The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is in charge of this Bill, and I formally give him leave to attend and be heard during its different stages in this House.
Old Age Pensions Bill, 1932—Second Stage.
Cathaoirleach
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The terms of this Bill, I feel sure, are fairly well understood by most of the members of this House. The main features of the present Bill were embodied in the Old Age Pensions Bill of 1929. I assume that most of the members of this House took sufficient interest in the political crisis that centred around the passage if that Bill to familiarise themselves with the terms of it. The most important changes in the law contemplated in the present Bill relate to blind pensions and the method of calculating means in relation both to blind pensions and old age pensions. It is proposed to reduce the qualifying age for a blind pension from 50 years to 30 years. It appears to me that a person who has such defective sight as not to be able to follow his ordinary avocation or to earn a livelihood is as helpless at 30 years as he would be at 50 years. Hence, the reason for the proposal to reduce the qualifying age from 50 years to 30 years. I think it will be generally agreed by those who interested themselves in the administration of the law relating to old age pensions and blind pensions that considerable hardship arose from the rigid definition of "blindness" laid down in the old age pensions code. The law at present provides that in order to qualify for a blind pension a person must be so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential. The literal meaning of that is that a person must be absolutely blind to qualify for a blind pension. If they are able to perform any work for which eyesight is essential— even the simplest work about the house—they cannot, on the ground of blindness, secure a pension. It is intended in the present Bill to alter the definition of "blindness" as well as to reduce the age of qualification. Persons whose sight is so defective that they are unable to follow their ordinary occupations or whose earning capacity is such as to bring them within the means schedule will come within our definition of "blindness." At present, it very often happens that persons who follow a particular trade or occupation — tailors, watchmakers, sempstresses and others—have such defective sight that they have no earning capacity. Under the present definition of "blindness," they cannot get blind pensions, because they have such sight as enables them to perform work for which eyesight is essential. The amendments relating to the method of calculating means which are enshrined in the present Bill will, of course, apply to claimants for blind pensions as well as to claimants for old age pensions. Apart from the alteration regarding the method of calculating means, there are some other features of the Bill which I should like to deal with.
At present, if an old age pensioner who, but for the pension, would be destitute and who is unable to look after himself has to enter a poor law institution the pension is discontinued on his entering that poor law institution. If he is in the hospital portion of the institution, the pension is continued for a period of three months, but if he is in the section of the county home which caters for able-bodied members of the community, the pension ceases. Not only does it cease for the period during which such pensioner remains in the poor law institution but fresh application has to be made for the pension if that pensioner ever leaves the poor law institution. The law appears to have assumed that if our old people entered one of these institutions they would never come out. The same difficulties as before are encountered in connection with the second application for a pension. All the evidence has to be presented afresh when the pension claim is placed before the pensions officer or sub-committee. It is proposed that that section of the old age pensions code should be completely repealed. Any pensioner who, through force of circumstances, has to enter a poor law institution in future will receive, without interruption, the pension while in that institution. It is anticipated that the boards of health will make arrangements whereby these old people will contribute a certain amount of their pension towards their maintenance while they remain in that institution. According to the Poor Law Commission report, the amount the rates were deprived of by having to maintain persons of 70 years of age and over in poor law institutions in the Twenty-Six Counties was £50,000 a year. I think it ought to be possible to save most of that to the rates and make it a charge on the Central Fund. The present proposal will have the additional advantage that those poor old people who are so circumstanced as to have to seek shelter in a poor law institution will be able to enter that institution as independent citizens, to go in with their heads up and to pay for their maintenance while there. They will not be a charge on the rates and they will not enter these institutions as paupers, as apparently the original old age pensions code intended they should. It appears to me—I am sure there will be general agreement on the matter—that a person who has given 70 years' service to the country and who has made his or her contribution to State services in the form of taxation during that period is entitled to, at least, this measure of generosity—that they are entitled, while in one of these institutions, to the pension that they would be legally and morally entitled to if they were not so destitute as to have to go there.
Another small section of the community has been hardly hit under the old age pensions law. The amendments in this Bill concerning them will not involve any very big increase in expenditure, and the matter is one on which, I think, there will be general agreement. The law at present provides that if one of a married couple dies, a question will be raised by the pensions officer against the survivor if he or she is in receipt of a pension. The result of that is that a man or woman of 70 years of age whose life partner has died may lose the pension as the result of such a question being raised.
That appears to me to be very harsh treatment in the exceptional circumstances. I think there is not any doubt that when death intervenes and dissolves that partnership that has lasted for a long time, nothing in the form of monetary reward can compensate the survivor. Approaching it from that direction, and from that point of view, I think it must be conceded that it is a tremendous hardship and that it is un-Irish, to say the least of it, to deprive a survivor who has lost his life partner of the pension he enjoyed while he had his helpmate. It is proposed that the pension he enjoyed while they both lived will not be interfered with by having the question raised in future and that the pension will continue at least as large as while the partner was there. When one takes an example of how that works out the extent of the hardship under that section is surprising. It is, however, the law. It is not a matter of harsh administration. The harshness cannot be avoided. The only remedy is to remove the section and to pass this amendment.
Take the case of a man and wife whose income is calculated at £32 per annum. They would each be credited with an income of £16 per annum. That would mean that if they were both over 70 years of age there would be a pension of 18/- per week coming into the house. When one of these people dies the entire £32 income comes to be credited to the survivor and when the question is raised, all that can be awarded where the income is £32 is only 3/- per week. The lifelong partner is gone and the 18/- per week pension is reduced to 3/-. I do not think it is necessary to stress that particular class of case at any greater length. I think there will be general agreement as to the necessity for an amendment in that respect of the old age pensions code.
Do we understand that when a person dies, the same pension continues to be paid to the survivor?
Yes.
The £32 does not interfere with it?
The pension will continue at the same rate as if the partner had not died and as if the income in respect of the survivor was £16 instead of £32. There will be no interference for the few years the survivor will have to live.
Probably the most far-reaching amendment of the old age pensions code will be brought about by the repeal of paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1911. This paragraph lays it down that in calculating the means of a claimant to an old age pension account shall be taken of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the claimant. That means that in law account shall be taken of any benefit or privilege whatsoever— food, clothing, shelter, even charity has to be estimated as means under this paragraph. Since I first took any interest in the old age pensions law I could never understand how that provision could be operated to its logical conclusion. If a person has an income of over £15, or £15 12s. 6d. from all sources he is entitled to an old age pension of 10/- per week. That is the maximum income from all sources which allows of a full old age pension. When you come to the question of calculating the means of the claimant and any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the claimant, I think it must be admitted that a human being could not exist if he did not enjoy benefits or privileges in excess of 6/- per week. If such a person enjoyed a benefit or privilege in excess of 6/-, he could not get a full old age pension, so if that line of reasoning is correct this paragraph could never have universal application. I do not think it would be the intention of any Irish Government to include charity or free food, clothing or shelter to which these people have no legal right and which is enjoyed as a matter of charity or sentiment. I do not think any Irish Assembly should consider that such things should be estimated as means in calculating the means of a claimant to an old age pension. It is intended to repeal that paragraph completely so that in future anything that a claimant does not enjoy as of legal right will not be estimated as means.
There was another aspect of the operation of this paragraph that impressed me considerably in the examination of this question with a view to an amendment of the law. Section 7 of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1924 contemplated that under certain circumstances a farmer might assign his place to his son. If the valuation of the farm was £10 or under, the assignment could take effect immediately without having the income from the farm taken into consideration in estimating his means for old age pension purposes. If it was over £10 a period of three years had to elapse. There was no encouragement for a farmer to assign his place to his son. If he did assign his place, the benefit or privilege of getting free food and shelter operated to deprive him of a pension. The actual result was that if a farmer assigned his place to his son and the son did the un-Christian thing and put his father out, he was worth 10s. a week. If the mother was also living and he put out the two they were both worth £1 per week. If the son did the Christian thing in this Christian country and gave food, clothing and shelter to his parents they got no pension at all. I think it is necessary that the law should be amended in that respect. It is intended to take that section out of the Old Age Pensions code completely so that there can be no misunderstanding of the position in future.
It has been argued—possibly if there was sufficient time it would probably be argued here—that there is a moral obligation on relatives to maintain old people when they reach the age that they are no longer able to maintain themselves. I suppose that is arguable. In certain circumstances there may be such a moral obligation, but I am not going to concern myself very much about that. I do say this, that there is a moral obligation on the State to maintain these old people who have given 70 years' faithful service and who have for 70 years contributed to all the services of the State in the form of indirect taxation. I am not a bit impressed, though I have heard it advanced many times, about the moral obligation on the relatives to maintain these old people. I hold, leaving that matter out of consideration altogether, that what we are here concerned with is not the family obligations or the moral obligations as between members of a family but the State's obligation to its citizens.
I do not know if the attention of many members of the Seanad has been drawn to Section 7 of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1924. I refer to it in relation to the repeal of paragraph (d) of the Act of 1911. Section 7 of the Act of 1924 was intended to secure that a farmer could assign his place, and if his place were under £10 in valuation that the yearly income, from that place, would not be taken into consideration in estimating his claim for an old age pension. If the farm were more than £10 in valuation he had to wait three years, after the assignment, before the income from that farm ceased to be taken into consideration. That apparently was the intention of the section. I do not know whether many Senators have read it, but I read it several times and, the more I read it, the more puzzled I was as to its meaning. It is the most complicated piece of legislation I ever read. I think of the lawyers who have tried their wits upon this particular section. No two of them have agreed on its meaning. In actual working, from 1924 to 1929, it was held by the legal advisers of the Revenue Commissioners that if a claimant applied, any time before the three years had expired, for an old age pension, the income from his place would continue to be estimated as means for the rest of the claimant's natural life. That was the law, but it certainly was not the intention of the section when passed. The intention was that a man at 67, having assigned his place to his son, was to become entitled to his pension at 70.
If the principle that a man should be allowed to assign his place to his son is admitted at all I cannot see any justification for making him wait three years. What actually happens is this: A man well advised, better educated than his neighbours, knows what the law entitles him to. If he does not know himself, there is somebody to look after his legal interests in making his assignment, but the more destitute, and more illiterate and friendless the claimant may be, the more unlikely is he to know of the legal obligation here. He assigns at 70, applies for his pension, and is told that he has to wait three years, and he says: "Oh, I may not be alive then, and it is not worth while to bother further."
It appears to me that Section 7 of the Old Age Pensions Act ought to be repealed altogether, and we propose taking it out of the code, so that if a farmer wishes to assign his holding and retire from business he can do so, and will not have to wait three years or one year for his old age pension if he is otherwise entitled to it. It may be argued that there should be some limits upon this, that we should not give an unlimited scope to farmers to assign their farms and qualify for old age pensions. Anything can be argued, but this is a matter of prejudice. It is conceded, I think, that the farmers and labourers of this country pay between them in indirect taxation, the greater portion of the taxes and revenue of this country. A considerable portion of that money goes to provide salaries and pensions for the salaried and pensionable classes. If the farmer is to be given the privilege of providing very generous salaries, and in many cases in providing pensions for people whose salaries, perhaps, are sufficiently large to enable them to make provision for their old age, it would appear to me that the farmers should have the privilege of retiring at 70 on a miserable 10/- a week that would give him a degree of comfort. I do not see that there should be any objection to that.
There is another aspect of this matter. Anyone in close association with the social life of the country will realise that there is no more conservative class of people than the farmers, and that it is very difficult to get the old man to hand over his place to his son until his son is nearly an old man himself. We want to encourage the old man to hand over his place to his son, and we want to facilitate him to get the old age pension. I would like to advance one further argument in favour of that particular line that we are taking. I advanced it in the Dáil, and it appears to me to be convincing. I do not know whether it is the practice in all parts of the country, but I know it is the practice in the part I come from, that the farmer's son, as a rule, is not paid wages by his father. He gives his work to the farm voluntarily. When the old man is 70 years of age the son is about 35, and if you calculate what the son would earn if paid at the average rate of wages, his claim would already be established against the place, and in many cases his claim would be found to be more than the market value of the place. I do not know whether that is the practice in other places or whether the farmers pay their sons the current rate, but I know in my part of the country they do not. Viewed from that point of view the son has already bought out that place before it is assigned to him.
These are the main features of the Bill. I do not want to delay the House further except to explain as briefly and clearly as I can what are the principal reactions and results that will follow from the passage of this Bill. I believe it will go a long way in securing better domestic conditions. Old people are sometimes unreasonable, and young people are sometimes forgetful. At any rate if the old people are bringing in a pension of £1 a week, and are able to provide little things, perhaps, for the grandchildren, I think better domestic and happier conditions will prevail and it is no shame to admit that. It is difficult to estimate what the Bill will cost, in the conditions prevailing here, and it is not easy to gauge to what extent the privilege of assignment will be availed of. I think it would be a conservative estimate to say that the Bill would cost round about £400,000, and possibly half a million a year, but I would point out that this money is not going to be hoarded. It will be put into circulation, and I venture to say we will get a better return for the half million, if it cost that, expended in that way, than for any other expenditure this House may be called upon to sanction.
The Parliamentary Secretary is to be congratulated on the courage he has displayed in introducing this Bill, and on the humane considerations he has brought to bear on this problem. He has dealt with most of the outstanding points in our legislation with regard to old age pensions. Those of us who have been endeavouring to assist the aged poor to get pensions during the past twenty years know the difficulties that surrounded our efforts in that respect in former legislation. There are one or two points in the Bill that appealed to me very strongly. One was with regard to cases where parents remain in the home, and where they will now be entitled to receive the pension of 10/- weekly. If they get a cup of tea, a slice of bread or sit at the family table with their children they will not now be penalised. It is a well-known fact that not alone in the rural areas but in the cities, and particularly in Dublin if one of the family gets married, and if he wants to do the Christian thing and the human thing, as the Parliamentary Secretary has stated, when his parents reach seventy years of age, if he has room in his little home for the old people, hitherto, when a claim was made the pension officer made out an account showing how much should be stopped for the room, how much should be stopped for breakfast or for the fire.
As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, if a man wanted to assist his aged father or mother he had to put them out in order that they could get the pension. Human considerations have been brought to bear on this legislation, and it is a refreshing state of affairs. Heretofore, when helping people to get the old age pension we found the position hedged around with difficulties that it was almost impossible to get over.
One proposal in the Bill has pleased me very much. Under it poor people who have no home and who are forced by circumstances to enter some poor law institution can now go there with their heads up. They will not have the brand of pauperism on them. They will be able to go to these institutions and to inform the attendants that they will pay their way, or help to do so, and they will probably have a shilling left for themselves, in the case of a man to buy a bit of tobacco and in the case of a woman to buy a newspaper. In connection with the blind, heretofore people who were afflicted in that way had to be totally blind before they could get a pension under the Blind Persons Act. If they were able to hobble about the house with a stick there was no possibility of getting the pension. Under the proposal in this Bill a person who is not totally blind, one who is able to hobble about the house, will not be deprived of the pension. The means qualification is a useful innovation. I think the Parliamentary Secretary might have gone further in that respect. I have experience of the work of the old craft unions in this city. Long before old age pensions were ever thought of these craft unions granted what was termed a superannuation allowance to members who were unable to follow their occupation. Before the Old Age Pensions Acts were introduced these craft unions, out of the contributions of their members, gave a weekly superannuation allowance to the older members. When the Old Age Pensions Acts came along it was found that if the superannuation allowance was continued the State would refuse to grant these people pensions, although they had contributed towards the superannuation allowance during the best part of their lives. It was the practice in these craft unions for an apprentice to become a member of his union after a year's service, and he continued paying contributions while he was able to work. The State, however, refused to pay the pensions to people in receipt of such allowances. At a future stage I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take that question into consideration, and that if a trades union pays a member 10/- or 15/- weekly out of a fund to which he has contributed for perhaps thirty or forty years, that fact will not be against his claim.
That case is on all fours with that of people working on farms where a pension was not allowed because wages were not paid although the labour given was actually more than the value of the holdings. If people in friendly societies or trade unions contribute towards superannuation funds until they reach seventy years of age, that should not debar them from the benefits provided by the State. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, farmers, agricultural workers as well as industrial workers, only get during their lifetime what they earn. They are not paid for holidays and they do not get help at the expense of the State or the local authorities. Anything they get they earn, and when they come to seventy years of age, having rendered service to the community, whether by working on farms, in sewers, or as dock labourers, surely the State should say to them "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, we will give you the reward to which you are entitled."
Senator Farren has covered most of the ground that I intended to cover. With the greatest sincerity I desire to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the comprehensive and, above all, the human statement that he has placed before us.
I am sure there is not a member of the Seanad but will be glad that any additional comfort that can be granted to old people in this life is to be given them. No one will find fault with this Bill, and I wish to join with the other Senators in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on having introduced it. There is one thing that strikes me as rather strange. I think the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that no decent man would turn out his father and mother to seek relief on the roads.
Under this Bill, no matter how well off a man may be, he may be quite well able to keep his father and mother but still he may, out of meanness, take advantage of the Bill. It seems to me that some provision might have been made to prevent that. I am sure there are people in the country who would be mean enough to take advantage of it. A man could make over his place to his son and with it, perhaps, a considerable amount of money. He might make over a good farm to his son, out of which the son could easily keep his parents but refuse to do so. There seems to be no provision in the Bill to deal with men like that. I have no fault at all to find so far as this Bill helps the poor of the country. Many of us before old age pensions came into operation at all used to keep our old employees. We never turned them off. We kept them and fed them. I am glad to see that they are now made independent by this Bill. I do not want to find fault with the Bill, but I think some provision should be made against the grasping individual who would take advantage of it to have his father and mother maintained at the expense of the country. Where the son is morally obliged to keep his parents he should be compelled to do so.
This is a reasonable, well-balanced measure and I am sure it must be a matter for gratification to the Minister that he is able to bring into law as Minister, measures of justice which he advocated while in Opposition. Mention has been made of the cost of this scheme, but it seems to me that that half million is only an investment and a good investment because its tendency will be to prevent that gliding into old bachelorhood which I think is the great evil in this country. I think it will favour early marriages and in that way it is not a matter which can be regarded as a loss. It ought to be regarded as a very wise investment. The Minister has dealt very prudently and I think with very great humanity with the cases of the old people and the cases of the blind. It was a niggardly sort of State provision to say that a blind person should be 50 years of age before he or she became entitled to an old age pension. Why 50? He was to go as it were out of it for 20 years. The Minister said: Why 50? We echo that sentiment, and I think the Minister is right when he fixed the age limit at 30 years in the case of the blind persons.
Why 30?
The Minister is also, I think, right when he allows a pension to a person whose sight, although not actually gone is in such a condition that that person cannot earn a livelihood. There is one part of this Bill dealing with the blind which I think will need some extension in Committee. In Section 6 (d) there is a provision that
where the pension authorities are satisfied that a person could obtain or carry on remunerative employment or occupation suited to his physical condition and status in life, the remuneration which, in the opinion of the pension authorities, such person might reasonably be expected to derive from such employment or occupation, if he obtained or carried on the same, shall be taken into consideration in computing the means of such person.
What I say about that sub-section is that I think it had better be left out altogether, because it runs counter to the principle that the onus of proof should be on the applicant. Under that sub-section the onus of proof is on the pension authorities to prove that the blind applicant could obtain other work. And I think that probably unless the Minister has some very good reason for that sub-section that it might be omitted altogether.
I am particularly pleased that the Minister has been able to legislate for cases where the husband and wife are marching along to the grave and where they are in receipt of the old age pension. One dies and the other loses not merely the partner but the pension. That was a harsh law. It was a law which revolted the heart of the Minister when he was in Opposition. He has been able to repeal that law. That must be a great gratification to him. Then again there was that Section 7 of the old Act. An absurd section it was and it led to great injustice. It was not the lawyers who caused the injustice. The interpretation was right enough but the section was badly drawn, and that ought to be a warning to Senators that they should never allow a Bill to go through this House without scanning it very carefully so as to make it clear and precise.
Reference has been made to the fact that in the administration of the old age pensions code, charitable allowances were taken into account in estimating the means. The reason why the law was framed in that way is that it was a law applicable to Ireland and England as well. There were in England a great many pensioners of great houses who were not actually entitled as a matter of law to pensions and gratuities but who did, in fact, receive them. The law was particularly suitable to England but unsuitable to Ireland where the conditions were different. It was an outstanding example of the fact that laws passed in London were sometimes very unsuited to the conditions in this country.
There is a matter in which the Minister I think has done well and which he has mentioned, I think, in the course of his speech. He has had the courage to go back to the system of calculating the means which obtained under the Act of 1911. That Act was repealed by our own Parliament in the year 1924. When a person had a little money in his stocking, the present method of calculating the income of that money was this under the Act of 1924:—The first £25 was free and the old person over 70 years of age was supposed to make ten per cent. profit on the remainder. Well, now, that was wrong. Under the 1911 Act the system of calculation was this:—The first £25 was free; the next £375 was supposed to earn 5 per cent. and the remainder of the money in the stocking was supposed to earn 10 per cent. I think that was fair enough. The principle of the Act of 1911 is being re-introduced in this measure and the section dealing with means in the Act of 1924 is now being repealed. I am glad to see that the first £25 is free. The old person was supposed to make 10 per cent. interest on the balance. I think it is one of the greatest improvements in the law. I feel diffident in joining in the congratulations which have been expressed to the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. I heartily agree with those congratulations, not merely on the skill with which he has drafted this measure, but on the good heart which must underlie the whole thing. It is a very short measure and it is a clear measure, and in my judgment, and I have studied it rather carefully, it will effect its purpose.
Cathaoirleach
We have a good deal of business to do and a little expendition with this Bill would be a great help.
I merely rise to say that I should like to join with the other Senators in recognising the work of the Minister in connection with this measure. The Old Age Pensions Acts, to my own knowledge, were the most beneficial pieces of legislation ever passed for the poor in this country, and I think that all the amendments that the Minister makes in the various clauses of the Bill ought to help very much to ameliorate some of the little injustices that have crept into the Bill.
I wish to join in the praise of the Minister on this Bill. It is one of the most appropriate and desirable Bills that we have had put before us for some time. The question of helping old age appeals to everybody and it especially appeals in the case of the blind person, who is now brought in at an earlier age, and who will be fairly treated in the latter end of his days, even when he is earning what will support him. People who have been brought up in the country have a very keen recollection of how old people, even the humblest of them, always had the greatest distaste for what was called the workhouse. These old age pensions now give them a chance of avoiding that humiliation. I have known cases myself where poor people would rather remain hungry than agree to being sent to an institution, and I join, in the most earnest and sincere manner, in offering my congratulations to the Minister for bringing in this Bill which appeals to the good sense and the good nature of every member of the House.
I do not want to strike any discordant note in this paean of praise because, if we are going to give money for the alleviation of distress, I think this is the best way to do it. As an employer, it saves my wage bill and to that extent, I like it very much. It also, of course, relieves the various charities, but I do hope the Minister is alive to the frauds that take place under these Old Age Pensions Acts. In our part of the country, the administration of the Blind Persons Act was a scandal. I well remember a man, who was a gamekeeper, with a blind pension, who came out with me one day. I fired at a duck, which was wounded, but which went on. I could not see where it went, but he stooped and marked it down, and as he stooped, his blind pension book fell out of his pocket. That is a true story. They sent around a doctor with a machine and a lot of these fellows were ruled out, but, of course, there is, as the Minister knows, perhaps, better than I do, a very large element of fraud and purely personal gain involved in this whole matter, and, in the case of the blind pension, I am not at all satisfied that an opportunity will be offered to eliminate entirely this element of fraud which has crept in and will continue to remain.
There is one section in the Bill that commends itself very much to me. I refer to Section 6, and the very fact that "blind" is mentioned without the phrase "totally blind" shows to me the benevolence of the spirit of that Bill. We know that there are many people not totally blind but so blind that they are not able to earn money and for these, at all events, a new development is coming. In the past, inspectors have gone around the country where blind pensions were given and the pensions of people with very little sight and very little means at their disposal, but with sufficient sight to go about with a stick in the country, were taken off. I am very glad indeed that "totally blind" is not specified in the section because I think that the partially blind person deserves at least to be remembered.
I find myself in a happy position this evening and I am sure the rest of my colleagues will envy me. It is very rarely that any Bill will secure such a measure of support and such an amount of praise as has been poured on this Bill from all sections of the House.
The others do not concern us, but you do.
I have very little to answer in regard to criticism of the Bill because there has been practically no criticism. The class of people referred to by Senator Farren have given me a considerable amount of anxiety and thought already—the people who are in receipt of gratuitous pensions. The Senator probably does not realise the extent to which these people benefit at present. Under the existing law the operation of that paragraph (d), which we are repealing, took into consideration the annual cash benefit of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by a claimant and operated in such a way that a person with any cash gratuitous pension or a contributory pension could not get an old age pension. By removing paragraph (d) we have secured that a person with 6/- cash pension, can have a 10/- old age pension, and, to that extent, we have improved things, and, though I would like to improve them to a greater extent, I am afraid at present that we cannot go any further than that. I might mention for the guidance of the Senator, or anybody else interested in this particular point, that if this gratuitous pension were given in kind rather than in cash, it would be excluded from the calculations.
Senator Miss Browne is anxious lest mean people may take advantage of this Bill. Senator Miss Browne seems to me to be somewhat confused regarding the meaning of some of the sections of the existing law and the effect of some of the amendments. What we hope to do under this Bill is to secure that the mean man will not be tempted or forced to do the mean thing. A mean man would put out his father or mother on the roadside in order to get 10/- a week for them. The two of them would be worth £1 a week if he put them out, but we are going to remove the necessity for putting them out so that, if a man has mean instincts, he will not operate them against his own parents but will continue to give them food, clothing and shelter and they will become entitled to a pension. I am not arguing this in any contentious manner but I want to make the point clear.
I only wanted to make the point clear but what is the limit of this valuation?
There is no valuation limit. If the old man assigns the place, no matter what the value of that place is——
Or how much money he may have?
We are only dealing with the assigning of the farm.
Supposing this man has money and a farm and gives his son both, will he be entitled to the pension?
I am afraid the Senator must contemplate a sort of old man who is particularly lucky to have a farm and to have accumulated an amount of money as well, and that he is going to sign the whole thing away in order to get 10/- a week, because that is the maximum he can get. I think if he does that he is entitled to the 10/-.
I hope there will not be too many abuses under it.
Senator Comyn raised a point which is an important point that I overlooked in explaining the terms of the Bill, and that is that if people have a certain amount of cash in the stocking, as the Senator put it, it will be only estimated as being worth five per cent. per annum to them in future, instead of ten per cent. as at present. Senator Sir John Keane is anxious lest a large element of fraud may creep into the administration of the old age pensions law. He talked about a "blind" man who saw him shooting a duck. I feel strongly that there is a much larger element of fraud amongst the class of people who have the full use of their senses than amongst the people whose sight is affected, and I would much rather catch the people who commit fraud with their eyes open than the people who are partially blind.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, July 27th.