Skip to main content

Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Mar 1924

Vol. 6 No. 23

DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL, 1924. THIRD STAGE (RESUMED.)

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Section 1. Amendment 3, will now be taken.

Major COOPER

I must ask the indulgence of the Dáil. I am suffering from a severe cold. I rise to move the following:—"To delete all words after the word `means,' line 25, to the end of the definition, and to substitute in lieu thereof, the words `June 1st, 1924.' " Then the definition would read that the expression, "the first appointed day" would mean June 1st, 1924. I think every Deputy in the Dáil, even those who may consider that this measure is necessary, will recognise that it is bound to inflict a certain amount of hardship on persons in receipt of the Old Age Pension. We are anxious to minimise that hardship as much as possible without inflicting undue loss on the Exchequer. Though there are plenty of precedents for the action of the Minister in arranging the definition, it is not, perhaps, a very happy one here, because the Minister would be able to fix any day he likes merely by ordering it as the first appointed day.

We are dealing with people not very highly educated, not versed in politics, and not too accustomed to reading the papers with great regularity. If we define in the Bill a definite date, they will know better where they stand, and they will know that on and after that date they will lose a shilling a week. They will be able to make their calculations accordingly, and they will know whether they can afford to buy a new pair of boots or not. I am not particularly tied to the date that I mention in my amendment. I have mentioned the date merely as that on which the Bill is likely to become law, making allowance for the Seanad to consider it, and allow time for a Referendum, if that is necessary. Deputies will remember that the Courts of Justice Bill left us three months ago, and it is still in the Seanad. I cannot say if the progress of this Bill will be more rapid. Therefore, I am not tied to any particular date, and I am willing to fall in with any date the Minister suggests, so long as it be a definite one. Those people who are losing some of their pensions will then know definitely from what date the reduction will take place. I think we ought to place the matter clearly and frankly before them, and state definitely that the reduction will be from June 1st or any other date that the Minister may decide upon.

Mr. BLYTHE

I have no objection, in principle, to the Deputy's amendment, and I would be prepared to accept the 1st May. We might be able to fix a date a week or two earlier than I could hope for now, but I am prepared to accept the 1st May at present if that would suit the Deputy.

Major COOPER

If the Minister is sure he will get his Bill through before the 1st May, I am agreeable to that.

Mr. JOHNSON

This really raises a difficulty. The 1st May is only two months or less from now, and may not give sufficient time for the Seanad to get through its work or for the Dáil after the Seanad has finished, or for the period to elapse that may be necessary to suspend the Bill with a view to getting a petition for a referendum. I would hope, notwithstanding the feeling amongst Deputies on the Government benches and of Deputies immediately behind the Government benches that the Bill is nearly perfect, that nevertheless there may be a score of Deputies who would be willing to refer this matter to the country to consider whether the country would back them up in their desire to cut these pensions. In such a case there will necessarily be time required to allow of a petition under the Constitution, or, shall I say, requisition to be signed, and, consequently, the date should be deferred at least to allow of that, and I think if Deputy Cooper would say the 1st September it would be more appropriate and fitting for the circumstances. The 1st May certainly does not give time. Perhaps the Minister would consider the importance of placing the date so far beyond the passing of the Bill in the Dáil as will allow of these Constitutional procedures.

Major COOPER

I did not put down this amendment with any hope of pleasing the Labour Party, although I rather hoped that Deputy Johnson would accept the principle of fixing a definite date.

Mr. JOHNSON

I accept the principle if you allow me to fix the date.

Major COOPER

I have no doubt the Labour Party would like to fix the first appointed date for Tibb's Eve, and the second appointed date for the Greek Kalends. If the Minister is agreeable to fix the 1st May I accept that date, and, with the permission of the Dáil, I am prepared to change the date in my amendment to that date.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Do I understand that leave is given to Deputy Cooper to amend his amendment by substituting the words "the 1st of May" for the "1st June."

Agreed.

Question proposed: "To delete all words after the word `means,' line 25, to the end of the definition and to substitute in lieu thereof the words `May 1st. 1924.' "

Mr. JOHNSON

I question the effect of this and of fixing a date so soon as May 1st. If the Bill is not passed by that date it seems to me we will be placed in a difficulty. If the Bill does not become law then what is the position? I do not want to plead the cause of the Minister in this matter. but I suggest it will place the Minister himself in a difficulty if May 1st is the appointed day and that the Bill has not become law by that time. Does that mean, then, that it would be retrospective in its action?

Mr. BLYTHE

I would ask the Dáil for an amending Bill so that it would not be retrospective.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Major COOPER

I beg to move amendment No. 4: "To delete all the words after the word `means,' line 28, to the end of the definition and to substitute in lieu thereof the words `January 1st, 1925.' "

This is precisely a similar amendment to the other, and it simply seeks to fix the date for the second appointed day. When I put the amendment down there was nothing to indicate what was in the mind of the Minister, and I thought six months would be a suitable time, and so I put down the 1st January, 1925. But, as I said in the case of the previous amendment, I am concerned with the principle, and not so much with the particular date, and, therefore, I am not pressing the particular date, the 1st January, now, but I am pressing the principle of the amendment, and that a date should be laid down for the fixing of the scale in the Schedule.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would be prepared to accept the amendment with the date October 1st, 1924. We cannot hope to have all the necessary work done before, at any rate, the beginning of September, 1924, and allowing for any delay that might take place, I would be prepared to accept the date as October, 1924.

Major COOPER

I am quite prepared to make that alteration.

Mr. JOHNSON

I object; we think the 1st January is quite good enough for the second appointed day, and I think the views of the House should be taken on the amendment.

Major COOPER

May I point out to Deputy Johnson that although my amendment is not all he wishes, it is better than the original proposal of the Minister. If my amendment to the motion is carried we shall then tie the Minister down to the second appointed day not earlier than 1st October, and if he is willing to accept that, although I would prefer the 1st January, I would rather have the good-will of the House than break my head against a stone wall.

Mr. JOHNSON

I have more faith in the Deputy's power of persuasion than he has himself. I anticipate that he has persuaded the House that his amendment is a fair one, and will be carried.

Mr. BLYTHE

Does Deputy Cooper stand by the words January 1st, 1925? Is that the question that is being put in this amendment?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes, that is the question that I am about to put, because leave was not granted to alter the amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 41.

Tá.

Earnán Altún.
Seán Buitléir.
John J. Cole.
John Daly.
Séamus Eabhróid.
Darrell Figgis.
David Hall.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
James Sproule Myles.
Tomás de Nógla.
Ailfrid O Broin.
Tomás O Conaill.
Aodh O Cúlacháin.
Liam O Daimhín.
Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Tadhg O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. PATRICK HOGAN (Clare)

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:—

In line 28, after the words "such day," to insert the words "not being less than six months after the passing of this Act."

The object of the amendment is to postpone the cut, so as to give the Minister an opportunity of finding out exactly where he is. He has not told us when the cut is likely to come in, and as I am willing to give him credit for some good nature, he may find that it is not necessary to introduce the cut at all.

There is another point with reference to this matter. The Government has told us that they are likely to introduce a Bill to govern, control or prevent profiteering. It is only right that these people should get the benefits of that measure before the cut would come into effect. I think these are considerations which ought to weigh with the Minister, and I therefore move the amendment.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am prepared to introduce an amendment on the Report Stage along the lines of my suggestion, which would have been accepted by Deputy Cooper. I might, to some extent, meet the Deputy.

Mr. HOGAN

I am prepared to accept the suggestion, and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 6.—To delete all words after the word "means," line 31, to the end of the definition, and to substitute in lieu thereof, the words "January 1st, 1925."— Bryan Cooper.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am prepared to give the same undertaking in regard to this amendment.

Amendment not moved.

Mr. MORRISSEY

On behalf of Deputy Eamon Doyle, I formally move amendment No. 7:—In line 33 to delete the word "more," and to substitute therefor the word "less."

Mr. JOHNSON

This proposition will only apply to a very small number. As a matter of fact, only 56 persons will be affected by this amendment, but to each of these 56 persons the benefit accruing by the acceptance of the amendment, would be as great as if there were 5,600 or 56,000, and as the cost to the Exchequer will not be more than a very small sum, I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. BLYTHE

I said to Deputy Cooper that I am introducing an amendment fixing the 1st of October— if not the 1st of October, the nearest Friday to it—I think that would have about the same effect.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I withdraw the amendment.

Major COOPER

On a point of order, can a Deputy in whose name an amendment does not stand, withdraw that amendment? Surely it can only be moved by a Deputy for another.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I take it, if Deputy Morrissey has power to move the amendment, he has plenary powers to act for Deputy Doyle in connection with it. He is a plenipotentiary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question: "That Section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

An old age pension which shall commence to accrue on or after the first appointed day shall be at the rate set forth in the First Schedule to this Act in lieu of the rate set forth in the First Schedule to the Act of 1919.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move Section 2, which is the main clause of the Bill. It is the one which brings into effect the revised scale of pensions and the revised scale of means.

Mr. JOHNSON

This clause raises the main question again. It asks us to consent to a reduction in the rate of the pensions, not only by a shilling per week, but what is equivalent to four shillings per week in the case of persons whose joint means at present are twenty shillings. We are asked to agree that the First Schedule shall be the basis of payment in the future. When the yearly means of the claimant or pensioner do not exceed seven shillings a week, the rate of pension shall be nine shillings. The present position is that when the yearly means do not exceed ten shillings per week he may claim and may obtain a pension of ten shillings. The country has been accustomed on the strength of the Minister's speech in November last, to believe that there was to be a cut of a shilling. Speaking generally, that is true. The cut of the amount paid out by the Minister for Finance will be a shilling, but it is our business, I submit, to consider the effect of this section which has relation to the schedule in its effect upon the life of the pensioner. It is not cutting the pension only, but is cutting the income by four shillings per week. This section has to deal with pensions which will accrue on and after the first appointed day. It does not deal with those who are at present receiving pensions, but will deal with all those people who will come into the age of seventy after the first of May. Hundreds and thousands, probably, have been living on sufferance during the last year in the hope and expectation that when they came into the 70th year they could make application for pension and they would be in receipt of 10s., which, added to their existing income, either in money or in kind— provision made by their friends—would be value 10s., so that their total income would be 20s. Now, we are asked to agree that any person coming to pensionable age after the first Appointed Day shall be only entitled to have 16s. per week as the maximum income if he is to receive the pension at all. That is not a reduction of 10 per cent., but it is a reduction of 20 per cent.

I ask Deputies to consider whether they are justified in depriving these people of so large a share of their present livelihood and so large a share of their reasonable expectations. It is easy to talk about 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., but I would like Deputies to consider not quite how much has been taken off, but how much is left. Four shillings taken off a pound is much more severe than 8s. taken off £2 or £20 taken off £100. When you calculate what can be purchased to-day for 16s., as compared with any period—even the period when the pension was fixed at 10s.—I say you are depriving the pensioners of something of their livelihood, not merely money. You are not only depriving them of cream in their tea, but you are taking the sugar from them as well. You are penalising a class of people for the offence of growing old. I would like Deputies to disabuse themselves of the notion that the effect of this Bill, and especially the effect of this Section, is merely to reduce the pension from 10s. to 9s. The effect of this Section is to reduce the value, which may be £1, of the livelihood of a pensionable person to 16s. That is a 20 per cent. cut in their standard of life, and not a 10 per cent. cut in their pension. I ask the Dáil, therefore, to refuse to accept this Section, and I hope when the time for amending the Schedule comes we shall get the support of the Deputies.

Mr. HEWAT

I think we all—certainly I do—look with rather envious eyes towards the Leader of the Opposition. He is in that very nice position that he does not feel the responsibility thrown upon him of economy, and he can exercise his eloquence in a direction which, I think, we would all like to follow. So far as I am concerned, I would prefer to run away than get up here to justify the cut that has taken place, or that is going to take place, in the old age pensions. On the other hand, the Minister for Finance has demonstrated very clearly that, as compared with the period in which the rate of 10s. was fixed, the old age pensioner will not be in any worse position when the cut comes into operation. Deputy Johnson has applied himself to persuading the Dáil that this deserving body of people, so far from getting the cut, should get advantages which they have not obtained in the past. I think that is giving the Minister for Finance a Roland for his Oliver, but I do not think in the present state of affairs that that can be accepted. Deputy Johnson wants a man who comes to 70 years of age to get the pension, irrespective of his means. That is practically what it amounts to——

Mr. JOHNSON

I said nothing of the kind on this question, at any rate.

Mr. HEWAT

Ignoring the fact that all through this old age pension scheme the qualification regarding a certain standard of income has been applied. One of the difficulties we are faced with to-day is the fact that we must recognise that in this direction, and in other directions, a certain amount of abuse has operated in connection with the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act.

Possibly, if that had not been so, the claim of the Minister for Finance on the score of economy would not be as strong as it is to-day. The amount that is paid in old age pensions is enormous. I think that looking at it comparatively with other parts, say Scotland or England, the amount having regard to the ratio in population is very much higher. Now, this "means" clause has in the past operated against the Government in this way—Very many old people coming to the age of 70 years, and having been a long time in their employment, have been, perhaps, before coming to 70 years of age, in receipt of a certain amount of grant. Invariably that operates in this way, that that person would not be eligible for an old age pension when he came to be 70 if he were in receipt of this grant. The agreement that is practically operative is that this old age pension is taken, and the amount payable by the other party is reduced. In other words, it throws the burden back altogether, or to a large extent on the finances of the Government, in connection with cases where, had the old age pension not operated, the man would still be in receipt of the allowance. Where the Old Age Pension operates he is no better off, but somebody else is relieved of the payment to the amount of the Government grant. That, I think, is fairly general all through the country. In the present state of the finances, and in anticipation of the difficulties that the country is faced with in the balancing of the Budget, I think a lot of that should cease as far as possible. At all events, if Deputy Johnson's argument were accepted by the Dáil, it certainly would operate in that way in a great many cases, that the State would still continue to pay, what in my judgment, is too large an amount in the ratio of the number of people connected with this fund. I do think that a new spirit might be fostered in the country——

Mr. JOHNSON

Hear, hear.

Mr. HEWAT

A new spirit whereby it would be no dishonour to receive assistance, but where it would not be to the credit of the people to take funds or draw from any funds beyond what they were reasonably entitled to receive. In other words, one would hope, that, as far as possible, a greater spirit of independence would be fostered by limiting the amount of free grants to the people who were really in need.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I realise how perilous a performance it must be, in speaking to this Section, to avoid that kind of speech that was so proper to the Second Reading, but is hardly quite so appropriate to the Committee Stage. A good many of the arguments that were brought forward on the Second Stage have been resolved by the decision taken by the Dáil that this Bill should pass its Second Reading. Incidentally, in that connection I would like to mention that the greater part of Deputy Hewat's speech was merely reinforcement of certain arguments that were brought forward at that Stage. Although speaking in defence of the second clause of a legislative measure, he did practically state that he believed the greater part of the economies which were recognised ought be achieved, might be achieved in the sphere of administration. He said a certain amount of abuse has operated in the past, in the matter of administration. It is upon that statement that he built up a great deal of the plea that he urged. In opposing this Section—and anyone who opposed the Second Reading must necessarily oppose this Section of the Bill, because it is carrying the central principle of the Bill in a very peculiar and a very emphatic manner—I would draw attention to the extraordinary way in which the Minister's original intentions have become enlarged month by month.

We were informed in November that the intention was because of the necessity to achieve budget equilibrium, and that that intention made it necessary to bring in certain drastic economies, and that foremost amongst those economies there should be a 10 per cent. cut in old age pensions. Here now we have the Section that is before the Dáil, and the meaning of the Section is that the 10 per cent. has become enlarged. Whereas he had hoped to achieve a saving of £300,000 last November, the effect of Section 2 with the other Sections of this Bill, will be to save not £300,000 but £500,000. Yesterday he stated, in answer to a question of mine, that in the sphere of administration alone in the past year £100,000 of a saving had been already achieved. Presumably, if the same administrative measures be continued in the future, then more even might be achieved. What then do we get? In November the Minister proposed a cut in the old age pensions so as to save to the Budget £300,000. To-day, a few months later, we have by various methods, saved not £300,000 but £600,000.

Mr. GOREY

All to the good.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

It is all to the good, so far as economy is effected, but what I am asking the Dáil to consider is this: When we had the original proposal put before us last November that 10 per cent. should be taken from the aged and blind, would the Dáil have regarded the matter in exactly the same light if we had then been informed, what we now know, that the cut was not to be 10 per cent., but 20 per cent.? I am against this Section: I am against this Bill. Anyone who was against the Second Reading of the Bill must necessarily be against this Section. I believe economies ought to be effected; but I think the economies effected here are not justified. There is a sacro-sanctity about age that ought to have purchased its immunity. Peculiarly am I against this Section, because it is not a fulfilment of the intention of the Minister, as declared last November. It is a very considerable extension of that determination.

Mr. BLYTHE

I have already told the Dáil the provision for a revision of the means scale is put here instead of a provision that might have allowed the pensions to be further cut when the cost of living falls. We feel we ought not to have a feeling of apprehension amongst the pensioners as to what is going to happen in the future. Whatever we are to do we ought to do it now and so leave the pensioners easy in their minds in regard to the future. If we were not to revise the means scale and effect the economies that can be effected in that respect, it would be impossible to promise that no further action would be taken in regard to old age pensions. I would point out that the revision of the means scale will not at all affect the old age pensioner who is dependent on the pension alone. We have heard most about the old age pensioner who has no other means, and undoubtedly his case is the most pitiable. It will not even affect people whose private means do not exceed 7s. a week. It will altogether leave unaffected the poorest class of old age pensioner. It will touch only those whose means exceed 7s. a week. There are at present 115,000 old age pensioners receiving the 10s. pension. So far as the revision of the means scale goes, about four-fifths of them— judging by the information available— will be unaffected. They will sustain the 1s. cut, but nothing further.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. BLYTHE

The big bulk of the pensioners whose cases demand most consideration will not be affected by this revision of the means scale. On the other hand, they will be freed from any apprehension that the 1s. cut will be followed by a further cut. For the big bulk of the pensioners that will be some satisfaction. We feel it is best the matter should be dealt with in this way, because it will cause less hardship, and it will serve in future, in case we are not able to restore the whole of the money now being taken out of the old age pensions fund, to enable us to restore part of it to those who most require it.

Mr. JOHNSON

If the Minister's speech stood by itself it might be effective as an argument, but, unfortunately, the Minister, presumably in collusion with the Local Government Department, has issued instructions, and the effect of those instructions has been to make a definite calculation as to the value of what might be called home help provided by the people on whom the aged have been dependent. If a man or woman feels it an obligation to keep father or mother who is over seventy, and is keeping them in a state valued at 7s. a week, that would be counted as income, and the method of calculation of the value of that income has been more rigorously applied in recent months than ever hitherto. Deputy Hewat talks of encouraging people not to rely upon public help in the form of pensions or otherwise, but to trust to charity. He did not use that word, but that is what he means. He advised them to rely upon their thrift.

Mr. HEWAT

That is more like it.

Mr. JOHNSON

This Bill, which Deputy Hewat is backing, and particularly this Section, cuts directly at the attribute of thriftiness. If the workman whom Deputy Hewat speaks of has been careful enough to prepare for old age, the value of his thriftiness is going to be taken into account, and he is going to suffer by reason of it. The annuity he has purchased, the superannuation from his trade union, or his friendly society benefit, is going to be held up against him in reckoning how much he shall obtain as an old age pension. Following others, Deputy Hewat pleads for an encouragement of thrifty habits. Deputy Hewat's idea, and I think the general principle working in the minds of the Government, is retrograde, inasmuch as it is trying to remove the obligation which the community has, in an increasing degree in the last three or four hundred years, taken upon itself in regard to those whom society has broken. The suggestion is that we should throw back upon the individual the responsibility of looking after the aged and decrepit, that there should be no social obligation, and that those who are affected by appeals to charity shall be trusted to look after those who need the charity. There should be no social obligation and no right on the part of the disabled citizen to look to the community for help and assistance. It is well to understand where the different parties in the community and where the different schools of thought are moving.

On the one hand we have the Government, assisted by Deputy Hewat and his friends, saying that the poor and the broken will have to trust to the charity of their wealthy neighbours. On the other hand, we have the view that has been steadily growing in civilised communities, that there is a social obligation to the weak and the decrepit. This Section is working quite clearly in the direction of throwing upon the charitable the responsibility for looking after the broken, and I imagine that we ought to oppose that idea whenever and wherever it shows itself. After all we cannot go back to the time when every little village had its feeling of responsibility for its inhabitants. For good or ill we have been caught up in the modern world with all the cruelties of the modern world, but we have to try and ameliorate the evils of civilisation, and that can only be done by accepting social responsibilities. Now, Deputy Hewat wants us to go back from that, and the Government wants us to go back from that. If that is not the case on the part of the Government, what is going to be the effect of this Section? It is to throw upon the Poor Law responsibilities which the old age pension scheme was designed to avoid.

I put a question the other day to the Minister which may be answered now or may be answered at a later stage in regard to that person who owns house property—a single house, perhaps, left to him or her, very likely her, an old maiden lady living in Rathmines and as Deputy Good will recognise, there are many of them. She has a house worth in 1924 £420. Is it to be the value of that house at the present day if that house was free to sell and free to let without any rent restriction, or is it the value of the house with rent restriction that is to be taken into account? That would make a considerable difference in the estimate of income of any person who happens to be the possessor of a little house, whose son or daughter perhaps is living with the old age pensioner. The pensioner feels a certain sense of independence, and is not absolutely at the mercy of the daughter-in-law, because living in her house that is worth the rent and she is getting her old age pension. But under this Section, as I pointed out the other day, if the house is worth £420 capital value she will not only be deprived of the shilling, but she will be deprived of everything. She will not get any pension whatever, and this is what Deputy Hewat asks us to support in the name of thrift. The Minister emphasises that this Section deals with a small proportion of those getting old age pensions, inasmuch as it deals with those who have some income. I would like him to tell us whether he intends that in the term "income" will in future be charged the value of the upkeep or the lodging of the old man or woman, who is living with his or her son or daughter. Is that to be valued or is it not, and if it is to be valued can it be valued at less than 7s. a week? What instructions have been given in regard to the valuation of the food and lodging—the maintenance of the aged? I think the House will be glad to have that information, and I hope the House will insist upon it before it passes this Section.

Mr. BLYTHE

There is no desire on the part of the Government to promote certain social principles, or to follow certain lines of social reactions, as Deputy Johnson would suggest, or to use the old age pensioners as a means of promoting our ideas. We have brought in this measure simply because we have not money to pay the expenses that rest on the State at the present time, and because we must bring down our expenditure so that our income will cover it. That is the reason for this, and it is not a desire to promote any theoretical ideas. The question of the cut has been discussed a great deal, and I do not think I could add anything to it at the moment. It will leave the pensioners no worse off than they were when the 10s. rate was fixed. It will leave them a great deal better off than they have been during a large part of the intervening period. I have already pointed out that the revision in the scale of means will not affect those who are the poorest amongst the old age pensioners. No change will be made, or is proposed to be made as far as they are concerned in the system of calculating the value of the means, except in Section 5, and I can discuss that when we come to it. The Section deals only with property in the possession or in the use of the owner. It would not affect the house in which the owner was living. It would only affect the house which he had let to a tenant.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would like to know from the Minister if his Inspectors are going to pursue the policy they have been following for some time in estimating income. I pointed out, when speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, that Pension Officers had the habit of estimating outdoor relief or home help as income. Surely the Minister must know that when a person reaches seventy years of age and becomes eligible for the old age pension that the receipt of outdoor relief or home help ceases.

Mr. BLYTHE

I agree that home help or outdoor relief should not be reckoned as income, and I would be prepared to meet the Deputy fully on that. I will inquire into the matter.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 19.

Tá.

Níl.

Seán Buitléir.
John J. Cole.
Séamus Eabhróid.
Darrell Figgis.
David Hall.
Séamus Mac Cosgair.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
James Sproule Myles.
Tomás de Nógla.
Ailfrid O Broin.
Tomás O Conaill.
Aodh O Cúlacháin.
Liam O Daimhín.
Seán O Laídhín.
Domhnall O Muirgneasa.
Tadhg O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
John Daly.

Motion declared carried.

SECTION 3.

(1) Every old age pension which has or shall have commenced to accrue before the first appointed day and is, immediately before that day payable at a rate exceeding one shilling per week shall, on and after the first appointed day and until the second appointed day, be payable at the rate set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act in lieu of the rate set forth in the First Schedule to the Act of 1919.

(2) Every old age pension which has or shall have commenced to accrue before the first appointed day and is, immediately before that day, payable at the rate of one shilling per week shall continue to be payable and paid at that rate until the third appointed day or until the previous death or disqualification of the person entitled to receive the same, and shall then cease.

Mr. NAGLE

I desire to move amendment No. 8: "To delete Section 3."

This amendment does away with the Second Schedule and the first cut of 1s. a week from the old age pensioners now getting more than 1s. a week. The amendment would only effect a temporary postponement of the final cut, which is to be made after a review of all pensioners' means, a job which might, perhaps, be done in six months' time. It will give the Minister time to consider with a full knowledge of the facts some new sources of revenue, or else he might do something practical under the Profiteering Bill to reduce the cost of living. I therefore move the amendment.

Mr. BLYTHE

I cannot accept the amendment. It is necessary that this cut should be put into operation. The announcement of the intention to work it took place a very considerable time ago, and we might, if we had the desire, have brought this Bill forward a good deal earlier. We were anxious to leave it as far off as possible. But we certainly desire on the Estimates of the coming year, that we should be able to show the reduction that this would enable us to show. I do not think, in view of the warning that has been given, that there is any case for deferring the cut.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 43.

Tá.

Seán Buitléir.
Séamus Eabhróid.
Darrell Figgis.
David Hall.
Séamus Mac Cosgair.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
James Sproule Myles.
Tomás de Nógla.
Ailfrid O Broin.
Tomás O Conaill.
Aodh O Cúlacháin.
Liam O Daimhín.
Seán O Laidhin.
Tadhg O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
John Daly.
Domhnall O Muirgheasa.

Níl.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I move the amendment which stands in my name:

To add a new sub-section as follows:—(3) The preceding sub-sections shall not apply to an old age pension payable to a person who has attained or will have attained on or before the second appointed day the age of seventy-five years.

Most of the arguments in favour of this amendment were made yesterday on an amendment which was afterwards withdrawn. The effect of the amendment, if carried, would be to allow those who are at present in receipt of a pension and who have reached the age of seventy-five, or who will shortly reach the age of seventy-five, to retain that pension. Frankly, it is an attempt to make this blow fall as lightly as possible. People who have reached the age of seventy-five have had this pension for a considerable number of years; they have made certain arrangements, they have got into certain habits of living, and it is a great hardship on them to expect them at their time of life to set about making new arrangements as the result of this cut which is about to be made.

There is no means of calculating the numbers which would be affected by this amendment, but on the basis of the general population, if the same proportions were to apply, it would be something like 50,000. In any case, whatever the number would be, this number will be rapidly decreasing. The Minister, speaking yesterday, objected to making any distinctions. He pleaded office convenience, and said that it would be better that all should be treated on the same scale. I certainly think that the convenience of a Department should not be allowed to weigh when it is a question, as it is here, of making the declining years of the aged poor a little more comfortable than what they are.

Mr. BLYTHE

There never has been in the old age pensions administration the principle of distinction between pensioners on the grounds of age. When the first Act was put into operation all people over seventy were given 5s., irrespective of how much they exceeded seventy; when 2s. 6d. was added to the pension, during the war, there was no special increase, even for people over seventy-five years of age. Again, when the pension was increased to 10s., it was increased to 10s. all round. I do not see, if we attempt the principle of discrimination on grounds of difference of age amongst pensioners, how we could avoid saying that people who are eighty might have 11s. instead of 10s., and people of eighty-five might have 12s.

You could produce arguments in favour of a graduated scale, but I think that not only has this existing flat payment system an advantage from the point of view of simplicity and the prevention of continual disputes and revision, but it also works out fairly enough. There is practically very little difference from the point of view of the wants of people who are a year or two over seventy, and those who are several years over seventy. If we were not to apply the cut to those who are seventy-five on the first appointed day, there would be no reason why we should not restore the shilling to those who, in a month or two, would become seventy-five. The argument about habits of living does not apply so far as the cut is concerned, because the value of 9s. now is as great as the value of 10s. was a short time ago. It is even much greater than the value that 10s. was two or three years ago.

It cannot be alleged that habits of living would come in as an argument against applying this cut all round. I think there is really no argument in favour of exempting old age pensioners who are over seventy-five, except the advantage that would be gained by those who are opposing the Bill, if they succeeded in nibbling into it a little bit. I think there is no other reason for putting forward this particular amendment, and there would be no other reason for passing it.

Mr. COLE

The next amendment is in my name, and perhaps, with permission, it might be taken with this one.

Mr. BLYTHE

I suggest it deals with an entirely different principle.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Cole's amendment deals with the next Section.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

This deals with part of the substance of the amendment that I withdrew yesterday in order that an amendment might not be moved on a matter of this kind in dealing with an interpretation of the Section. I hope the Minister will not think I am making a faithful copy of certain words with which he and I are very familiar—words used by the President—when I say that I have not been very greatly impressed by his argument. In this case I will not merely make the assertion, but I will say why I have not been impressed by his argument, and that is, as you will know, a very considerable addition to the phrase. Every one of his arguments has taken one back over something like seventeen or eighteen years. What was the substance of what he said? He said: "There has never been in old age pensions the principle of distinction according to age."

Let me go back prior to 1908, if his memory extends so far in regard to this question. I happen to know something with regard to the discussion that preceded the introduction of old age pensions. When people raised the suggestion that when citizens had achieved a certain age they should be entitled to receive from the community an allowance per week to help them in their declining and weakening years, what was the argument that was put up in response? Always that there has never been the principle of distinction according to age. I remember hearing an eloquent address given by a certain opponent of old age pensions at that time. He stated:"If seventy years, why not sixty-nine years, and if sixty-nine years, why not sixty-eight?" It was then decided that there ought to be some distinction and some degree of arbitrariness and that there ought to be some innovation. The innovation was introduced that at seventy people should receive a certain old age pension. It has been agreed, irrespective of all Parties in this country, or in other countries, that that innovation was a good one; that the settling of some arbitrary age and some arbitrary amount was beneficial from the point of view of legislation, from the point of view of humanity, and was a right and proper responsibility to be taken both by the State and the community.

The amendment suggests we should take an equal decision now. If it is necessary that there should be a cut in old age pensions, let us at least say that that cut shall not apply to persons of and over 75 years. Let us at least diminish the stroke for those who are more helpless even than are those who are only 70. As they decline in age, as they increase in helplessness, then let the State come forward and say that although it is necessary to make a cut on those who are in receipt, or will be in receipt of old age pensions between 70 and 75, that after 75 that cut shall cease to operate. That is an argument that cannot be turned aside by saying that such a thing has never been done before. If it had been done before, presumably Deputy O'Connell would not have been under the necessity of putting forward the amendment now to desire it should be so in the future. And there is good reason for it. It is the reason to which I have referred before, and I will be referring to it constantly again. The Minister has already got in administration one-third of the entire amount that he said last November he wanted to get. He has got this as a result of administration. If he got one-third of what he stated he did want, then let the benefit of that saving be given to those who are in increasing years. Let the cut operate if it must operate, but if it is to operate let it cease to operate after 75 and let the people after 75 get the benefit of the saving that he has already achieved and will achieve as a consequence of the administration, as he stated to the Dáil.

That is good, sound reasoning in finance, and that reason also cannot be turned aside by saying "this was never done before." There has to be a beginning to everything, and this is a good time to start the principle, for it is a right principle, even if it creates office inconvenience. Office inconvenience was the argument that the Minister put forward yesterday. Well, take it back again from the beginning to the very fact of there being any old age pensions at all. That in itself is an office inconvenience. If it is office inconvenience that has to be guarded against, then let old age pensions go. The extra office inconvenience is no kind of argument. These things can be done. The principle is a sound principle, in finance; it is true that the Minister has already got, irrespective of legislation, one-third of the entire sum of the saving that he expected to get and that he desired to get by legislative means. Let the benefit of that go to those who are in increasingly declining years.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is an argument that has been used by the Minister time after time. In fact, it is the only argument he uses in justification of this general scheme for cutting old-age pensions, and that is that the general cost of living has declined, and the aged must be made to bear their share. I want to ask him to consider the position of the aged, and particularly those over 75, and to actually compare their cost of living to-day with the cost of living of such persons four years ago. When he says that the cost of living has declined by so much he is referring to certain index figures. Those index figures are based upon the average household—a father and mother and three or four children. They are based upon a regular list of fifty or sixty classes of goods, including all kinds of things that the average man or woman of seventy-five do not consume. What do we find in experience amongst this class of citizen? That they spend a very much greater proportion of their income in such taxable articles as tea, sugar and tobacco than any other class in the community. Proportionately the expenditure of the old-age pensioner upon these articles which are heavily taxed, is greater than any other section of the community.

During the war period let it be borne in mind the rate of taxation on these articles, tea, sugar, tobacco, and whiskey, if you like, increased abnor mally, and as a consequence this very section or class of the community has been taxed much more heavily on the articles that they consume than the rest of the community. Therefore they have borne more than their share of the increased expenditure. They are not able to make the allowance that the Minister would desire because of the decline in the cost of living, inasmuch as there has not been a decline in the cost of living to them. These articles have not declined in retail prices simply because the rate of taxation on these articles has not been reduced. Now, that argument applies to all the aged, but one can see that in a country of long-lived people you may say that a large number of those of seventy can knock about and walk and enjoy some of the amenities of life, but the proportion of those who are able to do it after the age of 75 is very much less. As a consequence they are driven to rely upon those luxury foods which are heavily taxed. The aged of 75 are still more dependent for their comfort in life upon their purchase of this kind of heavily-taxed food than those of 70. I submit that that is an argument that meets the contention of the Minister, that because you have fixed the flat rate for all at 70 you must continue to do so. So long as he relies for his justification of this cut upon the reductions in the cost of living, I am entitled to retort that there has been no reduction in the cost of living, or a very much smaller reduction than he would pretend for those who are in receipt of old-age pensions, and who, because of their age, are in the habit of consuming a class of goods, a class of commodities which does not conform to the range of commodities which are consumed by the ordinary person upon which the cost of living index is based.

Old men and women of 70 or 75 do not complain of the average amount they spend on costumes, blouses, corsets, stays and chemises contained in this list. And they do not buy the same quantity of flesh foods, and it is these particular articles, where there has been a reduction in prices, that has affected the cost of living as shown by those figures. I believe if I were in the position of the Minister and had access to the basis of these index figures I could show the cost of living for the old men and women at 75 has not declined since 1920, and unless he can show to the contrary that there has been a decline in their cost of living he has no case to make for this Bill, and particularly against this amendment.

Mr. BLYTHE

We always hear every particular class state that the cost of living figure has no reference to their condition but that it has reference to the condition of some other people. There is no reason for suggesting that this matter affects those over 75 more than those under 75. There is no reason for drawing a distinction between the persons who had the good luck to attain the age of 75 in June or May or April, and to exclude the persons who had not the good luck to be 75 in September or October. That is really what is suggested in the amendment, and I do not think that any sort of case has been made out for it. Whether the old age pensioners have benefitted as much by the decrease in the cost of living as other people is a matter which might be argued and about which I think we would be probably a long time in getting agreement. But they do not spend their old age pensions on tea and tobacco and sugar merely, although there has been a very considerable fall in the cost of sugar. I am not familiar with the details of prices, but I am told it is so.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Does the Minister say that there has been a fall in the price of sugar?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes, since the high peak period.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Since it was more expensive than it is now.

Mr. BLYTHE

But the other necessaries, if you like to use the word necessaries in respect to this matter, have decreased. And even the oldest old age pensioners will not subsist on a diet of tobacco, tea and sugar. There are other necessities of life, and at any rate the old age pensioner of 70 is in the same position in that regard as the old age pensioner of 75. The information I have is that taking all the factors into consideration as well as it can be done, the old age pensioner has benefitted as much from the decreased cost of living as any other class in the community.

There are other articles that have not declined much which the old age pensioners do not use very considerably and they are also included in arriving at the total of the cost of living figure. Nothing would be achieved, I think, by accepting this amendment except to arouse a sense of injustice amongst those who—we cannot expect the people actually involved themselves, at any rate the whole of them, to see the necessity of what is being done—are cut by reason of the fact that neighbours who happen to be a few months older and who, perhaps, are in much less necessitous circumstances are not cut. There are sure to be a very large number of those under 75 who by reason of more feeble health are really much more in need of the pension than considerable numbers of those who happen to be over 75. If you find somebody in very feeble health and very necessitous circumstances, because of that, if such a person find himself cut while his neighbour who is a little older but is more healthy and is stronger is not cut there will be a very great and very easily understood sense of grievance. I think you will do nothing that will be satisfactory to the general body of those concerned by making this particular discrimination and I think certainly no case has been made out for treating persons over 75 as being more in need of money than, say, a person of 74.

Mr. COLE

I wish to support this amendment. When framing my own amendment, which comes afterwards, I intended to leave it at 70 years of age instead of 75, but on further consideration I thought I might add five years to the amount to be spent which we are told may only be for days, or perhaps, at the outset, for a few years. But if the aged poor have not the strength and not the means to support that strength it is natural that they would soon take their departure. In any case the amendment, if carried, will not mean a great loss to the State, and it will not enforce any loss that would have any comparison at all to the hardship which would be put upon the poor by being deprived of this part of the pension. The Minister referred at some length to the cost of living. I went into the figures on Second Reading and I maintained at that time that the cost of living for the poor man's table was a hundred per cent. more than in pre-war times. I did not go back to the time when the prices were fixed on the rates of an 80 point increase. I went back to 1914 and from that time to now the cost of living is 100 per cent. up. The Minister referred to one or two things and said there were more things than had been mentioned necessary for the poor man's table. He did not refer to bread. The cost of the 4lb. loaf at the time I mention was 4½d. while it is now 9d.; sugar was only 2d. a pound at that time while it is now 7d. If the Minister agrees to this amendment the charge which may be put upon the State will be very small and of short duration. The Minister, last October, in introducing the Bill, maintained that it would mean a saving of £500,000. I was told by an official of some standing, only yesterday, that the saving would be £100,000 more than this, so this figure would differ considerably from that advanced last November and consequently gives me a certain amount of encouragement to support this amendment.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The Minister for Finance, in resisting this amendment, used a very remarkable argument. He referred to the old age pensioner of 74 who was in more feeble health than the old age pensioner of 75, and he pointed to the dissatisfaction that would result if this amendment was adopted. That was a striking argument, but it is as well to see exactly where it leads one. What about the old man of 69, in more feeble health than the old age pensioner of 70? And why does not the argument of dissatisfaction as between the old man with 9s. at 74, and the old man with 10s. at 75, weigh equally as between the man of no-shillings at 69 and the man of 9s. at 74? If the argument is sound it is right to extend it. If it cannot bear that extension it is unsound and ought to be surrendered. There is dissatisfaction as to two things at present. There is dissatisfaction amongst persons of 68 and 69 who are more feeble than their robust brothers and sisters of 70, and who believe, because they are more enfeebled, they are better entitled to have a distinction drawn in their favour. The same distinction is asked to be drawn in this amendment, and the Minister's argument that resists it does not prove itself correct because it does not bear the extension to which I have referred.

Mr. CORISH

I suggest that the Minister for Finance has not answered the argument put forward by Deputy Johnson in connection with this amendment, and I suggest that he did not try to answer it, because if he had tried he would simply have to surrender his case. Deputy Johnson has advanced proper arguments and arguments that ought to appeal to anybody with a sense of humanity in connection with this amendment. He has stated very definitely that the particular commodities that those people have to buy have not been reduced to any great extent from the time when they were at the peak point. Now tea and sugar have not been reduced since 1920, when the pensions were fixed at 10s. a week. Sugar has actually increased since 1920 by 1½d. a lb. I think it will be found that these figures are correct on examination. The Minister for Finance suggests, or rather tries to hide himself behind people, in speaking of old age pensions, to whom this amendment does not refer. He says there may be a sort of jealousy between those and people that we are seeking to cover by this amendment. I do not see that there was any necessity for that argument, and I do not think that that argument will be raised in the country by people in respect to pensioners under 75, and I say that argument does not hold very much water. There is machinery in other parts of the Bill to prevent that from occurring, and I think in all fairness the Minister ought to accept this amendment put forward by Deputy O'Connell.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would just wish to say a few words in reply to what has been said by Deputy Figgis. We are not legislating for people of 69 years of age, but we are legislating for people of 74, 73 and 72 years of age.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

It was with the greatest possible reluctance and with a feeling almost akin to shame that I felt called upon to support the Government on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am glad now to find an amendment that I can conscientiously support. I do not think the arguments of the Minister for Finance are sound. I do not think it is at all likely, taking the law of averages and the law of probability into account, that the old age pensioners under 75 may possibly be in a poorer state of health than old age pensioners over 75. I think it much more probable, according to the law of averages, those over 75 will be in the poorer state of health. As I read this amendment, it would not apply to those who in future would reach the age of 75. It would only apply to those who on the appointed day are 75 years of age. That being the case, I do not think it would make a great difference financially to the Ministry if they accepted this amendment, and I think that from the humanitarian point of view, and in consideration for the feelings of those poor people who have reached that age it might be expected the Government would make this concession. I think it is a mistake for them to stand fast on the definite clause of the original Bill, as introduced. I think the question of the cost of living is not of much use. Arguing from that point of view— the actual cost of living and the standard of comfort, if it could be secured by those pensioners at all—it is obvious that the full pension is quite inadequate to provide that proper comfort and support which anybody of that age would require, and it is only the absolute exigencies of the situation and the financial requirements of the nation that can justify the Government in introducing this Bill at all.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 33.

Tá.

Seán Buitléir.
John J. Cole.
John Daly.
Séamus Eabhróid.
Darrell Figgis.
David Hall.
Connor Hogan.
Séamus Mac Cosgair.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
Patrick J. Mulvany.
James Sproule Myles.
Tomás de Nógla.
Ailfrid O Broin.
Tomás O Conaill.
Aodh O Cúlacháin.
Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
Seán O Laidhin.
Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Tadhg O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin.
Seán O Duinnín.

Níl.

Amendment declared lost.

Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and declared carried.

SECTION 4.

(1) Immediately upon the passing of this Act every pension officer shall proceed to review all old age pensions payable in his district which—

(a) have commenced to accrue before the passing of this Act or shall commence to accrue before the first appointed day, and

(b) immediately before the first appointed day are payable at a rate exceeding one shilling per week,

and upon such review the pension officer shall reduce or otherwise adjust such pension to the rate at which the same would be payable according to the scale set forth in the First Schedule to this Act, and shall fix the rate of such pension accordingly.

(2) Every pension liable to be reviewed under this section shall, on and after the second appointed day, be payable at the rate fixed by the pension officer on such review in lieu of the rate set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act.

(3) Any person who at the commencement of this Act is in receipt of a pension liable to be reviewed under this section and claims to be aggrieved by the review of that pension under this Section, may appeal against such review to the local pension committee, who shall consider the matter and give their decision thereon in the same manner and subject to the like appeal to the central pension authority as if the review under this Section was the report of a pension officer on a claim referred to him for report and inquiry under section 7 of the Act of 1908.

(4) On and after the Friday next after the final determination of an appeal under the foregoing sub-section, the pension the subject of such appeal shall be payable at the rate (hereinafter called the final rate) finally fixed on such appeal in lieu of the rate (hereinafter called the original rate) fixed by the pension officer under this Section, and in the event of the final rate being greater than the original rate the difference between such rates for the period during which the original rate was payable shall, on or as soon as conveniently may be after the Friday aforesaid, be paid to the person entitled to receive such pension.

Mr. JOHN J. COLE

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:—

To add at the end of sub-section (1) the following proviso:—"Provided however that the existing rate in the case of any old age pensioner who has reached the age of 75 years shall not be altered."

I do not think there is any need to speak to it, as it would only mean going over the same arguments again.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think that the Deputy has been too reticent in this matter. As the Minister pointed out to him, it deals with an entirely different question from that which was discussed on the last amendment. It has reference to the reviewing of present pensions—"Immediately upon the passing of this Act every pension officer shall proceed to review all old age pensions payable in his district, and upon such review the pension officer shall reduce or otherwise adjust such pension."

I take it the amendment is to exclude from the review persons over 75. There may be something to be said for reducing the pensions of those who are over 75. The Dáil evidently thinks there is something to be said. The majority of the Dáil are quite satisfied that a case has been made for such reduction, but no case has yet been made for going over the records of a man of 75 and putting him through the sieve, as it were, and then cutting his pension altogether, or reducing it to any extent that may be allowed by this Bill. Surely we might allow the man of 75 to go on in peace the rest of his days without causing any revolution in his domestic habits. Supposing he were so great a criminal as to have deluded the British Government five years ago, he was following the example of many a man of high repute to-day, and he ought in accordance with the prevalent, or up to recently the prevailing habit, be in receipt of all kinds of encomiums. He was able to delude the pension officer, he was able to deceive the agents of the British Government. If he had been able to do that five years ago, and crow about it, he would have been given a wreath by the gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches—a laurel wreath. Having done that, and received all the applause that was due to such persons in those days, we are now to tell him that he has to pay the penalty, and for the next year or two or three years of his life he will have to pay up; we cannot afford to allow him to go on living at the rate of luxury which he has been able to live at by virtue of his ability to deceive the British Government. As Deputy Figgis reminds me, the Ministry may want to put this aside, so that another kind of wreath shall be provided for such persons.

Seriously, I think there is a fair case to be made for allowing such a man to continue to receive his pension. After all, the man of 75 or the woman of 75— and do not let us forget that probably half or more than half of the recipients are women—has not a long expectation of life, and it would be only reasonable to allow him or her to enjoy such a pension as he or she has been receiving without the review of circumstances that this Section provides for. I support the amendment of Deputy Cole, who has not had the temerity to await the Minister's answer, and I will press it to a division.

Mr. LYONS

I support the amendment. I think it is really unfair for any Minister to force a person of 75 years of age to go over all the evidence he gave, probably five or six years ago, in order that he may retain the pension. I wonder does this Section mean that in the case of an old age pensioner receiving out-door relief, the relief will count as part of the income, and that the pension will be reduced accordingly? I have in mind the case of a person of 74 years who is in receipt of 6/- out-door relief and who applied for the old age pension. He is at the present time receiving 4/- a week pension. Perhaps the same thing will apply under this Section. A person of 75, solely dependent on relief from the local authorities, may be compelled to give up portion of his pension or forfeit the amount he receives otherwise. An old age pensioner met me in the town of Moate recently and his remarks were the same as the remarks of every old age pensioner in the Saorstát. He said: "What did we put in this Government at all for?" I said: "I am sure I cannot tell you." He said: "When we had the British Government we got 10/-, and look at the way the British Government is attending to the old people over there. This day I saw where an old gentleman in England, of 80 years, married an old lady of 75. That shows you the way the British Government are looking after the old people. They are giving them great courage and great heart." I quite agree with that old chap. If the Minister for Finance would agree to accept this amendment, the remainder of the Bill would not suffer much. Surely, for the sake of the few years that the pensioner of 75 has to live, it is not worth while reducing the pension. The Minister for Finance and some other gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches, including the Minister for Defence, went into the blind asylums and to the old and infirm to seek their votes in 1918, and I suggest that it would be more in accord with the promises they gave to those old people then if, instead of reducing the old age pension of a person of 75, they proposed to grant the pension to persons of 65. I notice that 80 years is mentioned in some amendments on the Paper. The Deputies who put that down must think there is something good in store for the old people. I fear that under present circumstances and under the provision made in this Bill there will not be many people of 80 left.

Mr. J. DALY

You pointed out that one of them got married at 80 the other day.

Mr. LYONS

To expect a person at the age of 75 to live on anything less than 10/- per week is to expect too much of human nature.

It has been pointed out in regard to the cost of living that those old people do not utilise certain articles; they do not wear certain clothes, nor do they consume certain foods. In the case of an aged person living in a town, the principal item of nourishment, or rather his principal luxury, is a pint, and that costs 9d. In pre-war days it was 1½d. or 2d. It would be much better for the Minister for Finance to endeavour to reduce the cost of living.

Mr. GOREY

Reduce the cost of the pint.

Mr. LYONS

It would be much better for him act in that direction than to carry out this disgraceful thing of reducing the pensions to a figure on which the old people cannot live. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment. By doing so he will at least prove to one section of the community that he is prepared to carry out some of the promises that were made in the election campaign in 1918.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not really desire to add anything to what I said before. I do not think there is any argument in favour of discriminating between the person of 74 and the person of 75.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 34.

Tá.

Seán Buitléir.
Séamus Eabhróid.
Darrell Figgis.
David Hall.
Séamus Mac Cosgair.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
Tomás de Nógla.
Ailfrid O Broin.
Tomás O Conaill.
Aodh O Cúlacháin.
Seán O Laidhin.
Tadhg O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
John Daly.
Connor Hogan.
Seán O Duinnín.
Domhnall O Muirgheasa.

Níl.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. DALY

I beg to move:—

To add at the end of sub-section (1), line 16, proviso as follows:—

"Provided however that the existing rate in the case of any old age pensioner who has reached the age of 80 years shall not be altered."

There has been so much said in favour of the man who reaches the age of 75 that there is very little left for me to say on behalf of those who reach the age of 80. I can, however, point out that when they arrive at that age they are again children.

It is necessary that they should have somebody to look after them. Nowadays nobody will look after you unless paid for it. That will be something out of the ten shillings a week, in addition to the other shilling that is going to be taken off. Deputy Johnson and the other Deputies pointed out that the foods that are eaten by the old age pensioners of seventy-five—tea, sugar, and tobacco—had not reduced in price.

Mr. GOREY

Profiteering and the gombeen man.

Mr. DALY

Not at all. There is no gombeen man. You do not mean to call Mr. Blythe a gombeen man? I would not be guilty of it. Whatever else we might say to him, he is not a gombeen man.

Mr. GOREY

What about some of the Deputies?

Mr. DALY

The Deputies are not gombeen men at all. When Deputy Johnson was speaking about what the old age pensioner of seventy-five consumed, he wished to say, but he was too shy to say it, that the old age pensioner at that age would like a little drop of whiskey. Well, we all know that when they have attained the age of eighty they are subject to weaknesses once in a way, and it will be necessary for them to get a little drop of whiskey. They will have to pay tenpence for it, and out of this tenpence the Minister for Finance will get eightpence.

Now, in addition to the things I have mentioned, the rents have not been reduced. They are rather increased. I know an old age pensioner paying four shillings a week for an old house. That pensioner is ninety years of age, and if one shilling is taken off her she will die on the spot. I am sure that from the amount of reluctance with which the Minister for Finance told us the other day he had in moving this Bill, I have a proper bait for his sympathies when I mention the age of eighty years. I am certain that he will accede to my request when I point out to him that it is not worth his while to take one shilling from those people at that age of eighty. In our country those people have to work. They are not like the people that Deputy Lyons pointed out, who are getting married in England. That is because they are well fed there. Our people are looking after their souls at that age, and I do not think that the Minister for Finance would be looking after his soul if he will take this shilling off them.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is very hard to resist eloquence like Deputy Daly's. It will not have any serious political effect. I do not see any solid argument for it, but it would involve a very small amount of money, I should say, in this particular case. If there is any great desire through the Dáil that this amendment should be accepted in this particular case, as I have given away nothing yet, I would agree to accept it. I would undertake myself to introduce an amendment because this is not particularly clear as it stands.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Do I understand that the amendment is withdrawn on the promise given by the Minister for Finance to consider the matter?

Mr. DALY

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I beg to move amendment No. 12, as follows:—"Before sub-section (2) to insert a now sub-section as follows:—As soon as may be after the review of old age pensions under the preceding sub-section is completed and in any case not less than one calendar month before the second appointed day, the Minister shall present to the Oireachtas a return showing the number of persons entitled to old age pensions at each rate of the scale set forth in the First Schedule to this Act, as ascertained by the review aforesaid."

This is a very important amendment, and now that we have got at the sympathetic side of the Minister for Finance, I am sure he will accept it. The Minister himself admits that he is asking the Dáil to cut down the old age pensions without knowing exactly how much he is going to save by that experiment. The amendment asks, before the cut actually takes place, that the Dáil should be informed as to what the exact effect of the cut will be. I do not think there is any necessity for arguing much further in favour of the amendment, and I am sure the Minister will accept it.

Mr. BLYTHE

This is an amendment which I do not think is really necessary, because the information could be obtained by the Deputy at any time. This is information that I certainly would supply as soon as it is ready. However, if we are to have, as it is now proposed, a fixed date for the Second Appointed Day, I would not like to guarantee a period of one month because one never knows what delays may occur in completing the reviews. If the Deputy agrees to the deletion of the words in his amendment, "Not less than one calendar month," I would be prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I am prepared to have my amendment amended in the manner suggested by the Minister, that is to say, by the deletion of the words "Not less than one calendar month."

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendment 13

(Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL)

not moved.

Question: "That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

(1) The yearly value of any such property as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1911 shall be calculated as follows in lieu of the mode of calculation prescribed by that clause or by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1919, that is to say—

(i) the first twenty-five pounds of the capital value of the said property shall be excluded, and

(ii) the yearly value of so much of the capital value of the said property as exceeds the sum of twenty-five pounds shall be taken to be one-tenth part of the capital value thereof.

(2) This Section shall not apply to a calculation of the means of any person who became, before the passing of this Act, entitled to receive an old age pension.

(3) Clause (a) of sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Act of 1919 is hereby repealed.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move amendment 14, to delete Section 5.

This section prescribes the manner in which the annual value of capital owned by a claimant or pensioner is to be calculated. Under the Act of 1911, the first Act to prescribe the method of calculation, the arrangement was that the annual value was equal to one-twentieth of the capital value. That is calculating on a five per cent. basis. As the limit to private means was then £31 10s. per year, the maximum capital value was £630. Under the Act of 1919 the annual value of the capital value ranged from £25 to £400 and was calculated on a five per cent. basis, and where the sum was over £400 the basis of calculation was ten per cent. As the limit to private means was then £49 17s. 6d. a year, the maximum capital value would be £711 5s. Od. This Bill proposes to calculate the annual value on a ten per cent. basis on all capital value over £25, and as the limit of private means is fixed by the Bill at £39 5s. Od., the annual value of the maximum capital value would be £417 10s. The Bill is, therefore not merely less favourable than the existing law, but it is even less favourable than the Acts of 1908 and 1911, and for these reasons I accordingly move my amendment for the deletion of the Section.

Mr. BLYTHE

This Section applies to property owned, but not personally used. It is felt that it is not necessary or right that an old age pension should be paid by the State to a person with fairly substantial means, so that a person may keep these means intact and transmit them to his heirs. The change proposed in the Bill will not affect a pension that will be payable to any person unless the property in question exceeds £200 in value. If the property is, to some extent, consumed in supplementing the pension, that seems to us to be reasonable enough. There is no reason why a person should hold, say, on deposit receipt, £300 or £400, and that that in fact should not be taken into account at all as a capital sum for the purpose of calculating means under the Old Age Pensions Act. If we only calculated the value of that on a five per cent. basis it would not mean, in the case of a deposit receipt, very much, but it might mean a good deal in the case of other property, having regard only to income, and assuming that the pensioner should be allowed to preserve that sum intact, and that the State, in the meantime, should provide for his needs, as the Old Age Pensions Act requires, so that his heirs might benefit. It seems to us that it is fairly reasonable to take a tenth of the annual value when we are considering the means of a person. That certainly does mean that we would expect the capital to be eaten into to a certain extent, but as I have said the change only affects the person from the point of view of a pension when the property held exceeds something over £200.

Mr. JOHNSON

I was expecting Deputy Hewat to intervene on behalf of these small property owners whose advocate he is. The Minister has touched upon a principle that I would have been delighted to have seen applied in connection with, say, the Land Bill, and perhaps with many other Bills that are being introduced and that may be introduced; it is, that people must not be expected to live upon the interest accruing through property ownership, but as they live out of the property, the property declines in value, and you are really eating into the property.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

, at this stage, resumed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister expect the Dáil to accept that as a principle, with this qualification: That as people live upon their property, the property is thereby being annually reduced. If the income from certain property is £50 a year, then that saved £50 that is consumed year by year, lessens the capital value of the property. Is that the Minister's contention? I am sure Deputy Hewat will be interested in this, and I am sure that very many of those who are inclined to give the Government and the Minister thick and thin support will be interested in the answer. If that is not the view that the Minister takes, why does he want to make an exception in the case of old age pensioners? They are living out of their income, and if the income is derived from some small property, which may have been handed down to them by previous generations and they are able to take 5/-, 6/-, or 7/- a week out of it, is it to be assumed that the property is to that extent evaporating, because if that is the case, in regard to old age pensioners and their property, I suggest that the same course of evaporation would apply to the land owner or the railway shareholder, or any other kind of property owner. The Minister for Finance promulgates the principle that you cannot eat your cake and have it, that if you are living upon property worth £1,000, and that you spend £100 a year from the income of that property, the property will only last for ten years, and at the end of ten years will no longer be yours.

That is certainly a very interesting doctrine to come from the Ministerial Bench. I would be delighted to support him if he proposes to apply it to others besides the old age pensioners. But if it is not to be applied to the others, why are you going to apply it to the old age pensioners? Is it because they are poor, or is it because they have only small property, or that there are only a few thousand of them? The theory that the Minister had up to now urged in favour of the Bill is that the incomes of the pensioners are capable of meeting certain needs, as contrasted with the smaller needs of these people four or five years ago. This is based upon income. In the case of small property owners we ask that you will continue to apply that principle and think of the income. There have been two or three changes in the method of calculation of the means since the first Bill was introduced in 1908. There have been slight changes, and some considerable changes, in three or four different Bills, but the position that is sought to be applied to pensioners in this Bill is much more drastic and limiting than in either of the others. To make £417 10s. the maximum capital value of any property, the possessor of which would be deprived of a pension, is to cut the amount down by £200, as compared with, I think, 1911, and to £300 odd as compared with the present law. It seems to me that the number of people affected is not very great according to the Minister's own assertions. We have not been able to find out exactly how many people would be affected, but probably not more than 40,000. I cannot tell the exact number, as the information is not available. Perhaps when the review has taken place we shall have more information on that point, but I cannot agree with this exception being taken in the case of old age pensioners, that is to say, that they should be expected to be eating away their little property during their lifetime, while no other portion of the community is calculated to do the same thing. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some satisfaction, or if he cannot, in explaining the Bill, whether he is going to tell us the Government have entered upon a new course and that they intend to apply this principle to all incomes from property.

Mr. HEWAT

I did not expect to be called upon to intervene in this discussion at all, and I was rather hopeful that I would not have to enter into any discussion on the Bill during its passage through the Dáil. But when Deputy Johnson calls upon me I always feel it is imperative that I should respond. Deputy Johnson goes on the assumption that if an old age pensioner has a considerable amount of money or property that it should not in any way debar him from participating in the grant. The old age pension is, I think, intended for necessitous cases. I do not think the Act even contemplated the far-reaching allowance, irrespective of the means of the people who are going to get the grant.

Mr. JOHNSON

It fixed the means inside which they would allow pensions.

Mr. HEWAT

Quite so. It was done in the previous Acts and it is done in this Act. The Deputy goes on to claborate the argument that because the old age pensioner may be called upon to eat into his capital that that is a reason why a wastage of capital invested in railways and other industries is the proper course. If they were both on the same level he probably would be right, but they are not. The investment of the individual either through his industry or good fortune is entirely his own concern. He buys the thing, he retains the thing; it may suffer depreciation for causes not within his control, but at all events he is an independent entity as regards his own property. The old age pensioner, of course, comes along and he claims Government assistance. There is where the difference comes in. The claim to assistance from the Government can only be based on the necessity of the case, unless Deputy Johnson wants to bring in a complete alteration and perhaps I might be with him there, whereby every man, woman and child who is born into the world will, at the age of 70 years, get a certain pension, irrespective of his or her means. That is logic, but it is not logical to say that a man with a considerable amount of property can conserve that property and at the same time extract from the community a contribution towards the cost of his living. I say that that is not right. The community are only called upon to provide in case of necessity.

An old age pensioner may be poor; he may have nothing at all, without being to blame in the least, but the old age pensioner may equally be poor through his own fault, through want of thrift. He may also be poor, as we know in this country, because he has discarded himself of his wealth. Take the case that has been referred to. An old age pensioner has a sum of £300, £400 or £500. He gets the old age pension. As a matter of investment, supposing he has a son or daughter. I say it is a very good investment for the son or daughter to look after the old man or the old woman and conserve the amount of his or her income because in due course it will come down to them. That is not the intention, in my judgment, of the old age pension provision at all. I say that if a man coming up to the age of 60 or 70 has to look forward to the old age pension he ought not at any stage of his life to look forward to drawing money from the State as a thing to be proud of; rather every independent man or woman should try and avoid coming under the old age pension by being in a position to maintain themselves. This calling upon the Government not only in this direction, but in many other directions to do this, to do that, and to do the other thing, in my opinion, is sapping the independence of the individual and is demoralising to the community as a whole.

Mr. BLYTHE

I might point out that under the provision of the Bill a person having £392 in bank would still be entitled to a pension of 2s. If the clause that is in the Bill were to be thrown out he would be entitled to a full pension.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister could easily find ways and means, if he accepted this amendment, of meeting the case of the man who has cash. Does he desire, for instance, to force the man or woman who has a little farm property, on which he or she is not living, to sell? Or if he or she has a house worth £400, or over, does he desire the owner to be forced to sell? With a house worth over £420, the owner will be presumed to be earning an income of such amount as will prevent him or her from getting a pension.

Mr. BLYTHE

On a point of explanation, it will prevent his getting the full pension, but not any pension.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think it will prevent his getting any pension. The limit is, I think, £417 10s. One-tenth of £420 will amount to £42. If the claimant has an income of over £39 5s. he can get no pension. If the claimant's property is worth £420, capital value, and he or she does not live in it, he or she is presumed to be earning out of it £42, or a little less than that, because there is an allowance of £25. Deputy Hewat, of course, is consistent. He wants to abolish the old age pensions. He wants to force all these people as necessitous and destitute persons on to the Poor Law and make paupers of them. That is Deputy Hewat's position, and he is quite consistent in advocating it. He says the only remedy for that is thrift. If the person has been thrifty enough to buy a house in his or her youth, maintains it, and it is worth £420 to-day, that thrift is going to be counted against him or her and deprives him or her of any pension. Of course, Deputy Hewat says that that is quite right, that there should not be any pensions for the poor. He would approve of pensions for the wealthy; he would approve of pensions for judges and soldiers and civil servants and the like, but he would not approve of pensions for the poor, because that is depending too much on the Government. Force these people back upon their own self-reliance; compel them to be thrifty; let them starve if they are not thrifty; let them go hungry or let them have recourse to the Poor Law—that is the doctrine which Deputy Hewat has familiarised us with. Those people with whom Deputy Hewat usually acts have advocated for many years that policy and it is the policy that was acted upon and forced upon the people. But we had hoped we were getting away from it. I am not sure whether those hopes were well-founded. It rather appears from the way things are going that they were not well-founded at all, and that Deputy Hewat has, as a matter of fact, made converts of the Government and the Government Party. They will not yet admit that they want to throw the poor upon the Poor Law. They will not yet admit that they would like to deprive the poor of the old age pensions as punishment for not being thrifty. But they are moving in that direction very rapidly. Between this Bill and the administration of the Pensions Law and the Poor Law, it does seem that Deputy Hewat has been very successful in his advocacy. I think the amendment should be accepted and that the Minister should make another gesture to prove that he has not been captivated by the advocacy of Deputy Hewat.

Mr. ALTON

I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider the changing of the figure one-tenth to one-twelfth.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is an amendment to delete the Section.

Mr. ALTON

Shall I have an opportunity of putting this question later?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes, when the Section comes on.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 38

Tá.

Seán Buitléir.
John Daly.
Séamus Eabhróid.
David Hall.
Séamus Mac Cosgair.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
Tomás de Nógla.
Tomás O Conaill.
Liam O Daimhín.
Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Tadhg O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I move:—

In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (ii.) and to substitute therefor as follows:—

(ii.) The yearly value of the next two hundred pounds of the capital value of the said property shall be taken to be one-twentieth part of the capital value; and

(iii.) The yearly value of so much of the capital value of the said property as exceeds the sum of two hundred and twenty-five pounds shall be taken to be one-tenth part of the capital value.

This amendment is in the nature of a compromise, seeing that the Dáil has rejected a previous amendment. As was pointed out when the last amendment was under discussion, the maximum amount of capital which would exclude a pension is £711. Then into this Bill limitations are introduced, apart altogether from the basis of calculation which is set out in this Section, which will have the effect of reducing that figure to £630. That was the 1911 figure. The Minister now proposes to make the figure £417. That, to my mind, is altogether too drastic a reduction, and the effect of the amendment which I propose would be to make this maximum figure £570. It proposes that for the first £200 of capital the annual value shall be calculated at one-twentieth, and that over £225 the one-tenth would come in. The advantage of this from the point of view which I look at it is that those who have smaller sums—and I am sure they are in the majority—would benefit. It would be only those who would have a larger amount of capital who would come into the 10 per cent. in calculating the amount of income for the purpose of the Act.

Mr. BLYTHE

Deputy O'Connell's amendment is, as he says, a compromise, but I think that the figure set down in the Bill is not unreasonable. Under the terms of Deputy O'Connell's amendment it would be possible for a person to have something over £300 in bank, or £300 of property, and to have an undiminished pension. Cases have been brought to the notice of those who are administering the Pensions Acts where people have simply existed on a pension and have conserved property for their heirs. The effect of giving the pension and of the amount of property that they were allowed to hold under the old system simply meant that the pension was being paid not really for the benefit of the pensioner but for the benefit of those who were to inherit his or her property. I think that the figure that we put forward in the Bill is reasonable, that if the capital is wasted and consumed down to the figure of £200 the pension rises to the maximum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Again I ask the Minister does he desire that the person holding this small property, out of which he or she is deriving a small income, must be forced into the market? Is that the intention? I would like also if the Minister could give us the names and addresses of these people who have been able to subsist on the pensions, and have been able to retain intact any income they may have derived from property, because it would be of very great assistance to very many thousands who are without either pension or wage. To exist on 10s. a week is an art in these days, and requires some experience. I am sure that the Minister must have put in the archives a special box for the reception of the names of any such persons, and perhaps he would inform the Dáil how they manage to exist on that 10s. a week. Mention was made in the House more than once some little time ago about an element of the population who were property owners, and whom it was desirable not to drive out of the country—it was said that we must not take a certain course for fear we would drive these people out of the country. Apparently it is thought that it would be no harm to drive out of the country these old age pensioners who have this little property. In view of the course that has been taken in England to remove these disqualifications in regard to old age pensioners, apparently it is the intention of the Minister rather to encourage the aged poor to go out of the country and to retain the aged rich. That is, of course, the pressure that is being applied. The small property-owner who is able to derive 4s., 5s., or 6s. a week out of his or her property, may say, "Well, I have a son or daughter living in Liverpool, Manchester, or London, and it is better for me to go over there. I can still claim certain rights under the Old Age Pensions Acts unless the Minister sends reports after me, and my property disqualification shall be removed. I shall be able to retain the 10s. I have been getting hitherto, and to retain the little income I am getting from my property. If I remain in Ireland I am only a burden on the community; they do not want me there. They are discouraging the existence of such people, and it is better that I should leave them." That, of course, is the opposite line that is being taken in regard to the aged rich. They are to be encouraged and induced to remain in the country, but the poor we can get rid of, and a good riddance. That seems to be the attitude of the Minister. Of course he will not confess that that is the attitude. That may not be his intention, but that is the effect of the proposals in the Bill. I am really surprised that several Deputies who have spoken on this matter in private are not supporting the amendment. They do not want to see this increase of ten per cent. in the income due to be received from capital, whether it is received or not.

I am going to put for the third time a question that I put to the Minister before. Assuming a person owns a small house which is saleable, if it is a free house, that is to say if it is unlet for £450, what would be the annual value deemed to be derived from that house? Assuming that such a house was saleable without a tenant, what is to be the annual value deemed to be derivable from that house? In the other case, if it is a tenanted house worth £450 in the market as a free house, what is to be the annual value of that house under the provisions of the Bill? Where the owner is drawing 10 per cent. or a sum equal to 10 per cent. he or she is deemed to be drawing it and will be deprived of the pension accordingly. In such cases we will find that pensioners are not being cut by 10 per cent. but are being cut by 40 per cent.

Mr. ALTON

I would like to make a suggestion and I do so with diffidence. It might meet the point which Deputy Johnson has just put, that is a case where the pensioner has property in the form of house property. I have taken the analogy of the Income Tax Assessor who certainly is not a very soft-hearted person. I do not think Deputy Daly even could get him to bend. In estimating the value of rents he calculates them for Income Tax purposes at five-sixths of the real amount. I think something of the sort might be done here and I suggest that the fraction one-tenth might be changed to one-twelfth. It is a small concession but it would be logical, I think, and in line with the action of the Ministry of Finance in another Department.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would not like to accept Deputy Alton's suggestion without having an opportunity of thinking out the effect of it. In regard to what Deputy Johnson has said it is not proposed to make any change in the method of calculating the value of property. The value of the owner's interest in a house will be determined as it has been determined by the Valuation Commissioners, and as that capital value is determined under the Acts. I am sorry I have not a copy of the Clause before me. So far as the change in the Bill is concerned it simply deals with the total arrived at by the calculation which has been made. It does not at all effect the method of dealing with it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Assuming the capital value is known how will the annual income be fixed of such a house? Will it be upon the actual rent receivable or this 10 per cent.?

Mr. BLYTHE

It is proposed in the case of property not in the occupation or use of the owner to deal with it on the basis of 10 per cent., estimating the income derived from it at 10 per cent. of the capital value. Any income that comes from the property will lessen the amount of wastage of property, as you might say, that would be involved on the owner. The case of a house is precisely the same as the case of money in bank in that respect. If a person has money in bank, say £500, that will be assumed to represent an income of £50 a year. Of course if the person had the money in bank on deposit receipt nothing like that income would reach the person from the property, but it is assumed in the Bill as it stands that it is fair that that person should be prepared to expend some portion of the capital. There is no essential difference between money and other property in that respect. Property is saleable. One can even borrow on property if you have not reached the stage where you desire to sell. But property is realisable, and it cannot be held, I think, that you should not expect a person who has property value for, say £400, to realise or to mortgage it, but that the old age pensions should be paid quite irrespective of the ownership of the property.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the chair at this stage.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister argued that there was no difference between a person who has money on deposit in the bank and one who owns a house from which he or she hopes to derive an income, and derives an income. Perhaps if the President were here he would consult with the Minister for Finance and they could arrive at a different conclusion. After all, if money is on deposit in the bank, it can readily be changed and transferred to a security which would bring an income round about 5 per cent. referred to in the Bill. Can you say that in regard to house property? Can you say that in regard to a plot of land? If the capital value of the house is fixed at £420, and if a tenant has been in the house for some time, the revenue does not equal the 10 per cent. referred to. If you want to force the owner to sell or mortgage a tenant being in the house, the owner will not be able to derive a sum of money capable of being transferred into an annual income of 10 per cent. The Minister either wants to force these people to sell or not, or he wants to tell people they must not invest money in houses. Again, he had better consult the President. There will be a certain effect of this Bill. It will have a detrimental effect on those people who have bought houses in the past under building society schemes and the like. These are the very people who have been thrifty and who attempted to make some provision for the rainy day. They hoped that, having saved a little, they would at least be able to get something to assist them in their old age. They have bought houses through building societies or through many of these clubs which were formed through Friendly Societies and the like. They are going to be deprived of the benefits to which their thrift entitled them, and which they had a reasonable right to expect. The amendment attempts to commute the sentence which the Minister pronounced, and it asks the Dáil to bring in a recommendation of mercy at least for these people. You cannot go to the public and talk to them in one breath about the virtues of thrift, and then face them with an accomplished fact, in the form of an Act of Parliament, which says they are to be penalised because of their thrift.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I would like to support this amendment. I am sorry I was not in for the early part of the discussion, so that it is possible I may not be speaking to the point. I do not quite understand how the Minister for Finance arrived at this yearly income, by dividing the total capital in the possession of the old person by 10. Deputy Johnson referred to the owners of houses. I want to refer to the owners of land. I think this Section will work out very unfairly, and be very unjust to such people. Take a small farmer with a farm value for £400. The yearly income of that farmer would be calculated at £40 and would, therefore, exclude him altogether from the pension. The Minister is well aware that on such a farm, during the last two or three years, there was no income at all. There was loss, and by this system of calculation the owner of such a farm would be excluded from the advantages of the Act. I understood the Minister to say that they expect that person to delve into capital, and apparently they regard this capital sum as one for the purpose of purchasing an annuity, rather than the sum from which yearly interest could be obtained. Surely the Minister does not expect, or he is not going to force, those old people on to the market at the present time with land to sell, selling in a falling market, and then to use their little capital for the purpose of investing it in an annuity, and thereby depriving their children of any advantages which they might gain from this land. I think Deputy O'Connell's amendment is a very reasonable one, and I certainly would support it. I would like to see the Government taking a more reasonable view of the matter now.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think the Deputy does not realise that this Section refers entirely to property not in the use or in the occupation of the claimant. It would not apply to the land on which the man was himself living. It would apply to other land which he might have somewhere else than where he was living and in which he was in occupation. It would not apply either to the Building Society houses, because the owner would be in occupation of the house.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is not always the case.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not suppose it is. I am referring to the generality of cases. I have not the Act before me, but I have a statement here that makes it clear that the valuer or commissioner certifies the market value of the claimant's or the pensioner's interest in the property. So that in the case of houses, the factors, including the tenancy or the possibility of getting clear possession, which would be elements in deciding the market value, would be taken into account.

Mr. ALTON

Would the Minister consider the suggestion I made in regard to determining the real value?

Mr. BLYTHE

I am prepared to consider that, but I do not know that I could promise to consider it favourably. I do not really know what the effect of it would be on the scale.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister mean to say that he has, as a matter of fact, got a scale of savings that he expects to derive? There has been difficulty in finding out the numbers of persons with certain incomes. I would have thought that some difficulty would have arisen in regard to arriving at the amount of a saving under this scale.

Mr. BLYTHE

I referred to the pension scale and the effect of the suggestion upon that scale.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 36.

Tá.

Seán Buitléir.
Séamus Eabhróid.
David Hall.
Séamus Mac Cosgair.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Tomás de Nógla.
Ailfrid O Broin.
Tomás O Conaill.
Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Tadhg O Murchadha.
Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
John Conlan.
John Daly.
Connor Hogan.
P. McKenna.
Mícheál O hIfearnáin.

Níl.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. JOHNSON

I beg to move amendment 16:—

In Sub-section (2), line 53, at the end of the Sub-section, to add the words "or who becomes entitled to a pension under Section (1) of the Act of 1920."

This amendment is put forward in the hope and with the desire to ameliorate some of the force of the blow upon the blind pensioners. It is not a very great matter, but it asks the Dáil to agree that the exception in sub-section (2) of this Section would be extended to those in receipt of pensions under the Blind Persons Act. The Section deals with the method of calculating income. Paragraph (2) of the Section says: "This Section shall not apply to a calculation of the means of any person who became, before the passing of this Act, entitled to receive an old age pension." What I desire is that the exception shall be extended to those who became entitled to a pension under Section 1 of the Act of 1920, that is to say, blind pensioners. Under the existing law, a blind person whose friends have collected some money and bought him a little property in the hope of being able to relieve, at least, his needs, may have property of a capital value of £711, and still draw the pension. Under the amendment a blind person who has property of a capital value exceeding £630 would be debarred. That figure is very nearly the same as was fixed by the 1911 Act. If the amendment is not accepted, and the Bill is passed in its present form, it will mean that the limit of £417 10s. will be applied in these cases; that is to say, in the case of the blind, as in the case of the aged who are not blind. The object of the amendment is to try to give a little relief to the blind who happen to have some little property. Inasmuch as we are making some exceptions, that is to say, that those who became entitled to receive the pension before the passing of the Act, are to be relieved of the operation of this Section, I am asking that the exception shall be extended to cover blind persons, and I think that that is not asking a great deal.

Mr. BLYTHE

The objection to this amendment is rather that it sets up a different scale for the blind persons, as distinct from the scale that will apply to those having old age pensions. Now, there is a real argument in favour of simplicity and uniformity in matters such as this. It means that people know where they are; they see what applies to their neighbours, and they understand what their own rights are. If you give a special concession in regard to the blind, people who are applying for old age pensions will not be able to realise why in some one respect, that is calculating means, those who are blind are treated differently from others, and they will have a grievance and they will be annoyed and irritated. Now, this particular matter does not affect the blind who have no income other than the pension. It does not affect the poorest of the blind, and while one feels it hard to refuse some special concession to the blind because of their pitiable case, I am not sure that it would be desirable to accept the amendment. It is a matter, however, that I do not feel inclined to oppose very strongly, and if the Deputy would not press it to a division now, I will consider the matter.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would just point out that the office difficulty cannot be very great in this particular matter. There are only 3,500, I think it was stated yesterday, blind persons receiving pensions, and there must be only a very small number who would come under this qualification, that is to say, that would have certain property. It is not asking a great deal for discrimination in the method of valuing that property in the case of those few people, especially when we have in the section itself a discrimination: "This section shall not apply to the calculation of the means of any person who became before the passing of this Act entitled to receive the old age pension." There is exception there. The Minister may say, of course, there would be no need to review the method of calculating the capital value of any property that such persons who are already pensionable possess. I hope I am not drawing his attention to a defect that will deprive anybody of a pension—but this section "shall not apply to the calculation of the means of any person who became entitled to receive an old age pension before the passing of the Act." Therefore it is quite possible that there may be a considerable number of people who became entitled to, but have not yet received the pension, and as you are making an exception in the method of calculating the value of property in their case I am only asking you to extend, perhaps, to two or three hundred cases in the whole of the Saorstát, the same method of calculation. I acknowledge the Minister's desire in asking me not to press the matter to a division, and if he will look into it and see what he can do to accept it I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move: "That you do now report progress and ask leave to sit again."

Question put and agreed to.

Top