Minister has admitted that part of the case. He has stated quite frankly that a 10 per cent. cut in respect of persons who only get the 10s. and have no other means of subsistence, does much graver injury than in the case of other persons. Having admitted that, it seems to me he has admitted the case I am putting forward, that this is not a time or an occasion for a legislative change. It is an occasion admittedly, for a sharper and stronger administration of the Acts that prevailed up to this moment, that prevail now, and that will prevail until this Bill passes, if it does pass.

We desire that there should be considerable economy effected. The Minister has given us very interesting figures here to-day. He told us that there are 115,215 persons in receipt of the entire 10s. a week. That is to say, that of the entire estimate of last year for the current year of £3,600,000, nearly £3,000,000 is absorbed by persons who receive the whole amount of 10s., leaving only a comparatively small amount for all the other cases. Therefore, first attention should be given to those persons who are receiving the whole amount of 10s. Before any attempt was made to change the state of the law, surely the Minister should have been in a position to tell us exactly how many of those persons in receipt of 10s. have no other means than the 10s. That information was asked for, and the Minister said he was not able to provide it. Surely that piece of information is the first piece of information the Dáil should have been put in possession of in arguing the necessity for such a Bill as this. The Dáil should know how many persons of the 115,215 who get the whole sum of 10s. have nothing else to look to for their livelihood. I know such cases in the West. Three or four of them occur to my mind—old men and old women— who have nothing in the world to look to but this 10s.

How they manage to eke out an existence from one Friday to the next Friday, walking in many cases many miles to the Post Office to get their weekly sum, and having nothing else to look to, I do not know, and how they will be able to manage when one-tenth of their entire livelihood is taken away I cannot imagine. The Minister may say, I wonder if he would, that there are not many such. But he cannot say it, because he was asked how many, and he told us the statistics were not in his possession, or, at least, if they were in his possession in his office they were not in his possession here, and the House could not get the advantage of them. I would like to think of the remarkable effect there would be if persons of this kind were to be gathered together in meetings in different parts of the country. I would like to see what the effect would be if these old people who are now receiving 10s. a week, and have nothing else to look forward to, had announced to them that one-tenth of their livelihood was to be taken away, and were then informed that a new plan of campaign was being established with a view to thrift. They, at any rate, have imposed upon them enforced thrift to the tune of one tenth of their livelihood.

I do believe that this is a wrong Bill, and an impolitic Bill at the present time. I do urge that there is no need for legislative change in this matter. There was need, and there is need for economy, but the greater part of the economy that was desired could have been achieved, I believe, by administration tightened up, and a great part of the economy has already been achieved with administration tightened up. I await with a great deal of interest the figures of the exact amount of money expended in the current financial year in respect of Old Age Pensions, in order that that amount may be contrasted and compared with the figures of the estimates of last March. I believe the economy has been effected by the tightening up of administration, and I believe that greater economy still could be effected. I do not pretend, for one moment, that the entire sum of £360,000, mentioned at first, much less the half a million mentioned now, could be achieved by administrative tightening up; but I believe that economy could have been effected on such a scale as would have been quite sufficiently effective as savings in regard to Old Age Pensions, so that the axe, to use the metaphorical expression, might be turned towards other quarters, and savings effected in other places. I have never voted against a proposal to bring in a Bill except in this one case, when I opposed the First Reading of this Bill. I am feeling already sorry that I did so, because having seen the Bill, I am glad that I have seen it, and yet sorry that I have seen it, because this Bill is not an implementation of the Minister's intention of last November—it is a great deal more. It is a much more radical legislative change. I do not think that the economy that was desired in respect of Old Age Pensions was a matter for legislation at all, but rather for administration. On these grounds mainly I shall oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. SEAN LYONS

There is one thing that the old people may be thankful for, and that is in his explanation the Minister has announced that it is not his intention in six months' time to reduce their pensions by another shilling. The question of raising this £300,000 for the relief of the Exchequer and to save taxation from being increased may certainly have been necessary, but it is most unnecessary that the saving of this money should be achieved by a reduction in old age pensions, and it is most objectionable that the money saved in this way should go to pay compensation to ex-R.I.C. men and to go to pay pensions for the Army under the Act of 1923. To my mind, and I am sure every other Deputy would be of the same opinion, it is quite wrong to take from the parent in order to give to the child. If one of these old age pensioners was in a position that he was able to work and earn 32s. a week and that that amount was going into the house, that would debar the other from receiving the old age pension. I should like for a moment to mention one particular case that came under my notice. It was the case of a person who was 73 years of age who was refused the pension on the ground that the Government had already granted the pension to another. In this case that I have in mind the local Committee granted the pension; it was sanctioned by the officer in the town of Athlone, Mr. McGuirk, but the Government turned it down. The only proof of age that could be got in the case was from the books in the national school, where this old age pensioner went to school in his youth. The Government were invited to inspect the books, but still they turned down the pension. Now, why this particular case was turned down I cannot say, because twelve months ago a pension was granted when the proof of age was exactly the same, the only evidence being from this national school. That particular pension was not granted by the local committee nor by the pension officer of Athlone, but notwithstanding that some friend of the pensioner working in some Government office succeeded in getting the pension granted to him.

It has been suggested that this saving had to be made. Some Deputies argued that the method adopted here amounted to robbery. Deputy Morrissey put forward that argument from the Labour benches, and I quite agree with him. I do not know whether the Minister for Home Affairs when he gets his Public Safety Act will prosecute and punish the Minister for Finance for these acts which he is committing against the old age pensioners.

You have to-day passed a Bill, the Public Safety Bill, to put an end to this sort of thievery, which is worse than robbery. It would be better for the Minister for Finance to send some of the officials, employed in the Old Age Pension Offices, down the country, and instruct them to go, masked, into the houses of the old age pensioners at night, bring them out and shove them out of sight into the nearest bog-hole. It would be much better to do that than have them in a state of semi-starvation for the rest of their lives. I am sure there are some sensible people on the Government Benches, but the Deputies on the Government Benches are only acting as pieces of machinery. As soon as the time comes to put this to a vote, all that is necessary is to press a button, the machinery revolves, and these Deputies automatically come back. They have not heard one word for or against the Bill; they are simply told how to vote, and they vote accordingly. If there is a soldier or any man who went out as an officer in the National Army and got wounded, I doubt very much if such a man would accept a pension under the recent Act if he knew it was to be raised in the manner in which the money is to be raised by reducing these pensions. This wounded soldier receives a few shillings pension, but he would not accept them if he knew these few shillings were deducted from the stingy allowance given to the old age pensioners, especially when he remembers that these old age pensioners are the people who were primarily responsible for giving him the pension that he received. I do not think any man who was a fighter, and these men who were wounded must have been fighters, would accept a pension under such conditions. It would be better for him to do what a lot of them have done and go into the workhouse, or, as more of them have done, become dependents on the St. Vincent de Paul money, awaiting such time as the Ministers for Finance and Defence or the Government think fit to have their cases investigated and gone into with a view to giving them something for their services to the State.

There is one suggestion I offer to the Minister, and I rather think that Deputy Gorey will agree with me. It is this: It has been the custom here in Ireland, perhaps, to be against what I am going to suggest. Some time ago, before the National Health Scheme was introduced, everyone throughout the country was against it. Still, it became law, and it is law at present. I consider it would be much better for the Minister for Finance to consider, before introducing this Bill, whether it would be possible to introduce some Bill that would compel every citizen from eighteen to sixty to pay a penny a week towards a contribution for the old age pensions. The Minister could get a great deal more money in that way than by reducing the pensions. Then we would find all the Deputies on the Government Benches, on the Farmers' Benches, and on the Labour Benches would be in favour of it.

Mr. CORISH

And the Independents?

Mr. LYONS

There is one Independent, at all events, here, who would support that measure.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

Bring in a Private Bill.

Mr. LYONS

You could, possibly, not alone give ten shillings a week to an old age pensioner of seventy, but fifteen shillings a week to an old age pensioner of sixty-five if the Bill that I suggest were passed. The State would not be losing anything by it. The money would be there. I will enlighten Deputy Gorey's curiosity as to how that problem could be solved. Then, if it is possible that my suggestion will be accepted by the Minister, I hope those Deputies will be there to carry it into law. Now I do not like the idea of having the aged man or woman dependent upon the few shillings a week applying for admission to the County Homes. The Minister for Local Government has already deprived some of those aged poor of shelter. He has amalgamated the workhouses, and now comes along ——

Mr. DAVIN

To starve them.

Mr. LYONS

Worse than starve them. He crucifies them. By the amalgamation of the workhouses these people have to travel thirty or forty miles, and this means that they cannot go there at all, and so are deprived of shelter. Now the few shillings they get are cut down. I trust that the Deputies on the Government Benches will not vote for this reduction. I know some of them who have not heard anything said for or against it will come here in a few minutes time and vote for the reduction. That is not right. I know the Deputies are voting against their own consciences. The true opinion of the Dáil could be got by taking off the Government Whips and having a free vote. In that way the Deputies on the Government Benches would be saved from committing a sin. If they commit that sin I am afraid they will never get forgiveness, no matter what penances they undergo.

PADRAIG O hOGAIN (An Clár)

Ba mhaith liomsa ana-chuid do rádh ar an gceist seo, mar 'sí ceist na ndaoine gcoitchiannta, ceist na seandaoine atá scaipithe ar fud na tíre, agus ná bhfuil i ndán ar aon rud do dhéanamh dóibh féin. 'Sí ceist na ndaoine bochta atá. i gach árd na tíre ag déanamh a ndithcheall iad féin do choimead beóo ar na cúpla scillingibh sa tseachtmhain atá le fagháil ó'n Riaghaltas.

Tá riaghlú an tsaoghail le fada an lá fé dream áirithe—'said lucht airgid agus lucht saidhbhris. Agus tá greim daingean ag an ndream san ar saothar na tíre. Cuireann said úalach mór trom ar na daoinibh coitchionnta agus coimeádann siad dóibh féin an cuid is mó agus an cuid is fearr de thoradh obair na ndaoine mbocht.

Cad is riaghaltas ann? Ba cheart dúinn feuchaint isteach ar sin. Níl aon saoghal ag an bhfear oibre. Níl aon saoirse ag an bhfear oibre. Níl aon uain aige; agus níl aon mhaoin aige ar oileamhaint fhoghanta do chur ar féin ná ar a chlann. Níl aon ghreim aige ar talamh na tíre, na ar aon coir a mbainfeadh amach saidhbhreas dó féin. Níl le díol aige ach a chuid nirt, agus nuair go bhfuil sé sin caithte, caithfeadh sé brath ar an Riaghaltas.

Agus deirtear go bhfuil Riaghaltas na nGall imthighthe, agus gur Riaghaltas Gaodhalach atá againn anois. B'fheidir; ach pé riaghaltas atá againn, tá eagla orm go bhfuil greim daingean ag dream an airgid ar an Riaghaltas atá againn indiu, comh daingean, agus níos daingne, ná a bhí riamh ar Riaghaltas na nGall.

Tá aon rud amháin cinnte—tá rud ceapaithe ag an Riaghaltas so nar cheap Riaghaltas na nGall riamh; 'sé sin daoine bochta na tíre seo do chur chun bháis.

I do not know whether I should express sympathy more than anything else with the Minister for Finance. He has fathered a dirty job this evening, and I am sure that if he were free to express himself, he himself would say the same thing. No man with any conscience can say that the old people of the country, who have been broken on the social system at present existing, should be cast to the wolves in their old age. I do not know on what basis the Minister for Finance has proceeded, or on what figures he has made his calculations. I should like to enlighten him a little on some matters, and the manner in which I would like to enlighten, is this: I would put a market basket on his arm and send him out to purchase the necessaries with ten shillings.

Mr. DAVIN

Nine shillings.

Mr. HOGAN

Very well, but I would even let him have the ten shillings. I would give him the other bob for him self and let him see what he could do with it. The Minister for Local Government has set up a purchasing department and therein he buys wholesale. I would suggest to the Government that he would also set up a food department and purchase wholesale even, and then you could observe how far nine shillings would go in order to keep a man in existence and keep body and soul together. Does the Minister know that butter is 2s. 4d. a lb., that bacon is 1s. 8d., that tea is 3s. 6d., and that sugar is 8d.? Is he aware of all these things, and has he made any calculations of that sort before he came into the Dáil to ask Deputies to pass a sentence of death upon the old age pensioners of the country? No Deputy that I have listened to so far has made any suggestion, although the matter has been touched upon from every conceivable angle. I should like to make a few suggestions to the Minister for Finance as to where he might be able to effect retrenchments. Retrenchment is a polite term for reductions, and there is another word starting with an "R." that has its own meaning. I would like to make a few suggestions. First of all, let me say that I have been upstairs trying to understand some of the magic figures we find in the list of estimates in the reading room. I find therein that for a mysterious service called "secret service" £50,000 has been allocated. What in the name of goodness do we do with that? Do we send one band of men out looking for another band, or has some of the £50,000 gone to pay men who were watching Deputy Figgis on the lobby a few days ago and who wanted to see who he had a conversation with? Perhaps it was used on foreign secret service for the purpose of watching the peregrinations of Mussolini or Trotsky, or some other people, for the benefit of those people who did not yesterday like the colour of the flag that floats over Moscow? There is possibly another thing that the money might be used for. Do the Government imagine that Deputy O'Connell is drilling an army amongst the national teachers in order to make a raid on the Treasury, and are detectives being put into every national school in the country to see that this thing is not carried on? Do they anticipate a flying column of old age pensioners will bear down upon the Minister for Finance and take him away to some unknown destination? Possibly that is how the £50,000 are expended.

There is another service that I should like to know something in regard to, and why some reduction should not be made from it instead of from the allowances made to the old age pensioners. I refer to the £60,000 estimated for External Affairs. What service does the country get for that? What is the return for this extraordinary expenditure? What has there been done in the matter of trade and what is there to show the necessity and the usefulness of this Ministry? Now, I come to another service which, I suppose, is particularly useful, interesting and nice to those people who retain certain mediaeval ideas. I refer to the institution up in the Phoenix Park, in regard to which there has been an allowance for a household staff of £5,545.

Mrs. COLLINS-O'DRISCOLL

On a point of order, are we discussing the estimates or the question of old age pensions?

Mr. HOGAN

I am endeavouring to point out where retrenchments might be made.

Mrs. COLLINS-O'DRISCOLL

I submit that that is not the question under discussion; the question is not one of retrenchment.

Mr. HALL

I would like to ask the ruling of the Chair on the point that the question before the Dáil at the moment is the question of the best possible means of economy.

Mrs. COLLINS-O'DRISCOLL

I submit that that is not the question before the Dáil.

Mr. HOGAN

Am I in order to proceed?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I take it that the Deputy is in order in making a passing reference to these things. He must remember, however, that the estimates were discussed before. He is in order to refer to them, but he must not develop the point.

Mr. HOGAN

With all respect, I am endeavouring to point out that economies might be effected in other directions as well as the direction in which the Minister has gone. I bow to your ruling, but I think that I am perfectly in order in developing the subject. I was referring, when I was interrupted, to an institution in the Phoenix Park, and which belongs more to mediæval times than to the present, and I was pointing out that £5,545 were spent on the household staff; £3,000 were spent in general expenses, and in purchasing and equipping motor cars £1,783 were expended; telegraphs and telephones were put down at £940. I submit there is room for economy there, and if we are in earnest in this matter of economy and if we mean to run the State on economic lines, let us take parallels. If the President of the Executive Council, who is the first citizen of the State, is able to maintain the honour and dignity of his position on one-quarter of what the Governor-General receives, why should there not be a reduction in the Governor-General's allowance—that is if we can get away from the idea of ready-made kings and shop-soiled royalty? The last occupant of that place was, I understand, a gentleman who had notions of what was good for him and his health, and I find that to repair the place and make it fit for the present occupant, £5,000 was spent. That was spent in repairing furniture for the official residence.

Mrs. COLLINS-O'DRISCOLL

Again on a point of order, is that a passing reference?

Mr. DAVIN

I submit that it is the duty of every Deputy to point out to the Minister for Finance where economies can be effected.

Mr. HOGAN

I am glad that the individual whom I am bringing before the Dáil has such an able and eloquent defender.

Mrs. COLLINS-O'DRISCOLL

Oh, certainly not. I leave the ability and the eloquence to you.

Mr. HOGAN

Is the Deputy allowed to speak while sitting down?

Mrs. COLLINS-O'DRISCOLL

I stand to my point of order, and still maintain that the Deputy is not in order.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I would remind the Deputy that it would be better for him to be rather brief, as we have exceeded the time at which we should adjourn.

Mr. HOGAN

I am afraid, sir, I have irritated some quarters of the Dáil, and, therefore, I think I am within my rights in asking you to allow me to move the adjournment until seven o'clock, and resume the discussion when the adjournment is over.

Agreed.

The Dáil adjourned at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m. An Ceann Comhairle in the Chair.

PADRAIG O hOGAIN (An Clár)

Nuair a labhras ar dthús, dubhras cúpla focal nach raibh cuid de na daoinibh atá annso sásta leis, acht ba mhaith liom congnamh do thabhairt do'n Aire ar mo dhoigh fhéin.

I rise in a rather chastened mood. I made reference to some things to which perhaps some people took exception, but if I am not to help the Minister in the way in which I am sure the Minister in the desires, namely, to find out channels wherein expenditure may be curtailed, then is the Minister sincerely in earnest in asking the Dáil to find out these avenues? I will not, therefore, dwell in detail on any of these things, but I will try, in a general way, to express my opinion of what I consider is the considered opinion of the majority of the common people of the country in regard to the proposed cut in old age pensions. It has been said that we have succeeded in getting rid of the foreigner. We have. We have a national flag, a National Army, a national Parliament, and a national system of education, but we have, unfortunately, a national old age pension, and it differs entirely from the international old age pensions which these people had before this cut was introduced. If the result of the declaration of national independence and the retention of our national status is to reduce the conditions of the poorest in the State, then we may well inquire whether the freedom we have won is worth the sacrifices that were made for it, because in the last analysis, freedom is the condition of living and the prosperity that the poorest in the State enjoy. What have they gained by it? They cannot exist on national flags, on national parliaments, on national armies, but they have to come down to the mundane things of bread and butter, and if the Minister for Finance thinks that these poor people, who have also made their sacrifices for the country, can exist on that, then I think that he is far removed from the actualities of life as they exist at the moment in this country.