Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Mar 1930

Vol. 33 No. 14

Private Deputies' Business. - Old Age Pensions Bill, 1929—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. T. O'Reilly

I would like to draw the attention of the House again to Section 2 of the Bill, which deals with the means of claimants to the old age pension. It proposes to repeal paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1911. This paragraph reads:

In calculating the means of a person for the purpose of this Act account shall be taken of the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person.

To illustrate the hardships inflicted by this section on old age pensioners, I will mention the case of a man who lived in that part of the country that I come from. This man owned a little holding on the side of a mountain and had the grass of six Kerry cows. His wife died and he ran into debt to the extent of £180 or so. The family went out to service. The eldest daughter had been away in service for ten years before this period I am speaking of. He decided to go to America and sold the land to the daughter who had been in service at the time, for £200. He was to get £20 to take him to America, and the daughter contracted to pay the whole debt. After seven years he came home, having been then 69 years of age. On reaching 70, he applied for the old age pension. He was then living with the daughter, who had married in the meantime. The pension officer came along to investigate the case. He looked at the house, which was a nice, tidy one, whitewashed and all that kind of business, and estimated the means of the applicant. This man had no claim whatever on his daughter at this time. The pension officer allowed 3/- weekly and told the man that he would get no more as long as he lived in the house with his daughter. The pensioner then left and went to live five miles away in a rented cabin into which he put furniture. He then got a pension of 10/- weekly. The pension officer told him that if he went back to live with the daughter the amount would be reduced to 3/- weekly. Surely where a section of the Old Age Pension Act causes a man to leave his daughter's house and go and rent one for himself and pay for light, fuel and furniture it should be repealed, because it is of no advantage to the State and it is no saving to the Exchequer. One would think that any paternal Government would make life easier for such a person when, as a result, there would be no extra demand on the Exchequer. I wish to know if it is the intention of the Government that such a person as the man I have mentioned should be put to all the expense, inconvenience and other hardships consequent on having to go and live by himself in a small, miserable and badly-furnished cabin. I would also like to know if it is the intention of the Government, by keeping this section on the Statute Book, to make it impossible, in many cases, for the aged father or mother to live with a son or daughter. If so, then it is evident to every person that this Government has a most reactionary outlook, and it is also evident to every person that the policy of the Government is directed towards straining family ties that are so dear in the Irish home. But if that is not the policy of the Government, then there should be no difficulty in removing this sub-section from the Statute Book.

I expect that the Government will meet us with the cry of no money. My reply is that where there is a will there is a way. If the will is there there will be no difficulty in providing money for this Bill in the same way as money was provided to the extent of thousands of pounds which were made available for pensions for able-bodied young men, some of whom are on the opposite benches, and in the same way that money was made available to promote the motor industry in foreign countries by a recent Vote in this House. I spoke on the other sections last night, so I will not deal with them any further now. I might mention that the Minister for Lands and Fisheries stated in Tralee, early last year, that Fianna Fáil had no policy. I tell the Minister here that this Bill is an indication of the policy of Fianna Fáil, and that Fianna Fáil stands for giving facilities to the aged poor to spend their declining years in comparative comfort and removing as far as possible the anxieties attendant on a precarious home and a precarious income. I hope Deputies on the opposite benches will vote in accordance with the dictates of their consciences. If they do I have no fear for the passage of this Bill into law.

Mr. Sheehy (West Cork):

I wish to draw the attention of the House to what occurred here on last Thursday. The Minister for Finance moved a Vote for old age pensions of £920,000—nearly a million of money. How was that received by the Dáil? Where was all the enthusiasm when the Minister for Finance came along with a Vote of nearly a million pounds for our poor people? He was received with every good wish on the Government side of the House, but another side, which might be regarded as comprising the Fianna Fáil and Labour Parties, voted broadly against it, and if they had their way, if the motion had been defeated last Thursday, not a pensioner in the twenty-six counties could go to the post offices on April 1st and receive one penny of their pensions. I would like them to put that to their consciences and to ask themselves whether they were making a proper gesture to our poor people.

Deputy Ward comes along now in a wave of enthusiasm and he wants £300,000. He forgets altogether that the Minister for Finance increased the vote for old age pensions last year by £40,000 or £50,000. Deputy Ward comes along now to insist that £300,000 should be made available. Since I came into the Dáil no section of my countrymen or countrywomen have been made such a handle for political propaganda as these poor old pensioners. Some years ago, through sheer necessity, the Minister for Finance had to take a shilling off the pensions. The reason why he had to do that is well known. The Government were in a tight corner; millions of money were required for the destruction that had taken place and that they had to take on their shoulders. To the credit of the Minister for Finance, he was able, with improvements in the State, to give back the shilling; he was able to give an additional £40,000 last year, and he will be able to do all that will be required for improving the conditions of the old age pensioners, in view of the prospects for the future, if he is only given fair play.

But was it fair that Deputies should come here on Thursday and should try to deprive the old age pensioners of their money on the 1st April? I pin my faith with the utmost confidence to the Minister for Finance with regard to the poor old age pensioners. I believe he is honest and sincere in his anxiety to do the best for them, considering the numerous appeals that are constantly being made to him for money for different things. We will see how things will develop when he gets his loan. Will they be enthusiastic for him to start another Shannon scheme? I remember last year when the Minister for Industry and Commerce asked for only £150,000 of a vote on account how you all sneered, how not a word was in his favour, or in favour of the Shannon scheme. You are all shouting laudations of it now because it is a great success. Later on the Government, with prudence and discrimination will start other industries that will be reproductive, that will being back money, and that will not sink the State. Coming back to the pensioners, I sincerely hope that nobody will be carried away by Deputy Ward's propaganda. I am sure that the old age pensioners will resent the thought that the men now proposing to come to the rescue with £300,000 would, if they had their way, have seen that not one of them would have received a shilling on the 1st of next April.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

I am very glad that we have had a statement of policy from the Government benches. It is not usual to get such a lucid, clear and definite statement of policy, and I hope that we will not get a contradiction of it from the two Ministers who are now sitting on the front bench. He pilloried the Labour Party for voting against what Deputy Sheehy described as the old age pensioners on last Thursday, but I am afraid that I cannot congratulate him on the accuracy of that statement.

Mr. Sheehy

It is here.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

The Deputy has the official report in his hand. I can only speak for the Party that I have the privilege of sitting with. I cannot say why Fianna Fáil voted as they did on that occasion. I want to say definitely that it was not to keep the old age pensions from the pensioners that we voted against the Vote on account. We voted, not against the old age pensioners but against the policy of the Government, on account of how they proposed to spend the money that the country has entrusted to them. Probably if I were asked on that occasion why I voted against the Vote on Account I would say it was because the Government had not introduced a measure such as that introduced yesterday evening by Deputy Ward; but it was not to withhold the money from the old age pensioners on the 1st April.

In examining this measure I would like to differentiate at the outset between what one might describe as bad and biased administration and defects that there are in the legislation that we have. I think the spirit of that legislation did embrace a good many more people than are at present enjoying old age pensions. I have always thought it a pity that members of the Executive Council have not what one might describe as a back-ground of experience in their administration of matters of this kind, because therein they would have learned much that they could never learn otherwise in the matter of public social services. On several occasions, I, as well as other Deputies, have raised the question as to why people were assessed at the rate of ten per cent. on what has been described as capital. Leaving out of account the fact that it is next to impossible to secure any return of that kind from even large amounts of capital, one is justified in asking whether one can describe as capital either the money in the bank or the property that some people have when they look for old age pensions.

I have some experience of what this capital does really represent. It represents to a certain extent the savings and the sacrifices of these people. It represents a kind of insurance, to preserve them in their old age from perhaps the workhouse ward. When we consider the position of people with small holdings, with three, four or five cows, who look for the pension, we find that their position is, indeed, a difficult one when they go to transfer the holding to a son or a daughter. In the transfer of a holding of that kind there is always the introduction into the household of a stranger, either a husband or a wife, and there is always at the back of the mind of the old person, conservative with age, the feeling that the influence of that stranger may be felt throughout the household. These people, during their lifetime, have been scraping, have been sacrificing some luxuries, if you can describe them as luxuries, have been denying themselves some refinements in clothing, perhaps denying themselves tobacco, to protect themselves from what is a horror to them—pauperism, and all that goes with it. That mentality may not be understood by Ministers, but I am sure it is understood by a good many of the Deputies sitting behind the Ministers, and I hope it will induce them not to do violence to their consciences in the way they vote on this measure. You are putting, to a great extent, a tax upon the industry of these people when you assess whatever property or money they possess at the rate of ten per cent. You are putting a tax on industry and thrift, and, on the other hand, you are putting a tax on the fidelity of the children towards them. If they do give them some shelter and food you are putting a tax upon their fidelity to their parents. That is a thing that should not exist to-day; it is a relie of barbarism.

I do know of some cases where such things are taken into account as a few miserable pounds that perhaps a son or daughter sends from America at Christmas or Easter, or where a father or mother can live periodically with a son or daughter it is taken into account. When the son or daughter inherits a small farm from the father or mother they inherit all the responsibilities, the liabilities, the annuities, the taxes and the expenses incidental to that farm, and there is not in that farm sufficient to maintain the father and mother. There is no use in suggesting that there is, and according to the present rate of assessment these people will be cut out of the old age pension.

There is a matter I had hoped the Deputy would have developed. That is with reference to the pensions committees. I did suggest here on the Vote on Account on which Deputy Sheehy harangued us, but the Minister for Finance did not seem to take very serious cognisance of it, that as at present constituted the pensions committees are of little or no value, because they have no power whatever. When an applicant makes a claim the pension officer investigates the case. The pensions committee decides for or against, but the pension officer appeals, as it suits himself, to the Local Government Department. I am not making any case against the officer deciding in the Local Government Department. Consistent with the power they have got within legislation and with the evidence before them, I think that branch of the Local Government Department deal as fairly as it is possible to deal with the cases that come before them on appeal. The only objection I have to them is the barbed wire fence that the Minister for Local Government has put around these officers to prevent anybody from approaching them. What I would like to make of the pensions committees would be something that would be useful to the Local Government Department and to the claimants. I do know, and everybody who has any experience of the administration of local committees knows, that most claimants for pensions find it very difficult to make their cases orally, and when they are asked to put their case on paper on appeal they are handicapped very much.

I will give an instance of just one case to illustrate what I mean. I knew an old couple. The old woman applied for the pension. The Pensions Committee granted it, but the pension officer appealed. An officer was sent down to investigate. He came to the husband of the applicant and asked him did he work all the year round. The man said he worked about three or four months of the year. The officer asked: "Do you get any money when you are idle?" He said: "I get 26/- a week." What did he mean? He meant definitely that he got a certain amount of unemployment insurance when he was unemployed for perhaps six weeks. The officer reported that the man got £1 6s. a week when idle, and that he worked for the remainder of the year. When the man came to me and told me that his wife was disallowed the pension on these grounds, I took the matter up with the Local Government Department and got it adjusted properly. What I would like is that the pensions committees would state definitely and clearly on what they base their decisions, how they arrive at the decision that John Sullivan or Tom Murphy is entitled to the old age pension, and that they would give the Local Government Department something to go on and which would make it much easier for the applicants, especially for those who are not able to state their case. The Deputy has not referred, I think, to the Committee at all in the Bill, and I would like that on the Committee Stage he would do something that would make it useful both to the Local Government Department and to the applicant.

Proinnsias O Fathaigh

Táim go láidir i bhfábhar an Bille seo atá curtha ós ár gcomhair ag an Dochtúir Mac an Bháird. Is maith atá fhios ag furmhór na dTeachtaí ar gach taobh gur mithid an dlighe, nó na dlighthe, a bhaineas le pinsean na seanaoise do leasú. Is col do chách go bhfuil sean-daoine ann agus nach dtig leo an pinsean do bhaint amach, cé go bhfuilid go beo bocht agus iad ós cionn deich mbliain is trí fichid. Céard fáth nach féidir leis na bochtáin críonna caithte sin an pinsean fháil? Toisc go bhfuil an dlighe ina naghaidh nó go gcuirtear míniú mí-chothrom leis an dlighe. Is dócha nár mhisde dhom na puinntí sin do scagadh agus scrúdú.

Maidir le fó-alt a (1) d'alt A. 5 d'Acht na bPinsean i mbliana a 1924, is deachair a thuigsint cé an chaol a mheas lucht ceaptha an Achta sin go bhfaghadh aoinne 10 per cent. glán de theacht isteach mar ús as pé suim airgid a bheadh i dtaísce aíge. Bhéimís go léir fíor-bhuidheach d'Aire an Airgid dá n-innseochadh dhúinn cá bhfuil an 10 per cent. úd le fághail indiu. Is amaideach an choingeall é sin agus tá sé in-am againn é chur ar neamh-nidh.

Rud eile dhe, ní chóir an teach comhnuidhthe a thabhairt isteach sa sceul le linn gabháltas an tseanduine a mheas. Séard a thagas as fó-alt (1) d'alt (7) d'Acht 1924, ná gur leasc le daoine bochta an teach a choiméad i dtreo ceart ar eagla go meudóchthaí luach an ghabhaltais. Is amhlaidh a chuireann an fó-alt sin bac ar dheisiú tighthe na bhfeilméirí.

Dá mbeadh sé d'fhéile agus de charthannacht ag aoinne biadh agus bheith istigh a thabhairt do shean searbhóntaidhe a bheadh tar éis obair díthcheallach dúthrachtach a dheunamh ar feadh leath-cheud bliain, nach náireach an sceul é go n-áirimhghtear an déire sin mar mhaoin an t-saoghail i geoinnibh an tsean duine sin dá gcuirfeadh sé iarratas isteach ar an bpinsean. Ní mór an sean duine sin do chur amach ar thaoibh an bhóthair, é chur le fán agus le fuacht má's maith leis an pinsean d'fhághail.

Tá lúb-ar-lár cile sa secul. Sé sin, má bhíonn ar shean-phinsinéir dul isteach i dtigh na mbocht, nó pé ainm a chuirtear ar an árus sin indiú, cuirtear stop leis an bpinsean agus is ró-dheaeair dó é fhághail thar nais má bhíonn d'ádh air teacht amach arís. Is minic a bhíonn ceist phinsin do'n dream so nó do'n dream súd dá phléide againn acht isé mo bharamhail go mba chóir an tosach a thabhairt do sheandaoine bochta atá d'éis leath-cheud nó trí fichid bliain d'obair a chur isteach.

Risteard O Maolchatha

Isé an freagra atá ann do sna daoine atá ag gearán agus ag rá ná fuil seans ag na sean daoine an pinsean d'fháil na go bhfuil dhá mhiliún trí cheathrú púnt ag dul gach bliain do sna sean daoine mar phinsin seanaoise. Tá tuairim a hochtadh cuid de cháin an Stáit ag dul do sna sean daoine mar phinsin. Sé sin an freagra don dream atá ag gearán fán rud so.

Deputy Ward has made certain statements arising out of Section 2 of this Bill which, I think, he ought not to make and simply leave there without any evidence, good, bad or indifferent to support them. He suggests that under the British administration paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1911 was practically not enforced except in respect of the benefit or the privilege that was involved or the benefit or privilege legally coming to the person. He draws a distinction between the spirit of the administration of that particular section under the British and the spirit of the administration now. He makes the additional statement that the Department of Local Government and Public Health in dealing with appeals, or in the part of the work they have to deal with, are at variance with the Department of Finance. I deny both the first and the second of these suggestions. I think, if the Deputy cannot bring forward any substantiation of them, that some modification of his statement is required.

As far as the first part of Section 2 is concerned, one of the main things it means is that the maintenance of persons who are applying for the old age pension in the place where they are being maintained shall be disregarded and that persons who are fully maintained, clothed and fed shall be entitled to the full 10/- pension once they come to the age of seventy, apart altogether from the kind of maintenance which they receive. There never was an intention in introducing the Old Age Pension Act that that should be so. It is not our intention at present that that shall be so. The additional cost that that would mean is of such a nature that there is no prospect of the Executive Council agreeing to a change in the position that would bring that about. We have to compare the amount that is paid for old age pensions at present with the amount that is paid for other social services and we have to see how these things differ, say, in certain counties.

Take the total cost of old age pensions. Deputy Ward says, arising out of certain other statements that were made, that we ought to pay attention to the way in which our social services are developed here so that there shall be no disparity between the social services here and the social services in other places. When we deal with our social services, such as they are, we must see that we get the best results from the money that is being spent. If we look at the amount of money spent on old age pensions and the amount of money spent by the different local bodies in connection with the poor law, we must ask ourselves whether we shall get better social services by an increase of moneys under the poor law or an increase of moneys under old age pensions. The total cost of old age pensions at present is £2,735,000. Before the Act of 1928, it was something like £200,000 less than that. I want to take the figures for the year ended March, 1928, and compare them with the moneys expended under the poor law for that year. The expenditure for old age pensions for the year ended March, 1928, was £2,525,218. The expenditure under the poor law for medical charities, institutions, out-door relief and salaries and pensions of the officers concerned was £1,657,479. So that we were spending on old age pensions half as much again as we were spending on the whole of our poor law services throughout the country.

There were special parts of the country in which the discrepancy was very much greater. We were spending in Mayo more than five times the amount on old age pensions that was being expended in Mayo on medical charities and poor law institutions, such as hospitals and county homes, and out-door relief. In Donegal, we were spending more than three and a half times the amount spent on the poor law. One of the reasons is that the size of the holdings in these areas was such that the costs of maintenance, in assessing whether the persons were entitled to pensions or not, were more eliminated than they were in some of the eastern counties. The percentage of farmers living on holdings of fifteen acres and less in Mayo was 47.5; in Donegal it was 46.5. The average value of the holdings of from ten to fifteen acres in Mayo was £4 15s., and in Donegal £4 12s.

The result was that maintenance was hardly taken into consideration when considering old age pensions at all and then we have the cost of old age pensions in these areas soaring to five times in Mayo and three and a half times in Donegal the amount expended on poor law relief generally. If maintenance is not to be taken into consideration in assessing persons' means when they apply for an old age pension, you can rely on having something like that increase in the expenditure on old age pensions as compared with the expenditure on poor law; that is, on medical charities, institutions and home assistance you can expect an increase of that particular kind over those areas where now, because of the size of the farms upon which the people live, maintenance is taken into consideration pretty much. So that, while an estimate may be given of £200,000 or £250,000 as a result of the operation of Section 2 of this Bill, if it is passed, that figure might very easily be exceeded.

As regards the second part of the section, the proposal is that approximately £50,000, now borne by local authorities for the maintenance of the old people in institutions, should be transferred from the local authorities to the pensions fund. From the beginning, old age pensions have been dissociated from poor relief, but the change that has taken place in the administration of poor law, with the doing away of workhouses and the setting up of county homes, has bridged over to some extent the difference between old age pensions and some assistance given locally to old people. But, when you take into consideration the discrepancy between the amount paid in old age pensions in the different counties and the amount spent in poor law, there is very little case for taking another £50,000 and transferring it from the shoulders of local authorities to the Central Fund, which is already bearing two and three quarter millions for old age pensions.

The point has been raised that persons in receipt of old age pensions when they enter poor law institutions or hospitals lose their pensions for the time being and that if they leave these institutions they have very considerable difficulty in getting the pensions restored to them. In fact, that is not so. The matter has had a good deal of consideration, and Deputies will find that in practice when an old age pensioner proposes to leave such an institution he can make the necessary application for the restoration of his pension a month or so before he leaves and that very little time elapses between his leaving the institution and his getting the pension again. I understand there is not, and certainly there ought not to be, any very great difficulty in connection with that matter.

Sub-section (3) would give rise to very great anomalies and would leave persons with pensions to which they would not be entitled. As the position is at present, when one of a couple of the kind contemplated dies, the case is gone into again entirely on its merits as if it were a fresh application by the old age pensioner involved. The case is decided on the new facts, and decided with a very considerable amount of sympathy as well.

The point is made by Deputy Ward that the actual operation in practice of Section 7 (1) of the Act of 1924 is that a person who assigns his farm within three years of his being 70 years of age may get himself into the position that if he applies for the pension a week before the three years have elapsed from the date of his assigning the farm, he may be deprived of his old age pension for all time. The original intention of the sub-section was that a person who continued after he was 67 years of age in the possession of a holding of a particular kind could not assign, for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act, the income of that particular holding; that is, when he came to apply for the old age pension at the age of 70 that the income from the holding which he held when he was 67 would be taken into consideration and continued in consideration in respect of his pension. About 1928 it transpired that this sub-section did not actually effect what it was intended to effect, and that, in fact, what it effected was that for a period of three years such a person would have taken into consideration as part of his means the income he might expect from holding such a farm, but that after three years he was completely clear of any effect from the holding of that farm. When his means for pension purposes were being assessed. Just as there was confusion from 1924 to 1928 arising out of it being understood that a certain effect was achieved by the Act, so there has apparently been, subsequent to 1928, some confusion with regard to the application of the legal decision then given. But I doubt if the Deputy can point to any case of the kind that he mentioned. I would be very glad to hear of such a case, because it is not the interpretation of this sub-section that it does anything other than secure for the period of three years after the assigning of the farm that the income of that farm will be taken into consideration as part of the person's means when assessing them for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act.

Mr. T. O'Reilly

I quoted two instances where the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners wrote to me saying that such persons could never get a pension, and quoted Section 7 of the 1924 Act as the reason.

General Mulcahy

Was that before 1928?

Mr. O'Reilly

It was about 1928, I should say.

General Mulcahy

The section was originally intended to prevent persons after 67 years of age assigning a farm or land for the purposes of the assessment of their means for an old age pension. In the middle of 1928, however, legal opinion decided that the section did not, in fact, effect what it was intended to effect, and from 1928 the interpretation put on the section is, that it simply secures that for three years after the date of assigning the land the person's income from that land will be taken into consideration as part of his means in connection with an old age pension, but not after three years from the date of assigning.

Mr. O'Reilly

Why did the old age pension officer appeal in these cases?

General Mulcahy

I am explaining what the position is, and I am saying that I seriously doubt whether the type of case suggested here actually does take place, and I would be glad to have some evidence to the effect that it does, because as there was confusion before 1928, so, apparently, there is some confusion after 1928, when there should be no confusion. But generally, as I say, the answer to all these questions is that we are spending two-and-three quarter millions on these pensions although, as Deputy Ward, who introduced the measure, said, according to the law administered as it is being administered, no one ought to get a pension in the country. There is very great discrepancy between the description of the administration of the law at the moment, and the fact that we are spending two-and-three quarter millions on old age pensions, although we are only spending less than two-thirds of that on our Poor Law.

Dr. O'Dowd

This Bill has been introduced as an honest effort on the part of Fianna Fáil to remove many grievances from which claimants to old age pensions suffer at the present moment. The Minister has just said that the answer, from his side, to the different amendments sought in this Bill, is that we are spending two-and-three-quarter millions on old age pensions. That is not an answer. If for instance, the number of old age pensioners increased in the coming year he might have to spend £300,000 more. It is no answer at all to say that because we are spending two-and-three-quarter millions, if there is a good case made out for spending another quarter of a million that it should not be found and spent. We maintain that that case is made out.

Take, for instance, the latter part of Section 2 of this Bill. That section deals with the case of a person who goes into a county home and who loses his old age pension. The Poor Law Commission considered that matter and in paragraph 314, page 83, found that £50,000 could be saved if old age pensioners were not deprived of their pensions when seeking relief in the county home. The Minister stated that we made no case for the relief of the ratepayer of this £50,000 at the expense of the taxpayer. Now the ratepayer is the taxpayer, and the ratepayers, who are paying this £50,000, are mostly the farmers of this country who pay 80 per cent. of the taxes. There is no argument at all why the ratepayer should not be relieved of that £50,000 which is saved in that way to the Central Fund. They have to pay it, one way or another, and it is mean to say that because a man has to go into the county home he must forfeit his pension.

The Minister said that when a man intends to leave the county home he can apply for his pension a month before he leaves and when he comes out he will find his pension waiting for him. The Minister must know, at least any person conversant with life in the county homes and such institutions must know, that no inmate of these homes will decide, a month before he leaves to go on his annual holidays or his triennial holidays, to apply for his pension. Take a person going into the county hospital. He can retain his pension for three months while he is there, but if suffering from some chronic type of disease he has to face the fact that if he is not cured of that disease in three months he loses his pension. That is not very conducive to his recovery and it is not humane. If it takes him more than three months to get well of that chronic complaint he must either leave the hospital or lose his pension. That is the law as it stands. The Minister made the point that the Act is not administered in that way. If it is not administered in that way why leave it there at all? Why not repeal the section which deprives people of pensions while in workhouses or if they stay in the hospital longer than three months. That is all the Bill is intended to do.

As the law stands at present, it is a deterrent to any claimant for an old age pension to improve his home or the buildings attached to his farm. We have spent a good deal of time passing Housing Acts and Government Departments are busy in granting loans for housing. The Board of Works is busy granting loans for the improvement of out-offices on farms, but a man getting on in years will not seek a loan to improve his house or to put up a hayshed, because his valuation will go up, and if his valuation goes up, and if he applies for an old age pension, he will be refused. That is a great deterrent. The old figure of £10 valuation is a bad figure, and it is a particularly bad figure in the West of Ireland, because 70 per cent. of the farms in the West of Ireland, and in a good part of the South of Ireland, had valuations ranging from £9 to £11. A man with a valuation of £9 13s. or £9 17s. 6d. is better off than a man with a valuation of £10 2s. 6d., although there is very little difference in the holdings. The Minister must know that new holdings, under the Land Commission, or new holdings under the old Congested Districts Board, are far more highly valued than holdings that adjoin them. The valuation, in these cases, very often is double the valuation of the adjoining holdings. When these people come along to apply for old age pensions they are faced with this valuation. The pension officer appeals on the ground of means, and in many cases the appeal is upheld. That is why in this Bill we want to get away from the £10 valuation and want to raise it to £12, exclusive of buildings. The reason for that is that if any man wants to improve his house or out-offices, or to put up a hay-shed or new barn, the moment he does so his valuation goes up. That is a deterrent to farmers who try to improve their holdings. The aim of the Bill is to exclude the buildings from valuation and to leave the valuation at £12 instead of the old figure of £10. The Bill seeks to remedy many grievances inflicted by the 1924 Act. Deputy Hogan, I think, referred to Section 4, in which the British were content to take the value at one-twentieth, but in 1924 this House came along with an Act that made the value one-tenth. Of course, they will tell us that they set aside £25, but, in the case of a holding valued at £300, the setting aside of £25 would not mean much, one way or the other. The Bill will remedy what is undoubtedly an outstanding grievance.

The Minister in dealing with Section 3 said that the survivor's pension was always treated as if he had made a new application and, in most cases, was treated with the utmost sympathy. Surely it is sufficient loss for a man of eighty or eighty-five years to be deprived of his life-long partner without having his case reopened. Will the Department say in how many cases they increased the pension? If they met these cases with sympathy the only sympathy these people want is to be allowed to finish their last years in peace and comfort. A lot of money cannot be saved in the case of widows or widowers, who are very few and who in ordinary circumstances, have not more than a year or two to live. In regard to Section 2 it has been stated that the clause is not harshly interpreted, but Deputy O'Reilly has quoted the case of an old age pensioner in Kerry who left his daughter's house where he had lived for many years and went to live by himself in a cabin. In his daughter's home he had a certain amount of comfort, was looked after, kept clean, and his food was properly cooked. He got 3/- a week pension, but, because of the interpretation of this section, he had to forego these comforts, leave a comfortable house, and live in solitude, thus probably shortening his days, in order to qualify for a pension. If the Act was not harshly interpreted there would have been no reason for him to leave his daughter's home. Many Deputies could, I am sure, give hundreds of such cases. I mentioned a case here in 1927 in which an old age pensioner went to live with his son who had returned from America and bought a farm about twenty miles from the old home. The son took the father to live with him and on that account the father's pension was reduced from 8/- to 5/-. I inquired into the matter and I was told that the son had six cows. He had, and the old man had to leave the son's house because of those six cows who provided milk for him to drink. That old man went back to his old home and got 8/- a week, but he lived only for a week to enjoy it.

We propose to repeal that clause. If it is not harshly interpreted and is interpreted in the magnanimous and wonderful spirit in which the Minister tells us it is interpreted, then it is as good for the Ministry to repeal it, because all we are asking for is to give the matter more sympathetic treatment. Mention was made that Fianna Fáil, in conjunction with Labour, had voted against the Vote for old age pensions. The argument was too silly to heed, but I suppose it will get a fair Press. We voted against the Vote on Account because there were not many items in it with which we agreed. We agreed with a few of them. We disagreed with the Vote for old age pensions only because it was not large enough. We believe that money could be found for social services just as it has been found for military and other services which are not as necessary. No case has been made so far against this Bill, and I am certain that there are Deputies on the other benches who are quite prepared to vote for the Bill if the Whips are withdrawn. If the Minister would like to see what the feeling of the House is, let him take off the Whips.

There is another point I would like to mention, and that is that if this Bill is passed, as I hope it will, the most needy section of the community will benefit. After all, when we get a copy of the Estimates and see that the Estimates amount to over £21,000,000, surely it should be easy to find another £200,000 for the purposes of this Bill. That sum added to the Estimates would not bring the total amount over twenty-one and a half millions. Money can always be found when it is necessary to find it for purposes which could, at least, be shelved for a time. Blind persons are also affected under this Bill, because the few people who are in receipt of blind pensions would also benefit in the same proportion as old age pensioners if the Bill were passed. In making a comparison, the Minister mentioned Mayo and Donegal, and picked out those counties to show that they spend five times more on old age pensions than on the purposes of the Medical Charities Act. The Minister picked the counties with very poor valuations. Let him take counties like Westmeath and Roscommon.

General Mulcahy

I will take a county like Monaghan where twice as much is spent on old age pensions as is spent on poor law.

Dr. O'Dowd

Perhaps the Minister will give us the figures for Westmeath?

General Mulcahy

I can give the figures for Westmeath.

Dr. O'Dowd

And for Meath and Roscommon?

General Mulcahy

For any of them.

Mr. Hogan (An Clár):

You have not got them there.

General Mulcahy

I have a few here.

Dr. O'Dowd

In any case that is no argument against this Bill. It is no argument to say that they spend five times as much under the Medical Charities Act and on outdoor relief. The position should be in counties like Mayo and Donegal if the Act were administered, perhaps, more liberally, that we should be spending six or eight times as much. We could remove the stigma of outdoor relief in counties like Mayo and Donegal if we were more liberal in our interpretation of the Pensions Act.

Mr. Kennedy

The introduction of this Bill has had one good effect at any rate. The Minister has undertaken that if we write to him about cases cited by Deputy Dr. Ward and by Deputy O'Reilly, under Section 5 of this Bill, he will seek to rectify the matters complained of. We will all have great pleasure in writing to the Minister about these cases. We are very glad to get his assurance that he is now going to put them right. It may be so much good done. This Bill is very necessary to remove the stringency and the rigorous adherence to the letter of the law, especially appeals, as carried out by the old age pensions officers throughout the country. They are absolute masters in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts. As Deputy Hogan has stated, sub-committees have no power. The old age pensions officer is the despot in the matter. He is unapproachable. It is always with fear and trembling that I go near the old age pensions officer in my area. He is wrapped in red tape. He is as sacred as the Ark, and the Minister for Local Government has seen to it that the appeals which he makes are guarded in the Department of Local Government. We are told, when we complain about him, that he does not belong to the Local Government Department; that he belongs to the Department of Finance. And when you go to the Department of Finance you are referred to the Department of Local Government—each for all, and all for each.

The argument put up by the Minister was a mathematical comparison between the amount of money spent in the rural areas and the amount of money spent out of the Central Fund on old age pensions. I did not know that the Minister was a convert to Sovietism, but it is apparent to-night that he is. He regrets that more money should be spent centrally than in the rural areas. Which of the voices is speaking? Is it the voice that talks about the Greater Dublin Bill or the voice that advocates equal expenditure of moneys in the local areas with the expenditure of money at the top? What has that got to do with it? Deputy Ward contended in introducing the Bill that in a similar social service in the North of Ireland and in Great Britain there were far more equitable terms. For instance, a person in the North of Ireland can be in receipt of £26 5s. earned income, and £39 unearned income and yet receive a pension of ten shillings per week. All he can be in receipt of in the Saorstát is £15 12s. 6d. The Deputy also contended that in the North of Ireland a person can be in receipt of £49 12s. 6d. earned income and £39 unearned income and be entitled to a pension of one shilling per week. We thought we would get from the Minister for Local Government an answer to that. The answer we got was an answer about the relative moneys spent on old age pensions and on medical charities in Co. Donegal. We thought that we would get the relative moneys spent on old age pensions and on medical charities in Co. Tyrone, spent on local administration in Tyrone and that that would be compared with the amount spent in Donegal. That would be a comparison, but the answer which the Minister gave us left us in the dark.

As regards Section 2 of this Bill, it repeals paragraph (d) of sub-section 2 of the Act of 1911. It has been contended as I said at the outset that there is a rigorous adherence to the letter of the law in the matter. I have before me a good example which will illustrate the point I want to make. An old pair down my way sold a farm of land. They were compelled to sell it; it was the only bit of land they had and they got £160 for it, a year and a half ago. The father and son were jointly responsible in a bank for a debt of £200; all that sum of £160 went into the bank to clear off the debt. The mother had attained the age of seventy and she applied for the pension. She got a grant of only six shillings per week on the grounds that the money obtained for the land was there. The parties stated that the money went to pay the debt. I made representations to the pension officer pointing out that the money went to pay the debt, but the pensions officer stuck his heels in the ground and stated that until he had affidavits from the bank manager, the cashier and from the son and the father he would not recommend an increase. Meanwhile the son was told by somebody, ignorantly told of course, that if it became known to the Government that this money went to pay the joint bill he would be imprisoned for not maintaining his father and consequently he would not make the affidavit. The bank manager could not make the affidavit either, without his consent. I made that clear to the Department of Local Government. I made it clear to the inspector before we were stopped interviewing the officials of the Department of Local Government. Yet not alone was the woman's pension not increased but the man who is now seventy is to be deprived of any pension because of the £160. That is due to the rigorous adherence to that paragraph of sub-section 2 of the Act of 1911.

I could give other examples. Perhaps different officers administer the Act in different ways. In the Sinn Féin days, when the whole system of Local Government was under review, one of the things advocated by Sinn Féin was a removal of the stigma of pauperism from the poor law. The idea of the workhouse was a home of rest for the aged poor such as you have here in Dublin in several Catholic institutions and several Protestant institutions where people can go in when they are past their labours and be treated as Christians and live decently while being well clothed and nourished. The English rule here after the famine put the stigma of pauperism on these homes and made them places that were looked upon in the public eye as degraded by pauperism. Propaganda to that effect was spread. Instead of being homes of rest for the aged, they became places into which people would rather do anything else than enter at the end of their days. That was the idea that existed when the matter of amalgamation of unions was raised. Now, amalgamation was a pre-Truce and a pre-Treaty idea. Its object was to remove the stigma of pauperism from these institutions and to institute county homes and county hospitals for the aged poor. The Act of 1919 and the previous Acts about pensions for people in workhouses were drafted with the mentality of people who had lowered the status of these places. When an endeavour is being made to raise their status and to make them suitable homes for the aged poor, surely there should be support for such an idea. This section, paragraph (a) of Section 3 of the Act of 1919, should be repealed, and these people should be entitled to receive their pensions while in the homes or in the hospitals. After paying for themselves they would be given whatever balance remains to buy little comforts for themselves, as is permitted in these homes in the City of Dublin that are run by Catholic and Protestant organisations. The repealing of that paragraph in that section would do a great deal to carry out the idea behind the principle of amalgamation. I would like to direct the attention of the House to Section 3 of the Bill:—

Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 1908 and sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act of 1911 shall be amended to read as follows:—

(2) In calculating the means of a person being one of a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall be taken to be half the total means of the couple, and the subsequent death of either of such couple shall not operate to decrease the pension already awarded to the survivor.

I have in mind the case of a man who is practically blind. He and his wife were in receipt of a pension of 9/- a week. The wife died, and immediately this man was cut down 2/- a week in his pension, though he was so blind that he had to be led about the house. Fortunately, after numerous appeals to the Local Government Department, this money that was cut off the pension was restored, but he suffered the loss for practically a year. That was how that semi-blind man was treated. It is a hardship when an old couple are in receipt of a pension for a considerable number of years and, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, when they reach the age of eighty they are sometimes cut down in their pensions. If I had anything to do with the giving of pensions to aged people I would have legislation passed that would increase the pension to them when they reach the age of eighty, and give a further increase at ninety. I would give a big bounty to the old age pensioner who would reach a hundred years. Certainly, I would not stand for the system of cutting down a man in his pension when he reached eighty years of age or over. But that is the policy of the Department of Local Government and the Department of Finance, and the old age pension section which dances between the two.

Paragraph 4 indicates that the Ministry must be aware of some wonderful sources open to investors. They drafted the original paragraph on the assumption that people got 10 per cent. for their investments. In the ordinary way, to arrive at the income from capital one takes a figure of 20 and divides it into the capital. Five per cent. is considered a fair and steady dividend. It would be a very good dividend out of a farm at present. The Minister for Agriculture, who is such a practical farmer, shook his head the other day on the Government Benches when this matter was mentioned and he said to a Deputy: "It is well for you that you are not depending on farming." He knows what farming is, practical man as he is. I am sure that his hands are furrowed and made horny from the work they do on the farm. The farmer who gets five per cent. out of his farm at present is doing very well. I would advise the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Finance to consult the Minister for Agriculture on this particular matter. I said already that this debate did one practical good. It secured an undertaking from the Minister for Local Government that he would now consider all these cases of injustice that we know of where a person who applied within three years for a pension after assigning his holding over to a son or daughter would have justice done to him. As I said, we will have great pleasure in putting up those cases to him now.

Mr. Cassidy

The Minister for Local Government in the course of his remarks made reference to the expenditure for old age pensions in the counties Donegal and Mayo. At the same time, the Minister is not aware that so far as Donegal and Mayo are concerned the very greatest discontent exists not alone amongst old age pensioners but also amongst members of the pensions committees owing to the way in which the Act is administered. I can quite realise the attitude the Minister for Local Government has taken up in view of the fact that a short time ago he informed Deputies in this House that since he was elected as Deputy for Dublin City North he had never received letters from persons who made application for old age pensions and had not received them. I might say that the same cannot be said of any Deputy in this House representing a rural constituency, especially such counties as Donegal and Mayo to which the Minister made special reference. There is no gainsaying the fact that the greatest discontent exists both in regard to the administration of the Act for old age pensions and the Act itself. The Minister will remember that as a result of the 1924 Act some of the old age pensions were cut by one, two, three, or four shillings. As a result of a motion introduced by this Party in 1928 we succeeded in refunding to some old pensioners the one shilling that had been stopped from them. It should be taken into consideration that the complete cut made by the 1924 Act has not yet been restored to pensioners.

I welcome this Bill because I believe it will go a little way to allay the existing discontent. I would like to have seen the Bill going a little further. I would like to have seen it suggested that the age at which applicants should receive pensions would be reduced from 70 to 65 years. It may be stated that if the eligible age is reduced to 65 years a big additional expenditure will be incurred; but after all the question of old age pensions should not be viewed, as some of the Ministers, and more especially the Minister for Local Government, are apt to view it in this House.

It should be taken into consideration that when a person reaches 65 years and has been purchasing a certain amount of commodities from the time he commences work until he reaches that age, he has contributed a certain amount to the State in the way of taxation and also through work, if he happened to be fortunate enough to have work, and he has done his share in building up the State. In the circumstances the State owes a debt to that man, and the question of giving him a pension should not be looked upon from the viewpoint of the Minister, namely, the viewpoint of pauperism or poor law relief.

While I welcome the Bill, I am sorry that Deputy Ward did not see fit to repeal the First Schedule of the 1924 Act, because it will be recollected that as far as the First Schedule is concerned it lays down the maximum amount of means which claimants for pensions are entitled to receive. It is disadvantageous to the applicant in comparison with the First Schedule of the 1919 Act. Under that Act the person whose means were less than £26 5s. was entitled to a pension of 10/-. Under the 1924 Act, as amended by the motion brought forward here by our Party in 1928, a person is allowed to have a maximum means of £15 12s. before he or she is entitled to receive a maximum pension of 10/-. Under the 1919 Act the applicant was allowed to have an income of 10/- a week, and allowed also a pension of 10/- a week. That was tantamount to saying that under the 1919 Act an old age pensioner could have £1 per week of an income and pension, whereas under the 1924 Act the maximum amount the pensioner could have would be 15/-, including both means and pension. I hope this Bill does become an Act, and that Deputies on the Government Benches will look on the matter not from the point of view of party, but from the point of view of their constituents. I believe it will remove a number of anomalies.

[Mr. Fahy took the Chair.]

One of the anomalies is the fact that at present an applicant for a pension who happens to be totally dependent on a married son or daughter will in no case be entitled to the maximum pension of 10/-. I understand the pension officer in calculating the means takes into consideration that if a claimant is living with a married son or daughter it amounts to an income of £26 a year. That is unfair because it means in effect that a person in order to get 10/- a week must live on the roadside and have no means of income. In many cases we find claimants living with relatives who are very poor, hardly able to support themselves and their wives and families, let alone to keep the old people. Nevertheless the claimant is victimised by the fact that he or she is dependent on some relative. This Bill will help to remedy in some way that particular grievance.

Another grievance arises from the fact that if an old age pensioner finds he has to go to the county home, immediately his pension is stopped. That means transferring the burden from the taxpayer to the shoulders of the ratepayer. If a pensioner goes to the county home for medical treatment the pension is stopped and in most cases a period of four months elapses before he can get the pension back. If before entering the county home the pensions committee, the pension officer and even the appeals officer considered a person was entitled to a pension surely the mere fact of entering the county home for medical treatment should not deprive the poor person of his pension?

General Mulcahy

The person is not deprived of the pension.

Mr. Cassidy

I understand that in many cases after the pensioner receives medical treatment a period of four months elapses before the pension is resumed. If the Minister will refer to the proceedings of the Committee of Inquiry that investigated old age pensions he will find that that was one of the chief complaints. In many cases a pensioner has to make a fresh application before he can again get the pension. This Bill aims at removing that defect. I am very sorry it does not go further. I would like to have seen a section giving pensions at 65 years. I hope Deputies will look on this Bill from the point of view of their constituents. They know that dissatisfaction exists about old age pensions and they know the anomalies in the present Act. They should endeavour to get these anomalies rectified and I suggest the best way is to vote for Deputy Ward's Bill.

Mr. Corry

I desire to support this Bill. So far as the present Ministry is concerned, they do not seem to have views on anything outside a radius of five miles of Dublin. They seem to think that the whole of the 26 counties is contained within that radius. I am not at all surprised that the Minister for Local Government never had any complaints with regard to old age pensions. I happened to attend a meeting of an old age pensions committee in Cork to-day. I will cite, for the benefit of the Minister, two cases that came before us. One was the application of an old woman living with her son, who has a wife and three young children. He has a farm of 30 acres, the stock consisting of five cows, a couple of sheep and dry stock. Under a marriage agreement, the old woman was entitled to her maintenance in the house. The pensions officer valued her maintenance at 16/- a week. The land held by her son is poor, the valuation of the 30 acres being £14. Does any farmer Deputy listening to me imagine that out of a farm like that that 16/- a week could be paid when you consider that her son, his wife and three children had also to get their support out of it? A farmer would need to be making a great deal more money than the Minister for Finance thinks that farmers are making to be able to pay 16/- a week out of a holding like that for the maintenance of this old lady.

This Bill has been introduced with the object of trying to bring about some improvement amongst a section of the community that comprises the real producers in this State. The second case that came before the committee to-day was that of an old man, 70 years of age, who has spent the whole of his life as a farm labourer. In this case, apparently, the pensions officer cross-examined the old man with a view to finding out where he had worked during certain periods of the year. The pensions officer wrote to the people who had given employment to the old man at odd periods. As a result of his inquiries he found that the old man had worked 24 or 25 weeks in the year, that his wages were from four to six shillings a week with bed and board. He immediately pounced upon that and made out that the old man had an income of £31 10s. a year, and in consequence decided that the applicant was only entitled to a few shillings a week as pension. If the old man had been one of the drones who live upon the sweat of the farming community he would have been entitled to a pension up to the maximum amount. If he had been one of those civil servants with salaries of £1,500 a year and £210 a year war bonus, he would, when going out on pension, be entitled to fifty-eight sixtieths of his salary for the remainder of his life. Of course if he was in that position he need not apply for the pension at all. Because of the fact that he happens to be a poor old man, one of the producers in this country, one of those who work in order that these gentlemen to whom I have referred may live in comfort, he is to be cut down to a pension of a few shillings a week.

I do not know on what scale pension officers are paid. I have often thought that they must be paid by results, that, for instance, they get so much for each case recommended by a pensions committee which they succeed in getting turned down. The Minister has apparently no idea of how these Acts are being administered. He said that the total cost of old age pensions was £2,725,000, and that the cost of poor law services was £1,700,000. He said that in the County Mayo the cost of old age pensions was seven and a half times the cost of poor law services.

General Mulcahy

Oh, now!

Mr. Corry

The Minister said that was because of the number of small holdings down there. I suggest that it is because too many of the people in the county of Mayo went, as the President said, on a holiday to America to see their friends. We on this side are not responsible for the policy of the Government which has driven all the young people out of the country, leaving few behind except the aged and the crippled. I suggest that it is the policy of the Government that has resulted in piling up the cost of old age pensions. We on this side are not responsible for that. I had hoped that when the Minister for Local Government stood up to address the House he would at least show some sympathy with the producers in this country, with those who are not protected by the barbed wire entrenchments of civil service salaries and bonuses. The Minister did not do what I had hoped he would do. I hope, however, that Deputies from rural constituencies will show sympathy with the producers in this country. I hope that Deputy Sheehy, the Father of the House, will not forget the old people in his own constituency in West Cork; that he will not forget those who have reached a good age like himself, and will do what he can to see that when they make application for pensions they will get them. If the Deputy himself should ever require a pension, let him think now of that, and give his support to this Bill which, if passed, will ensure that all deserving applicants will get the pension when they reach the qualifying age. I appeal to Deputy Sheehy, and to every other Deputy from a rural constituency, most of whom have had experience of local government administration, to give their support to this Bill. I am sure that the Deputy, like most members of the House, receives a pile of private letters every week with complaints from people as to the way in which these Acts are being administered. If Deputy Sheehy is not already a member of an old age pensions committee I will see what I can do to have him made a member of one.

Mr. Sheehy (West Cork):

I have been a member of an old age pensions committee for over 20 years.

Mr. Corry

I would suggest to him that he is getting a chance now he might not get for a long time again of showing to the old age pensioners in his constituency that he feels for them, and that in addition to doing a little bit for himself he should do a stroke of work for them also. I appeal to every rural Deputy here, who must be aware of the facts, to turn around at this stage and disown the Minister for Local Government and get shut of him once and for all. I will not say anything about the Minister for Finance, but I told a deputation that was going to him about a grant that the softest part of him was his feet. I appeal to rural Deputies to come together on this question and not make it a party one. We want to make no party kudos out of it. Every Deputy who votes for the Bill has as much right to get credit for it as we have, and every Deputy who votes against it will have to face his constituents, and I warn him that they will not go without being told. There will be very little good in telling the old age pensioners that the Minister for Local Government put down his foot and said he would not agree to what this Bill proposes. Constituents are looking for protection against the sharks let loose from the Department of Local Government. I hope Deputies will do their duty and support this Bill, and if they do not I hope their constituents will deal with them.

Seán Ua Guilidhe

Cuidighim leis an mBille seo chó láidir agus is féidir liom. Ba chóir dúinn gach rud atá in ár gcumas do dhéanamh chun staid na ndaoine seo d'fheabhsú. Im' cheanntar féin, tá furmhór na ndaoine seo in a gcainnteoirí Gaedhilge; 'siad an chuid dheireannach de'n Ghaeltacht iad agus tá a lán acu nách féidir leo maireachtain mar tá siad. Más féidir linn slí bheatha níos fearr do thabhairt dóibh, ba cheart dúinn san do dhéanamh.

There is no necessity for me to go into very much detail in connection with this Bill. If I give one or two instances of the hardship inflicted under the present system it will, I think, be quite sufficient. Like Deputy Corry, I also happen to be a member of an old age pensions committee. At the outset I desire to say that I differ from those who have spoken on the Bill in regard to what they said about the pensions officers in the rural districts. Speaking from my own experience, I want to say that on the whole I have found these officers very sympathetic. I have found that they do all they possibly can to give the widest possible interpretation to the Acts they have to administer. They go amongst the people and make the most careful inquiries. Time and again I have come up against cases in which pensions officers told me that they had to refuse the pension. They admitted that the applicants were practically destitute and were undoubtedly deserving cases. They told me that, if it were in their power, they would give these people the pension, but under the Acts they were debarred from doing so. What we are endeavouring to do under this Bill is to amend the Acts so that pension officers will not be debarred from giving pensions in these deserving cases.

At practically every meeting I attend such cases come before us. It is because I know so much about them that I feel so strongly about this Bill. There is one case of an old woman of eighty years of age to whom we gave a pension. She went to live for a short time with her daughter-in-law and the pensions officer notified her that if she did not leave her daughter-in-law and live elsewhere he would cut down her pension to five shillings per week. How any woman could get lodgings for five shillings a week I do not know. She tried it and had to go back to her daughter-in-law again. There are hundreds of such cases. How could any man or woman in any part of Ireland support themselves on five shillings or six shillings per week? I admit that they are entitled to nine shillings or ten shillings a week when eighty years of age, but granted they have that how many old persons, and they are mostly helpless, could get any sort of lodgings for ten shillings a week? A case came before us a short time ago of a father who had assigned his place to a female relative. A misunderstanding arose and the relative disposed of the stock on the farm and she went to America, leaving the old man destitute. There was no stock left on the farm and he lived in a tumbled-down house. This man could not get a pension because he had assigned the farm to his relative with the intention of getting the pension. For that reason, although absolutely destitute, he was debarred from getting a pension.

As I have said, there are similar cases all over the country, as those who are familiar with the working of the Act know. One does not like to make invidious distinctions, but I see that the cost of the Civic Guards service has increased by nearly £89,000 in the last three years. This year there is to be a further increase, bringing the total increase to £102,873. If we can afford to increase the charge in one department of the service to such an amount, surely it should not be out of our power to increase the charge for such a very desirable purpose as is proposed by the Bill? As I said a moment ago when speaking Irish, these old people are practically the last heritage we have. In my part of the country they are the last of the Gaels. They are dying out fast, and the least we can do is to make their passing away as peaceful as we can, even at some sacrifice or extra cost to the State. It would be money well spent. It would be a terrible thing to leave these people in the condition that they have to go into what are still called workhouses.

We have endeavoured to remove the stigma of pauperism, but I am afraid the people who go into these institutions are still classed as paupers. We force them into the poorhouses all over the country, and when we get them in we deprive them of the little sum that the State gave them to remove the stigma of pauperism. Then when they come out they have again to go through the long process of endeavouring to get the pensions restored. It is all very well to say that these old people should make application a month before they leave the county homes, but they never dream of doing that, they are not so cute, and they make no effort to get the pensions restored to them until they come out and find that they are gone. Somehow we appear to make things as hard as we possibly can for them. Old people are very easily confused. When a pensions officer goes to them they sometimes give him hopelessly misleading information that leads him to believe that their means are far greater than they actually are, because they are incapable of giving a correct account of their position. Anything that we can do to make their position easier we should do.

Mr. Walsh

I rise to support this Bill. It does not propose anything revolutionary. It does not propose any startling change. All that it proposes to do is to go back to the conditions that prevailed before 1924. The Minister said a good deal about the amount of old age pensions paid in County Mayo. I think the best answer to that is an Act that recently went through the House— the Gaeltacht Housing Act. There is a clause in that which states that grants under the Act will be given to people with poor law valuations under 21/-, and in that Act there are about sixty scheduled areas in the County Mayo. I wonder if the Minister realises that the total poor law valuation of the whole union of Belmullet, almost a quarter of the County Mayo, is less than £12,000. Under the reforms that this Bill proposes in the present law a poor county like Mayo would be especially benefited. Anybody who has any knowledge of conditions in rural Ireland, particularly in the West, knows that with the usual economic position of the small farmer, no matter how large the family, there is only one son for the land and, if possible, one daughter to be married at home, and that often depends on the people being able to make successful family arrangements. The old people are forced, through those economic conditions, to sign over their holdings, and all right to their holdings, to the son who is going to get married. Due to these circumstances, over which they have no control, they are at present penalised by the Act of 1924. If, as Deputy Ward has pointed out, they do not make such an assignment three full years before they make an application for the old age pension, if they happen by accident not to make it until two years and eleven months before applying, they are deprived for ever of all chance of getting an old age pension.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

I would appeal, as Deputy Corry has appealed, to all Deputies representing rural constituencies, and especially Deputies who know the conditions that exist in the West, to support this Bill, and to remove the provision in the law which hits people living in the rural districts. We do not want to make any party capital out of this Bill; all we want is to remedy the injustice perpetrated by the Act of 1924, and, considering that we have heard so many speeches about unity, about doing away with partition and the desirability of making Ireland one, it is certainly a poor encouragement to the people across the border to do so when they contrast the conditions under which they live and the privileges to which they are entitled there under their Old Age Pensions Acts with the conditions here. It is certainly no inducement to them to desire unity with us, to desire that the Border should be abolished. As has been pointed out, the clause in the existing law affects a person because, through poverty and illness, he is forced to enter a county hospital and spend three months there, thereby losing his pension, and perhaps after leaving that institution, after a long and painful illness. When he is trying to recuperate, he finds that he has lost his pension.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.