I was speaking about the special allowance when the debate was adjourned, and what a benefit it was at the time it was introduced. Of course, everything has increased since 1946, and every other class of pensioner, except the I.R.A. pensioner, got an increase during the past four years. As I pointed out in this debate before it was adjourned, the Minister for Finance said the other day that we would not forget the Old I.R.A. I hope that the Minister will not delay in dealing especially with this particular class who are so much in need of help.
There are several points which I should like to bring to the Minister's attention in connection with the matter of the special allowance. I have no doubt that the Minister is already aware of most of them. As Deputy MacEoin pointed out, when the means test is applied on assessing the special allowance the whole earnings of a son or daughter under 18 years of age are taken into account. In assessing means for an old age pensioner only the profit from the earnings of the son or daughter is taken into account. In the case of this particular special allowance, when the son goes over 18 years of age the same principle is adopted and it is only the profit from the earnings. Just imagine a young boy who gets a job at £1 or 30/- a week. His total earnings are assessed against his father's special allowance or against his mother's Cumann na mBan pension. I think there is no justice in that. The very least should be to take only the profit from their earnings after clothing and feeding them.
Another drawback is that when an award is made it must hold for 12 months. Even if decisions and awards are proved to be entirely wrong, they cannot be altered for 12 months. That is very unfair, especially in the case of a person who at the time of the making of the award might have had the earnings of some member of his family assessed against his claim, while, on the other hand, the person who was earning in that family at the time of the making of the award, and whose means were assessed in that connection, might have become idle the following week. There can be no alteration in the decision until a period of 12 months has elapsed. When the means of an old age pensioner or a non-contributory widow alter, they can make a fresh application. If there must be a time limit, surely three months is long enough without having to wait 12 months to have a decision altered.
Another peculiar thing about this special allowance is that under the Social Welfare Act a person can have a special allowance and can draw a full old age pension, but if he got the old age pension first he cannot get the special allowance because the old age pension is assessed as means against him. That is a ridiculous position. I think that my statement is correct and if it is wrong I hope the Minister will point out that it is wrong. I have been informed that a person cannot get a special allowance because he has an old age pension. If, on the other hand, he had the special allowance first, he could draw his full old age pension. Surely, there is something wrong with that state of affairs.
When the National Health Insurance Society was being handed over to the Department of Social Welfare the then Minister for Social Welfare agreed that, as their I.R.A. pensions were not abated while they were working for the National Health Insurance Society, he would see to it that national health insurance agents would be at no loss when the transfer would take place. We now have the ridiculous position that the I.R.A. pension of a national health insurance agent is abated and that he gets a refund from the Department of Social Welfare. Surely there should be some other way of getting over the position that the pension should be stopped and then refunded by another Department. Surely if it is decided to exempt them, they should be exempted in the first instance and no more about it.
I appeal strongly to the Minister to give a substantial increase to the people who are drawing the special allowance. They are the most hard-up section of the Old I.R.A. They must be incapable of self-support and must have no means of subsistence before they will get this allowance. Surely the Minister will agree that what was a good thing in 1946 is not a good thing in 1952. The matter of abatement has been condemned universally on both sides of this House under the last Government and under the present Government. I do not think any case can be made for stopping money out of a man's pension because he is working for a Government Department or a local authority.
We have the cases of corporation sweepers, cleaners and messengers in Government buildings, postmen and labourers working for local authorities whose pensions are being abated because they work in those particular jobs. I know of a few cases where people are drawing their full pensions— substantial pensions—because they are working for bodies whose funds are not provided out of the public rates. One of the men I have in mind can draw his full pension in addition to a salary of about £800 per year. However, if he were working in the Cork Corporation instead of in the body in which he is working, he could not draw his pension at all. I have a case in mind of a man who was secretary to a public board in Cork, and who never bothered to apply for his pension. He knew that it would be no use for him to do so. He got a new appointment as secretary to another institution in Cork and he applied for and got his full pension. Is not that a ridiculous state of affairs? Is it not ridiculous also that there are cases of dispensary doctors whose pensions are abated, and there are other cases in which doctors hold four appointments and get their full pension? It seems to me that the whole matter is a complete injustice. When a man gets a job as a cleaner or as messenger in a Government Department because of national service, is he not doing the same work in that Department as the person who has no national service record? Because he gets this job owing to I.R.A. service, is he to be deprived of his pension? In other words, is he to be deprived of his pension, and is he to work in a particular Government Department at a lower rate than that at which a person who has no national service would be expected to work?
If the man in question did not take that particular job he would get his full pension in some other job. Is it because he has served with the I.R.A. that he is to suffer a reduction in his pension and work at a lower rate than another man who has not rendered any such service? There was a general foreman in the Cork Corporation, and immediately he got the offer of a job from a private firm giving him the same pay as he was getting from the corporation, he jumped at it. The result was that his pension went up by about £2 per week. The person in question had been granted a substantial pension. Surely, there can be no justice attached to the practice whereby a person, retiring from Government service on a pension which is much lower than his salary heretofore, has his I.R.A. pension abated also. Is it because there were such happenings in this country 50 years ago which we all criticised that we should continue such practices? In my view, the whole thing is absurd and should be finished with as quickly as possible. I do not think it would cost the Government much to do so. I imagine there would be unanimous agreement on the matter on both sides of the House. While the inter-Party Government held office I was speaking casually one day to Dr. O'Higgins, and this particular matter cropped up. He said that there should be a motion from both sides of the House to abolish the practice, but that the Governments in power from time to time did not like to bring it in because it affected themselves personally. Why should they allow other people to be imposed upon because of their personal feelings? However, it is not the Government or the Opposition I am worried about but the type of people such as corporation sweepers, postmen, Government messengers and cleaners. I would appeal to the Minister to give this matter very early consideration. I am not worried about the men with big I.R.A. pensions who are in receipt of large salaries in other businesses. However, there are some persons in receipt of small Civil Service pensions and, if possible, something should be done about them.
Reference was made to-day to the dependents of Air Corps personnel. The case of Captain Ryan's widow was quoted. We should have in mind the dependents of all deceased Air Corps personnel as well as the dependents of the late Captain Ryan. I feel sure that we all think something should be done for the dependents of those people who lose their lives in the service of the country. The case of Captain Ryan was a particularly sad one. Five brothers of that family served in the Army during the emergency. Three of them lost their lives. Two of them had no dependents, so there were no claims lodged in their case. However, the third brother left a widow and a large family, and I feel sure that we can safely leave their case in the hands of the Minister. I am certain that he will make provision also for the dependents of all persons who lose their lives in the service of the country or in the Army.
I would appeal strongly to the Minister to bear in mind two particular cases that I put to him. I appealed to him to increase the special allowances of the people who are badly in need of such increases and to do away, once and for all, with the abatement in I.R.A. pensions.
