For the information of the House and, incidentally, for the information of Deputy Daly, I should like to point out that the Minister's amendment will not even give back the shilling to the people from whom it was taken. According to the returns of 1925, taken from the statistics in the Report of the Revenue Commissioners, there were 59,609 persons in receipt of pensions at the rate of 9/- per week. In the majority of cases, the pension was the whole or much the greater part of the income of this category of pensioners. The total income from all sources in order to qualify for a pension of 9/- could not exceed 16/- per week. If I understand the effect of the Minister's amendment, it is that persons whose means are not valued at more than £15 12s. or 6/- per week, will receive the extra shilling—in other words, the 10/- per week. Those whose means are valued from £15 12s. to £18 5s., that is from 6/- to 7/- per week, will receive no advance—the pension will remain at 9/- so far as people coming into that category are concerned. Out of the 59,609 now at 9/- per week, an unspecified number will have means valued between 6/- and 7/- per week. If we assume that 9,609 are in that category, having between 6/- and 7/- per week, that leaves 50,000 out of a total of 116,000 pensioners who will get the extra shilling under the Minister's amendment—in other words, less than half the pensioners. I want to point out to Deputies, and in particular to those members who once formed what was known as the Farmers' Party, that when the 1924 Act was passed it was not, as the Minister stated then, a ten per cent. reduction, but in many cases twenty per cent., and in some cases 100 per cent. I have a very clear recollection of nearly all the Deputies of the Farmers' Party some time after the Act had been passed, when they began to realise the effect of it, telling the House that if they had known it meant more than 1/- reduction they certainly would not have voted for it.
Let us see how pensioners were made to suffer under the 1924 Act. Prior to the passing of that Act, the maximum income allowed to a pensioner was £1 per week. When the Act was passed the maximum became 16/. So that a person whose means were assessed at 10/- per week lost not 1/- but 4/-. Let it be noted that even under the Minister's amendment that person will not gain any increase. That being so, this is what happened in many cases. There were many old people who were in receipt of pensions of 8/- and 10/- per week from the British Government in respect of the death of their sons during the Great War. The Free State Government immediately took advantage of the fact that they had, say, 10/- from the British Government, and their old age pension was reduced from 10/- to 6/-. Some time afterwards, when the British Government came to see that the Free State Government were saving money at their expense, instead of giving pensions of 10/-, they gave pensions of 7/-, so that the old age pensioners would become entitled to the maximum pension of 9/-. I will give another case as an illustration, which I have come in touch with during the last week. A man with 53 years' service on the Great Southern Railway, I am informed, got as a reward for his faithful service a pension of 7/- per week. He was over seventy, and was told by the officials of the company that if they gave him 10/-, 12/- or 15/- it would be all the same to him, because if he got 15/- from the railway he would only get 1/- old age pension, and they might as well save this by giving the man 7/- and allowing the Government to give him the nine shillings.
I ask the House to reject the amendment because, in my opinion, the Act cutting down the old age pensions was the most shameful Act ever passed through this House. There was no Act, no matter how harsh or severe, but had its defenders, save the Act cutting the old age pensions, which was universally condemned and regarded as a stain upon the State. In order to remove that stain and to give effect to the wishes of the vast majority of the people, I have put down this motion. I hope the House will pass the motion and insist upon the Government making restitution to the old people and to the blind people, and will insist that the old people and the blind people in the 26 Counties shall be put upon the same level as their fellow Irishmen and women across the border.
The Constitution of this House is such that almost every member of it knows the mind of the people with regard to the aged and the blind. It is, I submit, above and beyond all, the desire of the people of this country that the old and the blind should be free from dire poverty. It seems to me this is a very important matter, and a matter that affects not only the honour, but the humanity of this country so much that I think it should not be made a party question. If it is not made a party question I have no doubt the House will unanimously pass the motion and unanimously agree to provide the money to meet it. Of course it will cost money. That is the great argument put up against the acceptance of the motion, but if it did not cost money the House would merit no commendation for restoring the cut. The more money it costs the more it is necessary for the House, in justice to the old people, to restore it, because the more it costs only goes to show what we have robbed from those poor people in the last four years. But I submit it will not cost anything at all like what some of the newspapers suggest when they talk of the restoration of the shilling costing one million pounds per annum. No such thing. I suppose, putting it at the outside figure, the cost would not be more than half a million. You cannot, however, well say it will cost so much, because there has been so much of a reduction in the amount paid out in old age pensions since the 1924 Act was passed and for this reason.
Since the 1924 Act was passed the administration has been tightened up considerably. Many persons were admitted and got pensions before that date who never should have got the pension and who have had it taken from them since. I hope the Ministry will go on taking pensions from people who never should have got them rather than that they should penalise those who are entitled to them. If the Ministry had adopted that attitude from the beginning it would have been quite right, for we all know that there was, after the Old Age Pensions Act was passed, a looseness in the administration of the Act when the British Government was here and when it was looked upon as a patriotic thing to get as much out of the British as you possibly could. The result was that many persons not entitled to pensions in the ordinary course did eventually get them. So far as I am concerned, I have no brief for them, but I say that the machinery should not be tightened up in such a way as to penalise people who are entitled to pensions.
If this resolved itself into a question between the reduction of taxation and restoring the cut to the old age pensioners, I say emphatically that the mass of the people in this country would stand for an honourable discharge of their obligations to the blind and to the old rather than for a dishonourable economy, secured at the expense of the old and the blind people. I have no hesitation in making that statement. I believe the vast majority of the people of this country are anxious that we should do justice to the old people, and I believe that if this matter were left to a free vote of the House, the House would be unanimous in support of the motion and would give the Minister all the power he needs to provide whatever liability would be incurred by this increase.
The only people that will benefit if the Minister's amendment is carried are those who are wholly, or almost wholly, dependent on the pension itself. No small farmer in the congested areas of the West of Ireland, where there are small farmers and poor farmers, will benefit. None of these will get the extra shilling, because what the Minister is giving with one hand he is taking back with the other. A person whose income does not exceed £18 5/- a year was entitled to 9/- a week. That person remains in the same position, because the Minister will give 10/- only to those whose income does not exceed £15 12/- a year. In other words, a man whose means, from any source, is estimated by the pensions officer to be valued at 7/- per week does not get the extra shilling. I must say I was amazed when I read this amendment. I had hoped, now that the country was prospering, that it had turned the corner, that the Government were prepared to make restitution. Apparently they are not, even though the country wants them to make restitution and desires that this cut should be restored, not in part, as the Minister proposes, but in full. The Ministry are perfectly well aware of that. There may be some difference of opinion in the country as to whether or not the Ministry should reduce taxation upon beer and spirits, but there is very little difference of opinion as to whether they should or not restore this cut in old age pensions.
I hope Deputies will do their duty in this matter; that they will voice not their own personal opinions or those of their Parties but the opinions of those who sent them here; that they will have due regard to what their constituents want them to do, and if they do that, I have no doubt whatever but that they will vote for this motion. I ask the House to insist, by the passing of the motion, that we give back to the weakest section of the people. the old and the blind—to use a word that is perhaps a strong word, but which I think is the proper word to describe it—what we have taken from them, what I might say we have robbed them of for the last four years. I doubt if it was ever necessary to do it, but if it was the necessity has passed. We have taken enough from these old people. We have made them sacrifice far more than any other section of the community was asked to sacrifice. If there is one section of the people who can say that the setting up of the Free State meant worse conditions for them it is the old age pensioners. I hope that the House will, by a majority, if the Government does not agree to accept the motion, remove this stain that was placed upon the State four years ago, and do justice to the old and the blind.
