I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. This Bill is not intended to represent the Fianna Fáil policy in the matter of old age pensions. It is intended to remove certain sections of the Old Age Pensions Acts that are being interpreted by the Free State Government to the disadvantage of the very poorest classes in the community. The Bill, I think, embodies such changes in the law as can scarcely be opposed by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. If a fair and reasonable interpretation were being put on the Old Age Pensions Acts, many of the sections dealt with in this Bill might not be interfered with, but from my knowledge of the interpretation being put on them and from certain knowledge gained largely by an interest in appeal cases there appears to be no alternative way of securing even the benefits that the British Old Age Pensions Act intended for the poor. There seems to be no means of getting these benefits unless by carrying out the amendments which this Bill proposes. I notice that the Press predicts a strenuous opposition to this Bill. The political correspondents, who are usually better informed of the policy of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government than some of the members of the party, are already preparing the way by informing the public that the passage of this Bill would involve an additional expenditure of £250,000 a year, and that responsible Ministers of the Executive are not prepared to increase expenditure under this head by an amount that is less than ten per cent. of the present expenditure. I do not know whether these forecasts of the policy of the Department of Finance are correct, but if that turns out to be the Government attitude on the matter, we on these benches will presumably satisfy the House and the Executive Council that the money can be found.
The first part of Section 2 of this Bill aims at repealing paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1911. This paragraph sets out that in calculating the means of a person, account shall be taken of the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person. When the British Government administered the Old Age Pensions Acts in this country this paragraph was interpreted in accordance with the obvious intention of the law, and a benefit or privilege that was not enjoyed as a legal right was not taken into account in calculating the means of the claimant. I have reason to believe that the Free State Department of Local Government was prepared to continue that interpretation of the law, but that the Department of Finance insisted on the view that a benefit or privilege enjoyed by a claimant must be taken into consideration in calculating the means of that claimant even when such benefit or privilege is enjoyed as a matter of charity or extended as a matter of sentiment. That view of the law hits at the very poorest classes of the community and the people who possess nothing whatever as a legal right are deprived of a pension because some charitably disposed person or organisation will not allow them to go without the necessaries of life. It appears to me that this interpretation is not only harsh but it is nothing short of disgraceful from a Government that claims to be national, and in my opinion, at any rate, it is as absurd as it is cruel.
Various other sections of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1911 set out the basis of calculation of means, and in order that we may understand that the ordinary means that a person might have will still be taken into consideration in calculating the means if this sub-section or paragraph is repealed, I will read Section 2 of the Act of 1911, which deals with the calculation of means. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 states:
"In calculating, for the purpose of the Principal Act, the means of a person, account shall be taken of—
(a) the yearly value of any property belonging to that person (not being property personally used or enjoyed by him) which is invested, or is otherwise put to profitable use, by him, or which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or put to profitable use by him, the yearly value of that property being taken to be one-twentieth part of the capital value thereof;
(b) the income which that person may reasonably expect to receive during the succeeding year in cash, excluding any sums receivable on account of an old age pension under this Act, and excluding any sums arising from the investment or profitable use of property (not being property personally used or enjoyed by him), that income, in the absence of other means for ascertaining the income, being taken to be the income actually received during the preceding year;
(c) the yearly value of any advantage accruing to that person from the use or enjoyment of any property belonging to him which is personally used or enjoyed by him, except furniture and personal effects in a case where the total value of the furniture and effects does not exceed fifty pounds; and
(d) the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person.
I submit that all possible contingencies of income are covered by paragraphs A, B and C, and that this omnibus clause has been inserted lest by any mischance anything should have been overlooked. If we turn to Section 7 of the Act of 1924 we find provision made for the transfer of certain properties. We find that a person may transfer or assign a farm of land, the poor law valuation of which does not exceed £10. Such a person can apply for an old age pension in the knowledge that the income derivable from this farm of land will not be taken into account in calculating means. There would have been no point whatever in making this provision that a person holding a farm of land of under £10 valuation can transfer that farm and apply for an old age pension without having the income from that farm taken into account if it were held to be necessary that the person to whom the farm was assigned would have to turn the old man or old woman, as the case may be, out on the road in order that they should qualify for a pension, and it would not, with the present interpretation put on paragraph D, be sufficient to turn out the old person on the road. In such case it would be necessary that they should be kept out and that no charitably disposed person should come to their relief with food or shelter, because if they did the yearly value of that would be calculated against them for old age pension purposes, and the average amount of such a calculation usually works out in actual practice at from 10/- to £1 per week. I submit that this interpretation cannot be sustained and ought not to be sustained. Every poor person living in Ireland to-day must be in receipt of benefit or privileges, either from their own relatives or from charitable neighbours or charitable organisations, the yearly value of which, if estimated in cash, would be such as would deprive them of the maximum old age pension.
The yearly value of food, clothing, shelter, Christmas boxes and charitable donations is taken into account and a true return made when a claimant applies for the old age pension. I submit that nobody, however poor he might be, could become entitled to a pension in these circumstances, because, if he was to live at all, the yearly value of these benefits and privileges would be bound to exceed £15 12s. 6d. per year, 6s. per week, or 10½d. per day. The poorer the person is the more harshly does this section operate against him. A person who is absolutely destitute is hit more harshly by this interpretation of paragraph (d) than if he had moderate means. For example, if a man owns a small farm of land under £10 valuation, or even under £5, and he applies for an old age pension, the pension officer will make a certain estimate of his income from that farm of land, and that will be the only income that will be estimated against him. But if he has nothing whatever as a legal right, no means in this world unless what is extended to him as a matter of charity or sentiment by somebody else, the pension officer will estimate that he is worth from £26 to £52 per year by reason of the fact that somebody else is looking after him.
I do not think it is necessary to develop that point further. I think a case cannot be made against the repeal of that particular sub-section. If the Minister has any doubt as to the interpretation that is being put upon it, and if it is necessary to cite cases in support of my contention as to the interpretation of this particular sub-section, I shall cite cases. But I think the Minister for Finance might admit that there has been considerable controversy as to the interpretation of these sections, and this one in particular, between the Department of Local Government and the Department of Finance, and, as I said earlier, the Department of Local Government is prepared to continue the interpretation that was being put upon this section by the British Government, but the legal luminaries in the Department of Finance discovered that there was a legal way of making certain economies. For the sake of the dignity of the House, that we hear so much about, I hope there will be no opposition to the repeal of this particular sub-section.
I do not profess to pretend that the repeal of this sub-section would not mean a considerable additional expenditure under the heading of old age pensions. Many people who are not in receipt of old age pensions at present will become entitled to a pension; many people who have no means, but who are credited with maintenance by their friends or relatives, and are so deprived of a pension, will also become entitled. Many other people who have small pensions will have their pensions increased. But I claim that the additional expenditure under this heading is essential, and one that we cannot in all reason or decency refuse to meet. The largest section of the community that would benefit by the repeal of the sub-section would be the small farmer with a valuation under £10; the man who can, under Section 7 of the Act of 1924, transfer his farm or assign it to his son, and not have the farm taken into consideration or the income from it calculated as means. It is no use to have that section of the Act of 1924 if the fact that the man is still allowed to live under the roof and is given food and shelter is to be estimated as means against him. It is the same with an old housekeeper or servant who may have served a life-time in one place, and whose period of usefulness as a wage-earner comes to an end when she reaches 70 years of age. I know of some such cases. If such a person is to get a pension under the present interpretation of the Old Age Pensions Act, the master must turn her out on the roadside. She may not have anything in her own legal right, but the benefit or privilege of living in the master's house will be calculated as being worth so much per year to her, depending on the degree of comfort enjoyed, not by the claimant, but by the master.
Others who would benefit considerably if this were repealed are old people who perhaps in educating and placing some member of the family in a position in life where he or she is able to enjoy a certain degree of comfort, have reduced themselves in their worldly possessions and are practically destitute in their old age. They may have a son or daughter who has got a position in life that enables him or her to live with a certain degree of comfort. Such a son or daughter may take in the old parents. In other cases, a son or daughter returns from America after slaving for a life-time. The old home is redeemed, and the old person is taken into the house to live. The benefit or privilege of living with such a son or daughter would be estimated as being worth anything up to £52 per year, depending on the success in life of the returned emigrant. I think that was never intended by the Old Age Pensions Acts; it was never the intention of the law, and, as I said, it was not the actual working of the law until recent times.
The practice of calculating charitable donations as income does not agree with the publicly expressed views of the Minister for Finance. I notice some time ago that the Minister, when speaking of the work of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, is reported in the Press as having said: "Any support given to the Society should not have any effect on what the State or the public authorities should do. The work of the Society should only fill the gaps that must necessarily be left by the best scheme of public assistance." I want the Minister to put these sentiments into operation in the matter of old age pensions. The Minister for Local Government used to lecture us on the question of stern morality. It is true that we have not heard anything about that lately —I suppose the Minister came to see the joke. Anyhow, the position has to be faced that one of two things is happening at present: either many people are getting pensions who are not legally entitled to them, or many people who are getting pensions have got them by making a false declaration, because if this sub-section (d) were carried to its logical conclusion, nobody could live and not be in receipt of benefits or privileges, the yearly value of which would deprive him of a maximum pension.
Section 2 also proposes to repeal paragraph (a), sub-section (1) 3 of the Act of 1919. This paragraph enacts that persons otherwise qualified for old age pensions become disqualified on becoming an inmate of a poor law institution. It is true that a person who enters a county home or other poor law institution for the purpose of receiving medical treatment can retain the pension for a period of three months, but if the illness extends beyond a period of three months that person loses the old age pension unless he comes out of the institution, whether cured or not. If he becomes an inmate of a poor law institution and is not in the hospital department, such person loses the benefit of the old age pension merely the day he enters, because he enters a poor law institution. I think it ought not to require much argument to secure the removal of that sub-section from the Old Age Pensions Act. It means that infirm and destitute people in this country must become paupers, and it makes sure that they shall remain paupers as long as they live. The reason I say it aims at securing that they shall remain paupers as long as they live will be found in the fact that a fresh application for a pension has to be made by such a person on leaving the poor law institution, and it may take two or three months to secure the re-establishment of the pension. I cannot see how such a person can leave the institution and may have no one to look after him during the period which must elapse before the pension is restored.
It is hard to see why those poor old people should be deprived of their legal rights because they have to enter a Poor Law institution. They are legally entitled to the pension and the only reason why they are deprived of it is because of their destitution. I submit that such treatment of our poor people is no credit to us. When these county homes were being set up some years ago those of us associated with that particular movement had hoped that the stigma of pauperism would be removed from our poor people. That stigma cannot be very well removed so long as we allow this particular section to remain in the Old Age Pensions Act where it lays down that we must pauperise them. Instead of allowing them to go into such institutions with their heads up, and enabling them to hand over their old age pensions to the local public bodies to pay for their maintenance, with the feeling of independence that their old age pension of 10/- per week would carry with it (which would be a more Irish way of dealing with the destitute poor), we deprive them of their legal rights and aim at securing that they must remain paupers in this Poor Law institution until they die.
From another point of view it does not appear to me to be right or fair that those people should be made a charge upon the local rates. They are legally entitled to a certain retiring allowance; their poverty has entitled them to it. Why should they be deprived of their legal rights and their pensions taken away from them? Why should these old people become a charge upon the local rates? According to the Report of the Poor Law Commission under the present system the amount lost to the local rates is £50,000 per year. I think, seeing the tremendous lot of public attention given at present to the question of de-rating that that is a point that might be considered. Let us remove the stigma of pauperism from the poor people and incidentally relieve the rates of £50,000 per year. Section 3 of this Bill aims at securing that on the death of one of a married couple both in receipt of the old age pension no steps shall be taken to deprive the survivor of the pension. The Old Age Pensions Act provides that in the case of a married couple living together in the same house the means of each is taken at half the total amount. When one of the couple dies the entire means may revert to the survivor. Take the case where two old people are in receipt of 6/- per week pension each. One dies; the entire means reverts to the survivor and instead of two 6/- pensions coming into that house, if the question is raised against the survivor's claim by the Pensions Officer the survivor will lose the pension and the whole 12/- will go. The amount of money involved in effecting this amendment of the Pensions Act would be very small. As it is, it appears to me to be a mean form of economy. I suggest that so far from the worldly position of the survivor in the case I have mentioned becoming improved the position of such a person is considerably disimproved. If one of a couple of old age pensioners dies somebody must replace the person who is gone. The surviving old person will not have very long to live and will require to be looked after. In my opinion, at any rate, the person who has passed away cannot be replaced to the survivor at that advanced age.
I think it is a form of economy that should not be continued and that no Irish Government, even one that does not function for the whole of Ireland, should accept responsibility for the continuation of such a clause in a British Act. I am quite sure that an Irish Government would never insert such a clause in an Old Age Pensions Act, but seeing that it was put there by an alien Government which had not much sympathy with the poor of this country, I think it is time that it was removed. There is just another point in relation to that. That is that it will take probably two or three years' pension in such a case to pay for the immediate expenses, the funeral expenses, of the one who is gone. If the survivor lives beyond that period I think the pension should be left alone. When we consider that the question of providing pensions for widows and orphans received considerable attention from members of the House and that it is at the present time, we understand, receiving the consideration and attention of the Executive Council, it is hard to make a case against leaving a pension with a widow who is over seventy years of age.
Section 4 of this Bill if carried would bring us back to the basis of calculation of certain income that was in operation under the British Government under the 1919 and 1911 Acts. Section 2, paragraph 1 (a) of the Act of 1919 read as follows:—
In calculating for the purpose of the Principal Act the means of a person account shall be taken of —(a) the yearly value of any property belonging to that person (not being property personally used or enjoyed by him) which is invested, or is otherwise put to profitable use by him, or which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or put to profitable use by him, the yearly value of that property being taken to be one-twentieth part of the capital value thereof.
In 1924 the Minister for Finance carried an Amending Act which secured that the yearly value of such property would be taken as one-tenth of the capital value. Let us see how that alteration in the law operates. A claimant who had £300 in the bank would be credited with an income of £15 under the British Act. Under the Act of the Minister for Finance such a claimant would be credited with an income of £30 per annum. Another class of case is that of a man who invested his life savings in purchasing a house which, let us say, cost him £325. Subsequently, owing to circumstances which he was not able to avoid, he found it necessary to leave that rather expensive house and live perhaps in a room in order that he might derive an income from the house in the form of rent. He would be credited with an income of £30 per year, although the rent only brought him in £10, under the amendment of the 1911 Act carried by the Minister for Finance in the Act of 1924. Under the British Old Age Pensions Act such a man would be credited with an income of £16 5s. a year. There are many such cases, and if it becomes necessary to satisfy the Minister who is charged with the responsibility of opposing this Bill by citing cases, we will have to give some examples of how this provision operates.
I think the greatest hardship in my experience under this alteration in the law is the case of a small farmer who is no longer able to operate his farm. I have in mind such a case where the man concerned went into the county home. He remained there for some months and while he was there his old house fell. When he came out of the county home he had to go to live with a relative. He was not able, of course, to operate the farm. He remained living with the relative and let the farm yearly. All he was able to get in the form of an old age pension was one shilling per week. The pension officer admitted, everybody concerned in the case admitted, that the income derived from letting the farm was £13 per year. The rates and the rent had to come out of that and he lived on the balance. Here is where the amendment to the British Act came into operation to the disadvantage of this old man. He was not operating his farm, and instead of taking the actual value derived from that farm, the capital value was taken under this particular section. The capital value was put down at something around £300, and his income being calculated as one-tenth of that, according to the lawyers in the Finance Department at any rate, he was left in possession of an income of £30 though his actual income was only £13. Under the British Act this man would have got his full old age pension. It was only after a great fight that we got him any pension at all, and we would not have got him any pension beyond the shilling per week were it not that we had the valuation of the farm reduced by reason of the depreciation in land.
Section 5 of the Bill deals with sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1924. This is a rather complicated section. Before the passing of Section 1 of the Act of 1924 a person could assign or transfer any property and become entitled to the old age pension without any such property being taken into consideration in the calculation of means. In Section 7 of the Act of 1924 the Minister set out to put a limit to this privilege of assigning property and getting the old age pension without having such property taken into consideration. He evidently intended by Section 7 of the Act to secure that three years must elapse before a person who had signed or transferred such property could claim an old age pension without having such property taken into consideration. Now, owing either to faulty draftsmanship or the ingenuity of the legal luminaries in the Department of Finance, a loophole was found in the section, and it has been held, and it is now the universal interpretation of this particular section, that if a person who assigned certain property, say, a farm of land over £10 valuation, applies for a pension before the full three years has expired, such person becomes disentitled for life to a pension. Now the Act never intended that.
The events of 1924 are not such very ancient history, and the people who were associated with the passing of the Act will acknowledge that it was never intended that if a person made a technical mistake or did not take down the date upon which the transfer or assignment of certain property took place, or did not wait until the three years after such assignment had expired, that such a person should be disqualified for the rest of his life. There are cases in which people who have transferred such property have applied one week before the full three years had expired, and they are deprived for the rest of their lives of a pension, whereas if they had waited that week they would have been entitled to the pension. I think the Minister will agree that he never intended that that interpretation should be placed upon the section when he was getting this Bill, before it became an Act, through the House. I do not think anything so foolish could ever have been intended, and the amendment that I suggest here is meant to clarify the position. Whether the Minister will agree that it clarifies it or not, is another question. It has the disadvantage of being based on the existing clause, and I have no hesitation at all in admitting that anything based on it would be difficult to clarify.
The latter part of Section 7 of the Act of 1924 provided that a farm of £10 valuation or under (including buildings thereon) could be transferred or assigned and a pension could be claimed or awarded without necessarily waiting for any period to elapse following the transfer or assignment. My amendment aims at securing an extension of the privilege to owners of a farm of £12 valuation excluding buildings thereon. I have not put in the amendment "excluding buildings thereon" because I do not think it is necessary. If this Bill passes Second Reading and it is necessary to clarify the position by putting in these words, that can be done at a later stage, but in support of excluding the buildings I want to say that it appears to me that the buildings on an agricultural holding are as essential for the proper working of the holding as the farm implements are. I do not think it is right or fair that the valuation of the buildings should be included under this particular head. The inclusion of the valuation of buildings has the effect of penalising the small farmer who is industrious and thrifty and tasty, the small farmer who tries to improve the appearance of his holding, who perhaps builds additional outhouses and keeps the place in a fairly reasonable state of repair. As a result the valuation of his holding is increased. That tends to give an advantage to the man who lets his buildings go derelict and so keeps down the valuation. In the same way and for the same reason, a small farmer will be deterred from availing of the housing grants for the purpose of building new houses. If he avails of the grant and builds a new house, the valuation put on the new house will be much higher than that on the old house and that fact will operate against him when he comes to look for the old age pension.
The Minister for Finance has stated on more than one occasion that he looks forward to the time when the social advantages here and the economic conditions in the Twenty-Six Counties will bring about the undoing of partition. It is interesting to compare the conditions as regards pensions existing in the Six-County area with the conditions existing in the Twenty-Six Counties. In the Six-County area widows' pensions and allowances for dependent children are paid to the widows of men who were insured under the Widows and Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pension Act, 1925. Widows' pensions are also payable to widows between the ages of 55 and 70 of men who died prior to the passing of the above-mentioned Act, notwithstanding that the deceased husband never contributed for pension purposes. Both classes of widows' pensions are payable at the rate of 10/- per week and children's allowances are paid at the rate of 5/- per week for the eldest child and 3/- for other children. These children's allowances continue up to the age of fourteen or to the 31st July following the sixteenth birthday if the children remain in school. Orphans' pensions at the rate of 7/6 per week are paid in respect of the orphans of a man or woman insured under the Pensions Act.
These pensions continue payable to the age of fourteen or to the 31st July following the sixteenth birthday if the children remain at school. Contributory Old Age Pensions at 10/- per week are paid at the age of 65 to persons insured under the Pensions Act. The wife of a man who is entitled to one of these pensions also receives a pension on attaining the age of 65. The pensions continue to the age of 70 when they are replaced by the usual "over seventy" pension free from all tests as to means.
Now compare the conditions with regard to the ordinary old age pensions with the conditions here. The yearly income which a person may have and yet be entitled to a full pension is much less in the Free State than in Northern Ireland. The limit for a 9/- pension is £15 12s. and if the yearly means exceed £39 5s. he cannot receive any pension. In the Northern area a person may possess an earned income of £26 5s. and an unearned income of £39, or £65 5s. in all, and yet receive 10/- a week, whilst he might have £49 17s. 6d. of earned income and £39 of unearned income, or £88 17s. 6d. in all, and still be entitled to a pension of one shilling per week. There is not much inducement to the North in the social conditions disclosed in that comparison. I submit that this Bill cannot in all reason be opposed and even if its acceptance by the Government involves an additional expenditure of £250,000 I say that that burden should be undertaken. The passage of the Bill into law would greatly diminish the number of appeals and there would be a considerable saving in the matter of administration. I think a reduction in the number of appeals has become more necessary now than it was before the order by the Minister for Local Government preventing Deputies from making personal representations on behalf of claimants.
