The Deputy must have lost this Bill amongst the many other documents he has got since coming into the House. It was circulated about three weeks ago. The provisions are roughly as follows:—
"It shall be a statutory condition the receipt of an old age pension by any person, that the person must satisfy the pension authorities if he is a natural-born British subject, that he has, since attaining the age of 50 years, had his residence in the United Kingdom for an aggregate period of not less than twelve years, and if he is not a natural-born British subject, that he has had his residence in the United Kingdom for an aggregate period of 20 years: Provided that for the purpose of computing residence in the United Kingdom any periods spent abroad in any service under the Crown, any periods spent in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man by a person born in the United Kingdom; any periods spent abroad by any person during which that person has maintained or assisted in maintaining any dependent in the United Kingdom; any periods of absence spent in service on board a vessel registered in the United Kingdom by a person who before his absence on that service was living in the United Kingdom; and any periods of temporary absence, not exceeding three months in duration at any one time; shall be counted as periods of residence in the United Kingdom."
In effect these provisions all mean that the person must satisfy the pension authorities that for at least ten years up to the date of the receipt of a pension he has been a British subject, and has had his residence in the United Kingdom for 20 years in the case of a non-citizen, and 12 years in the case of a citizen.
It is proposed in the Bill now before the House that in lieu of these conditions it shall be a condition for the receipt of an old age pension that the claimant has had residence in Saorstát Eireann for an aggregate period of not less than 30 years, and that six years of that period in the case of a citizen, and 16 years of that period in the case of any other person, were subsequent to his attaining the age of 50 years. In other words, six years out of the last twenty years, instead of twelve years, and an aggregate period of 30 years' residence, will be the residence qualification under the Bill.
Any temporary absence abroad from Saorstát Eireann not exceeding six months and residence in the late United Kingdom before the 6th December, 1932, and any absence from Saorstát Eireann in such period during which such person has maintained or assisted in maintaining any dependent in Saorstát Eireann shall be reckoned and form part of the period computed as residence. Under the existing law a period of absence of three months would be sufficient to have an old age pension discontinued and it was found in the case of migratory labourers from the West of Ireland and from parts of Donegal that this inflicted hardship, and the period of temporary absence has been extended from three months to six months. The meaning of the words "United Kingdom" has already been adopted by the British authorities for the purposes of the Old Age Pension Acts to mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is now proposed to substitute the words "Saorstát Eireann" for the words "United Kingdom" for the purposes of the Old Age Pension code in this country. I think that is a sufficient explanation of the position regarding nationality and residence.
Coming to Section 3 of the Bill, this section deals with the method of calculating the means of a married couple living together. Section 2, sub-section (2), of the Act of 1911 provides that 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. This provision is being repealed and re-enacted in an amended form so as to provide that where one member of a married couple dies the property reckoned as the means of such member shall not be reckoned as means of the surviving member for the purpose of reducing the pension of such surviving member. As an example of how that would operate let us take a case where the total income from a holding would be £32 per annum as estimated for old age pension purposes. The married claimant would be credited with half the total income of the holding, namely, £16, and would be entitled under the existing code to 9s. per week. If both the married couple were over 70 years of age living on a holding that is estimated to bring in £32 per year they would be entitled to a pension of 9s. each. That would be 18s. per week. When one or other of such married couple dies, under the existing law the whole £32 comes to be credited to the survivor and the result of that would be that the survivor would only be entitled to a pension of 3s. per week.
It is felt that in such circumstances the loss of the life partner at that time of life is such a wrench in the home conditions that it is unfair, un-Irish and unjustifiable to have the question raised against the surviving member, and it is intended by this amendment in Section 3 to secure that any existing pension of one of a married couple shall not be interfered with by the death of the partner. It is perhaps particularly cruel in the case where the widow is surviving. In view of the fact that enquiries are now being instituted into the question of providing pensions for necessitous widows it would seem to be very inconsistent and indefensible to deprive a widow of a pension that she enjoyed while she was a married woman.
Section 5 of the Act of 1911 is being amended by Section 4 of this Bill by substituting "Saorstát Eireann" for the words "United Kingdom." That is merely bringing the old age pension law into line with the changed conditions in this country since the establishment of the Saorstát.
Section 5 provides that in calculating for old age pension purposes the income derived from certain classes of property, money invested or capable of investment, the income for old age pension purposes shall be considered to be one-twentieth of the capital value. The 1924 Act stipulates that such income should be calculated at the rate of one-tenth of the capital value. In effect it means that the income from, say, money in bank or property where the capital value is being estimated for old age pension purposes, is calculated at 10 per cent. under the 1924 Act. Previous to that it was calculated at the rate of 5 per cent. and it is proposed under this Bill to go back to the 5 per cent. calculation. As an example of how that would operate take the case of a claimant to an old age pension who had £325. Under the 1924 amendment, the first £25 was set aside and one-tenth of the remaining capital. one-tenth of the £300, is taken to represent the income from that £325, namely, £30. Such a claimant would be entitled to 4/-. Under the amendment proposed in this Bill the income from an investment of £325 would be considered to be £15 and such claimant would be entitled to 10/- per week under the new proposals.
Section 6 of the Bill deals with the definition of "blindness" largely. The same method of calculating the means of a claimant for a blind pension is followed as is in operation in calculating the means of a claimant for an old age pension. The estimated income that would entitle a person of 70 years of age to 10/- a week old age pension, would entitle a person of 50 years of age under the existing law to a blind pension when the claimant's defective sight comes within the definition of blindness as laid down in the Act.
Section 6 of the Bill proposes to amend the Act of 1920 so that the minimum age limit of 50 years laid down by that Act, to enable a person to qualify for a blind pension, will be reduced to 30 years. The Blind Persons Act, 1920, sets forth the condition as to the degree of blindness, namely, that the claimant must be so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential. It is proposed to amend this definition of the extent of blindness by substituting a requirement as to the extent of blindness which would either make such person unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential, or unable to continue his ordinary occupation.
There have been repeated complaints from pension committees and other people interested in the welfare of the blind, concerning the rigidity of the definition of blindness for the purpose of securing a pension. For all practical purposes a claimant had to be stone blind in order to get a pension under the existing definition. It is a fact that many people have defective sight, but they are capable of performing some work for which eyesight is essential. If they are only capable of going about the house, making their way in and out, they are capable of performing work for which eyesight is essential. At the same time their sight is so defective that they have not any earning capacity.
In the same way a person who had been a seamstress, a tailor, or clerk, and whose sight became so defective that that person could no longer follow his or her ordinary occupation, but still would have sight that would enable him or her to perform work for which eyesight is essential, obviously could not perform a particular class of work, having devoted whole lives to a particular occupation. They could not perform any work that would enable them to live. The statutory conditions regarding residence and nationality only bring the blind pensioners into line with the statutory conditions laid down regarding old age pensions.
Section 7 sets out:—
No person to whom any payment was made before the commencement of this Act in respect of an old age pension shall be deprived of such pension or suffer any reduction of such pension by reason of anything contained in this Act if he would not have been liable to suffer such deprivation or reduction (as the case may be) if this Act had not been passed.
That is meant to deal with the possible reactions of the residence clause. It is possible that people who have come in, perhaps from the Six County area and who have not been resident here sufficiently long to qualify under the new terms might be, if this section were not put into the Bill, deprived of the pension that they have been drawing for some time. It is not the intention to deprive these people of the pension and it is in order to safeguard their pension rights that this section is being put into the Bill.
Section 8 deals with the matter of giving powers of control over pension clerks to the Minister for Local Government. It is desirable to obtain better control over the appointments and qualifications of officers of pension committees and sub-committees. At the present time the Minister for Local Government, or the Minister for Finance has no control whatever over the appointment of clerks to sub-committees. It has been found, in actual practice, that when complaints are made about a clerk neglecting his duty, or failing to notify a claimant of an award, nobody but the local sub-committee has any control over him. It seems to be necessary that that should be remedied. In one instance a sub-committee had two clerks acting at the same time. The Minister could not interfere to bring about a termination of such a ridiculous position. One clerk had the majority of the committee at one particular meeting, and he was appointed clerk. At the next meeting the other man had a majority and he was appointed clerk. We hope to end that confusion by giving control to the Minister for Local Government over these appointments.
As regards some of the sections that are being repealed. It is proposed to repeal Section 3 (1), paragraph (a) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908. That paragraph deals with the disqualification of persons who enter a poor law institution from receiving an old age pension. At the present time if a person who has successfully established his claim to a pension through destitution or any other reason has to enter a poor law institution, he is deprived of the pension as soon as he enters the institution unless he enters the hospital portion of it for medical treatment. If such persons enter the hospital portion of the poor law institution as medical cases they can retain the pension for a period of three months.
I do not think that it will require very much argument to convince the House that it is desirable that that section should be repealed. If these old people, after 70 years of hardship, 70 years of service to the country, through destitution or any other reason have to enter a poor law institution, it appears to me they should be enabled to enter that institution, not as paupers, but as independent citizens. They are morally and legally entitled to a pension while they are outside the poor law institution and we should not continue to label them as paupers, and make them a charge on the poor rate, when they have to enter one of these institutions.
There is another aspect of the matter that might appeal to those people who are interested in the question of de-rating. According to the Poor Law Commission Report, the amount that comes to be levied on the local rates, as a result of depriving persons over 70 who are in poor law institutions of their pensions, is £50,000 per year. It is the intention that these old people should enter the county homes and other poor law institutions with their pension books and that they will come to an arrangement with the Board of Health to contribute towards their upkeep as independent people while they are there. In that way the £50,000 that is being levied on the rates for the upkeep of such people will become a State charge instead of a charge on the local rates.
That section, I think, will probably appeal to the section of the people interested in de-rating, but apart altogether from that aspect of it I have always felt very strongly, and still feel very strongly, that there is no justification and cannot be any justification for labelling these poor old people as paupers, simply because they are destitute and have no one to look after them. When they come out of a poor law institution under the existing code they have to apply for the old age pension as if they never had it. They have to go through all the formalities again, and it very often happens that considerable delay ensues before the pension is restored. It appears to me that the intention of inserting that clause in the British Act must have been that when these people entered the poor law institution they should remain there until they died. We want to make it possible for them at any rate to come out after a period, and that no delay should ensue before the pension is restored to them.
It is also proposed in the Bill to repeal paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1911. We have had considerable discussions on this paragraph in the Dáil on previous occasions, and I think most Deputies are familiar with its reactions. The paragraph sets out that in calculating the means of a claimant to the old age pension account must be taken of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the applicant. In law that has come to mean apparently any benefit or privilege whatsoever, whether that benefit or privilege is enjoyed as a matter of sentiment or as a matter of charity. Food, clothing and shelter, extended as a matter of sentiment or as a matter of charity, are estimated as means against the claimant to an old age pension, and similarly charitable donations. The food, clothing and shelter are estimated not in accordance with the degree of comfort enjoyed by the claimant, but in accordance with the degree of comfort enjoyed by the person who extends this benefit or privilege to the claimant. That estimate is often as high as £1 a week. The general run is 10/- to £1 a week in estimating the benefit or privilege of free clothing or keep even in very poor circumstances.
Under Section 7 of the Act of 1924 provision was made for the assignment of a farm if under £10 valuation. In such a case a claimant, without any delay, could successfully apply for the old age pension without having such a farm taken into consideration. If the farm was over £10 valuation, and if the claimant waited three years, the farm would not be taken into consideration in calculating the means for old age pension purposes. But if that clause were availed of by farmers throughout the country, paragraph (d) of the other sub-section that I have referred to cut right across the intentions of it. It was no use to a farmer to assign his farm to his son so long as the benefit or privilege of remaining under the old roof was extended to him by his son. If the son did the unChristian thing of putting the parent out on the roadside, then the parent could immediately get the pension of 10s. a week, but not otherwise. But if the parent continued to live on under the old roof and the benefit or privilege of shelter was afforded to him there, then that deprived him of the right to the pension. It seems to me to be desirable to get rid of that clause under the old age pension law. It certainly will involve considerable cost, but I think it will be generally conceded that this is a form of expenditure that all sections of the House ought to agree to.
It is also proposed to repeal completely Section 7 of the Act of 1924. I presume that when Deputy Blythe, as Minister for Finance, introduced this section in the 1924 Act he meant to secure that if a farm of over £10 valuation were assigned it would, for old age pension purposes, continue to be looked upon as belonging to the claimant for a period of three years after assignment. That was probably the intention of the section. I think any one who has been interested in old age pension appeals will agree that that section was an outstanding feat of draftsmanship. I do not think there is any layman who would be able to interpret it. In fact, I do not think there is any two lawyers could be got to agree as to what were the meaning and effect of that section. I do not intend to read it to the House because I do not think the House would be any wiser having heard it. The late Government had several legal opinions as to the meaning of this section and from time to time it appears their legal advisers advised them as to the different meanings that might be attached to it.
At any rate the effect of it for a considerable number of years after the section was passed was that if a man assigned a farm over £10 valuation and applied for the old age pension before three years had elapsed that farm was taken into consideration in calculating his means, not only at the time the claim for the pension was made but during the rest of that man's natural life. Even if he lived to be a hundred years of age the farm was still taken into consideration in estimating the means for old age pension purposes. I do not believe the Minister intended that that interpretation should be put upon it, but that was the legal advice the Minister got when the section came to be interpreted. In practice, it meant that a farmer who was well advised, who perhaps, was better educated than his neighbour or who had somebody to look up the old age pension law and advise him as to when he ought to assign his farm, assigned his farm at 67 years of age, and when he reached the age of 70 years he was entitled to apply for the old age pension without having that farm taken into consideration in calculating his means. The man who was not so well advised, who did not know the old age pension law, and who never heard about the intricacies of Section 7 of the Act of 1924, assigned his farm maybe at the age of 68 or 69. Then when he was 70 he applied for a pension, and when he did so he found that by applying before the three years were up he could never get the pension unless the farm was so small that the estimated income from it was such as not to deprive him of the pension. We propose to take that section out of the old age pension code altogether.
It appears to me to be very advisable to encourage the old men in rural Ireland to assign their places to their sons, so as to allow the sons to settle down in life. To encourage them to do that, we propose to repeal that section completely and make it possible for a farmer who has reached the age of 70 years to assign his place to his son and apply for the pension without having the income from the farm taken into consideration in calculating his means. It is generally agreed, I think, that those old people are very conservative. I doubt if even the temptation of getting a pension of 10/- per week will be sufficient to induce farmers to part with their lands to their sons. At any rate, we are anxious to encourage them to do so, and we believe that the present Bill will go some distance towards attaining that end. We believe that there will be happier conditions in these homesteads when either the old man or the old woman is in receipt of an old age pension, or when both of them are. They will have a little pocket money, a certain amount of independence and, at Christmas times, they will be able to buy little presents for their grandchildren. As a result, we believe that happier conditions will obtain in the homes.
These are the main features of the Bill. So far as my experience of old age pension claims and old age pension appeals goes, this is a good Bill. It is based on practical experience of the most urgent requirements. Of course everybody will not be satisfied with the terms of the Bill. Some people will, I suppose, want a more generous measure and others will probably urge that we are spending too much money on old age pensions already. The people who want us to spend more money on old age pensions will have to be satisfied with the generosity of the Bill before the House. Under existing conditions, I do not think it would be reasonable to ask the Minister for Finance to provide more money than the operation of this Bill will entail. It is difficult to estimate exactly what the cost of the Bill will be, inasmuch as it is very hard to forecast how far the repeal of Section 7 will operate to increase the cost of old age pensions—how far the facility to assign their farms will be availed of by men of 70 years of age. The sum of £300,000 per annum would be a conservative estimate of the cost of the Bill.
