In speaking last evening to the motion before the House, I endeavoured to show, first, that the members of the Government Party, I am sure almost without exception, are entirely sympathetic with the best possible treatment of the blind, the aged and the infirm, but that this treatment is to a large extent governed by the financial resources of the State; that these resources are of a limited nature, and that pensions can be only paid in accordance with these limitations. I pointed out that the practical sympathy of the Government with the old age pensioners was shown by an annual payment of £2,267,000. To that the Government proposes to add an additional burden of £150,000. I also pointed out that the money for the reduction of taxation to stabilise the credit of the country, and to arrest economic decay, further depleted these limited resources that were in the hands of the Government to meet the claim that is made upon them to-day. Deputy Morrissey in moving his motion was of opinion that the economic conditions of the country have now improved to such an extent that we can pay without any difficulty the sum of £500,000 which his motion involves. How any Deputy can suggest that the Saorstát is in a prosperous condition, in view of the fact that we are at present faced with an adverse balance of something like £15,000,000——
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - OLD AGE PENSIONS—DEBATE RESUMED.
On a point of personal explanation, the Deputy's statement is quite wrong. I did not make the statement. What I said was that if we could accept what was stated by the Minister for Finance the country was advancing in prosperity. I did not say the country was advancing. I said nothing of the kind.
Mr. BYRNE
——I would be very sorry to misquote Deputy Morrissey, who is very fair in debate, but I think the Deputy will admit, in considering the matter before the House, that we are entitled, arising out of the suggestions made by the Deputy, to ask the question: is the country in a prosperous condition? and, in reply, to that, I point out that it is common knowledge, and within the knowledge of every Deputy, that we are now faced with an adverse trade balance of £15,000,000.
Do not be contradicting the President.
Mr. BYRNE
The post-war economic slump to which the Minister for Finance referred, although it is being checked and although the decline in industry has been stayed, that economic slump is still with us and is only partially removed. It was only due to the wise operations of finance which that particular Minister undertook by lightening the burden of taxation that this decline was arrested. I do not think that the most cheerful optimist can say that we could lightly face an increase on the burden of taxation of £500,000 per annum. The partial improvement that has just set in could be very easily checked, and if there is one thing more effective than another to check that improvement, retard the return of prosperity in real measure it will be the imposition of such a sum as Deputy Morrissey asks the House to approve to-day.
The Minister for Finance has made it perfectly clear that every penny of the additional £150,000 must be found by increased taxation. That was the point that weighed with Deputies on these Benches when they came to the conclusion that the Minister for Finance could go no further in this matter. We are not automatic machines replying to the press of a button as suggested, but we are individuals anxious to do our duty to the people who sent us here and anxious to do our duty to the nation as a whole.
To a certain section of it.
Mr. BYRNE
To the nation as a whole and to the taxpayers who have to find the money.
Deputy Killilea is assuming the rôle of official interrupter. He will have to give it up.
Mr. BYRNE
I would remind the House that prices for agricultural produce are at the moment extremely low while the cost of production is extremely high. I might remind the House that the farming community, the employers, businessmen, industrialists and everyone in the country who takes part in the ordinary everyday activities of the nation are not in a position to lightly bear the increase of taxation that Deputy Morrissey would have us sanction. I do suggest, in all sincerity, speaking as one who fully sympathises with old age pensioners as a businessman who has some idea of the ramifications of business and the parlous condition it is in at the moment that the State cannot afford to pay any such sum as £500,000——
What about the £5,000,000 to England?
Mr. BYRNE
I suggest that if that sum was levied we would be working on the principle of the man in the fable killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The Government cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.
A DEPUTY
To pay John Bull.
Mr. BYRNE
Reductions in taxation are demanded by every Irish industry, and they are entitled to every consideration by the Minister for Finance. We are faced with a demand from the brewing and distilling trade for a decrease in taxation. They are Irish industries, and are entitled to and are worthy of consideration and support. What answer will the Minister be in a position to give them now after levying even this additional £150,000?
It depends upon the next election.
I do not want to hear Deputy Cooney interrupting any more. I want Deputy Cooney to make some effort to behave himself.
Mr. BYRNE
I say it is the duty of the Minister in framing his Budget to take each and every one of those various considerations carefully in review, and to come to no conclusions which, in his opinion, will not enable equal justice to be done to all parties in the State. That is what I mean when I say that the Minister for Finance cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. I have listened very carefully to what members on the Labour Benches, for whom I have the greatest respect, have said, but I listened in vain for a single constructive suggestion. They told us that £500,000 could be found, but they did not put forward one single suggestion in reference to the important statement made by the Minister for Finance as to how the money was to be raised.
Of course, we have had suggestions from the Fianna Fáil economists and we know what the suggestions are worth. They were not made in the spirit of dealing with this as a business proposition, as it is entitled to be dealt with, but were made with the one aim and object of, as one of the members of the opposite party expressed it, throwing the Cumann na nGaedheal Party over the precipice. That is a task that I think will be beyond their strength.
I never associated the precipice with the old age pensions, but I associated it in a public remark with the opinions of the people outside in connection with the general administration of the present Government.
Mr. BYRNE
I am not interested in what particular meaning the Deputy may attach to it. I am merely quoting it as a matter of fact, and I suggest that the task is beyond the strength of the Party to which he belongs. The Fianna Fáil economists tell us that the money can be easily found and that no fresh taxation will be necessary, but as the Minister for Finance once rightly said, they are still children in matters of finance.
If they are, you are in your second childhood.
Mr. BYRNE
The cure for the problem that now confronts the House and the suggestions made to raise the necessary money may be briefly summed up in that wonderful cry which is so effective on the hustings but has so little weight in this House: "Reduction of Salaries." I think that was the greatest canard that ever was launched on an unthinking people. We have been told that if we wipe out the Governor-General's salary and the salaries paid to the members of the Executive, that if we reduce the salaries of civil servants in cases where they exceed £1,000 that this money can be found. I suggest that if the salary of the Governor-General and the salaries paid to the members of the Executive were wiped out and that you reduced by ten per cent. all salaries now paid to civil servants, the sum that you would thus place at the disposal of the Minister for Finance would probably be between £20,000 and £30,000.
Nonsense.
What about National Army pensions?
Mr. BYRNE
Every thinking man knows what I have stated to be a fact. But when you are dealing not with £20,000 or £30,000 but with half a million of money, the members of the Fianna Fáil Party know as well as I do that this suggestion of theirs has no truth either in substance or in fact. Let me say that, in my opinion, we have in this State the most efficient Civil Service perhaps in the whole of Europe. In conjunction with members from the Fianna Fáil and the Labour Benches. I had the opportunity of going through the State accounts as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. It was my experience of the civil servants who appeared before us that a more courteous or efficient body of individuals could not come before any Committee. I wish to pay that small tribute to them, and I am sure it will be the desire of the other members of the Committee to do the same. If you were to reduce the salaries of civil servants there could be only one possible result and that is that you will reduce the efficiency of the service. If you want efficiency you have got to pay for it. I feel sure that Deputies on the Labour Benches at least will admit that the labourer is worthy of his hire.
Hear, hear.
It is the first time that you admitted that.
What about the 30/- that is being paid on the roads?
Mr. BYRNE
I never referred to that particular item in the whole campaign except in reply to an interrupter, and I am sure the Ceann Comhairle would not allow me to refer to it now. The Fianna Fáil Party has brought particularly under our notice two services in which reductions might be made. The first to which they refer was the teaching profession, and the next the Gárda Síochána. I think these are the two most important services in the State, the one engaged in the education of the youth of the nation and the other in the repression of crime. I think Deputy O'Connell could inform the House, if he wished, that although the salaries of the teaching profession have been increased here, that still they are considerably less than the salaries paid across the Channel. I think he could also inform us that at the present time there is a demand from this body for a scheme of pensions of some kind, and I presume that at a later stage the Deputy will be rising in the interests of the class of which he is such a great ornament to ask the Minister for Finance to give pensions for the teachers as well as for the blind, the aged and the infirm. Deputy O'Connell knows that although the salaries for those in the teaching profession here have been increased that at the present moment we are not obtaining men of the proper type and acquirements to enter it. Therefore I suggest it would be an unparalleled disaster to interfere with the teaching profession by a reduction of salaries. As regards the Gárda Síochána, I think I may suggest, without engendering any heat or raising any controversial issues, that very significant events have occurred quite recently that will be fresh to the minds of Deputies. You can reduce the salaries paid to the Gárda Síochána, but if you do what does it mean? How will you deal with the repression of crime? There are at the moment clear and unmistakable symptoms that the hardly-won peace which we are now enjoying needs the most careful attention of those guardians of the interests of the State. If you reduce this force you at once give way to crime and all that follows from the perpetration of crime. I would also remind members of the Fianna Fáil Party that the salaries paid in the Free State to the members of the Gárda Síochána are less than the salaries paid across the Channel, and that there is a steady leakage of some of the most efficient men in the Gárda Síochána who are being lured away to the other side by the certainty of being able to earn a greater wage. I have dealt very effectively, I think, with how the sum of £500,000 is to be raised. I have yet to deal with the gem of the whole Fianna Fáil scheme and with the crowning point put forward from the Fianna Fáil Benches.
Might I suggest that Deputy Byrne should sing "Shall I that gem destroy?"
It is too high-brow for him.
Mr. BYRNE
I would not attempt to sing that particular number, but if I might deal with the matter in the ordinary way of debate I shall have great pleasure in endeavouring to destroy that particular gem. Deputy Carney's gem was to reduce the Army and save three-quarters of a million pounds. Another was. "Don't buy did guns in England." Every member of this House is quite well aware that there are dumps in this country which have not been handed over to the authorities who govern the State.
A DEPUTY
Better guns than there are in the Army.
Mr. BYRNE
If these dumps are handed over, and if Deputy Carney and his party could hand over these dumps to those in whose possession they should be, then I would be prepared to support a reduction in the Army. I will be prepared to go even further than that. I will be prepared to adopt the further suggestion—the arming of our soldiers with confetti, which the Deputy says he wishes them to employ.
A DEPUTY
They might be as well off with the confetti.
It seems to me that all the Deputies on this side of the House who have made speeches have been listened to very patiently. Deputies from other parts of the House who wish to speak must also be listened to. If Deputies on this side of the House do not propose to listen to them then a remedy must be found. If there is to be any fair play in the House a Deputy speaking on one side is as much entitled to be heard as a Deputy speaking on some other side. I want to indicate that there are Deputies in the House who are making quite a definite practice of interrupting everybody—what might be called official interrupters. It has gone far enough.
Mr. BYRNE
I will not detain the House very much longer, but there is one important point to which I would like to refer with as little acrimony as I possibly can. I do not wish to raise any old controversies in this House. I do not wish to say one word that would create bitterness of any kind, but the outstanding fact remains, as the President rightly pointed out, that there is an annual charge of £1,100,000 on the inhabitants of this country as the result of the Civil War. This £1,100,000 has got to be found and the Minister for Finance has got to find it. We hear a great deal of talk about economy but we hear very little about the real cause——
Mr. BOLAND
This is a subject, A Chinn Comhairle, which you have ruled out of discussion and I appeal to you to rule out the Deputy, otherwise we shall have to ask for an opportunity to reply to this charge. If that is gone into we claim a right to debate the causes and the origins of it. I ask that when you rule on that subject your ruling should apply to every side of the House.
There are two quite distinct questions. There is first the question of the cost of a Civil War, which I take it is an ascertainable fact. The other is the question of the cause of the Civil War.
Deputy Byrne, as far as I remember it——
Mr. BOLAND
Might I intervene for a second?
—The Deputy must listen to me. Deputy Byrne drew no conclusion as to what the causes were. With regard to that, I do not want to have the causes discussed, but to-day the only reference as to the cause of the Civil War was by Deputy Gerald Boland in interruption. That is the only reference I heard to it. I heard yesterday, from Deputy Jordan I think, that the Minister for Agriculture had exculpated the Fianna Fáil Party of any responsibility for the Civil War.
A DEPUTY
Quite right too.
So far as I am concerned, that is all I have heard. Deputy Byrne must be allowed to state that there is a cost and that it must be met. If that is a fact I do not see what we want to discuss the causes of it for, which is another question, but if you are going to discuss the causes it is quite clear the discussion would have to be open to everybody. There is no necessity for us to get into a great state of heat when people mention the Civil War. Unfortunately and undeniably, there was a Civil War, and that being so, I do not know why we should get excited. I do not propose to allow Deputy Byrne to go into the causes of the Civil War. I think that particular subject was ruled out of order yesterday by the Chair, although certain references were made, even to the causes of it, while I was in the Chair, by a Deputy on this side of the House. What I did not like in Deputy Byrne's speech was his preface, that he was not going to say a word that would revive old animosities. My experience of prefaces of that kind is that they generally lead up to statements which seem to revive animosities. I think that the basis of the whole matter is that when you are discussing matters of finance, you have various items of expenditure. It is quite fruitless to discuss the causes of these at this juncture. I agree with Deputy Boland that the cause of the Civil War should not be discussed, but I do not agree with Deputy Boland's insinuation that it has been discussed by one side and not by another. If there was anything said about it I would hear it.
Mr. BOLAND
I would like to say that it seems the assumption has been accepted by all sides in the House except this side that the responsibility for starting the Civil War rested on a certain section. It is the cool assumption of that that I resent. I do not want to have any discussion of it or the causes of it. That a charge has arisen out of it I quite admit, but I do object to allowing any Deputy coolly to assume that all the responsibility for that war is on this side of the House, I think I am entitled to protest with heat against any such assumption being allowed to pass.
I did not gather the assumption. I think Deputies must be allowed to state something about the costs of the Civil War. I cannot compel Deputy Byrne, sitting where he does sit, to exculpate the people whom he presumably regards as responsible for that war. I think we can discuss the matter that there is a financial charge, anyhow.
Mr. BOLAND
I do not object.
Mr. BYRNE
I regret that although I tried to be as temperate in my language as I possibly could, I seem to have offended some Deputies. I merely referred to one very important fact, that we are paying £1,100,000 annually as a result of the Civil War.
A DEPUTY
And five million a year to England.
Mr. BYRNE
With that I will leave it. I will only add that if we had not to pay that annual outgoing of £1,100,000, the old age pensioners, for whom there is such solicitude to-day, might never have had their pensions reduced, and the discussion on the motion of Deputy Morrissey would not be occupying the attention of Deputies here to-day. We on these benches, have been called automatic men, devoid of intelligence. We have gone into the matter more closely than members of the Fianna Fáil Party. We have put the greatest possible pressure on the Minister for Finance to induce him to do what he has done with this addition of £150,000. We thought we did owe a certain duty to the old age pensioners, and we believe that by the payment of that £150,000 we are discharging our duty to them. I, like other Deputies, promised from platforms during the elections to do all I possibly could for the old age pensioners. I have kept that promise faithfully and well, but then the members on those benches owe a duty to the Executive, and that is to vote for the amendment.
Those of us supporting the motion are at a serious disadvantage in endeavouring to deal with it. We are at a disadvantage to this extent, that we read in the Press where certain Deputies promised at certain meetings throughout the country that the shilling a week would be restored to the old age pensioners, and that certain other relief would be afforded in the matter of taxation. When one considers that any Deputy elected to this Dáil is in a position to make an announcement before the Dáil comes to a decision on that matter, one can only conclude that the decisions of this nature are not taken in the Dáil, but are taken elsewhere in places to which we have no recourse, that the decisions are cut and dried in advance and that we are simply here making a protest while decisions are arrived at elsewhere. If I had any doubts in my mind at all as to the attitude of the present Government towards old age pensioners, towards the poor and afflicted, they have been dissipated by the speech I have just listened to. They were dissipated, to some extent, by the speech made by the Minister for Finance yesterday, and particularly by the speech of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. When we find the Minister for Local Government and Public Health saying that no case has been made by those who support this motion, that to show that a person cannot secure frugal comfort on 16/- a week, we are naturally forced to ask him has he made out a case that a person can live on it? Has he made out a case that a person can secure anything like frugal comfort on 16/- a week? When we find him, in reply to a question, stating that a convict in jail costs 13/2 per week we can arrive at some conclusion as to what standard of living the present Government thinks an old age pensioner should get. The standard of comfort that is going to be given to the old age pensioner who has worked for the State for 30, 40 or 50 years and produced wealth for it is to be a convict standard of living. The difference between 13/2 for a convict in jail and 16/- for an old age pensioner is to be the difference between their standards of living. That gives us an idea as to what standard of living the Government consider right for these old age pensioners.
There are two sets of people in this country at the moment that I would like to contrast. When the administration of this country was handed over to the present Government, there were two sets of people whom one might say were starting from scratch: there were those who were paying income tax and those who were in receipt of old age pensions. Those people who are living on unearned or inherited income had done nothing whatever to enrich the country. Yet the payment of income tax has gone down by 10 per cent., and the payment to the old age pensioner has been cut down by from 10 to 27 per cent. Can any proof be more positive that this Government has proved itself to be a rich man's Government. I will take a case that I am very familiar with—the case of the small farmer who is endeavouring to get the old age pension, and whose means of support are such that when he hands over his way of living to his son or daughter he cannot retain for himself the competence that will enable him to sustain life for the remainder of his years. I find that the standard by which his income is valued is such that that man or his wife cannot get the old age pension. Yet I find that that man has been engaged for 30, 40 or 50 years in producing wealth for the State, while the rack-renting landlord or the son of the rack-renting landlord, who has been trying to prevent that farmer from producing for the State, has his income tax reduced by 10 per cent. Some of the methods by which it is sought to prevent these people from securing the old age pension are ridiculous. I am sorry that the Minister for Finance and the President are absent. Where a person looking for an old age pension has a sum of £100, it is suggested that it is capable of bringing him in £10 a year. I would like to know by what means a person who has £100 can get a return of 10 per cent.
We heard a lot of talk about the inability to provide money. Deputy J.J. Byrne went to a great deal of trouble to convince us that it was impossible to provide money to meet this demand. Is there anything so ridiculous as the statement made yesterday that it was possible for us to give the increase proposed by the Minister, but that the whole fabric of the State would collapse and there would be bankruptcy all round if Deputy Morrissey's motion were carried? What is the difference between the amount in the motion and in the amendment? Is there anything more ludicrous than that statement made by a responsible Minister to this House? We were told that if we had not to meet certain expenses relating to certain things that occurred a few years ago that we might be able to meet the old age pensions demand. When the Minister for Finance found that he had a certain few hundred thousand pounds to play with, did he keep his promise to the old age pensioners? Did he devote the three or four hundred thousand pounds available to the restoration of the shilling? He did not. He thought of those people who are the mainstay and backbone of the present administration; he thought of the men of money and reduced income tax, and told those people who have been the producers of the wealth of the State that they were entitled to nothing. He had a way then of handing back the shilling a week that had been taken from the old age pensioners. But clearly the present administration has nothing but a pauper standard of living for the old age pensioner. and the only difference they recognise between the convict and the old age pensioner is 2/10 a week.
I listened yesterday evening to this debate in the hope of finding some change in the mentality and attitude of those on the Government benches towards the old people of this country. I am sorry that no change was apparent. The only thing that is apparent is a hardening of outlook and that materialistic considerations weigh more with them than the interests of the old people. They seem to think that the only thing that counts in connection with this question is money. They do not consider for a moment the rights of the case. They do not consider the people who have lived in the country to the age of 60 years and who have helped to build it up and to create wealth. They do not consider that it is the primary duty of a civilised community to look after the old people who are no longer able to work, and that in spite of the fact that some of their own Deputies admit that of all the rotten Acts passed by this Dáil in the past five years that Act of 1924 took the bun. In my opinion, it is only a continuance of the great fraud that was started in 1921, a continuance of the big game of bluff and endeavour to make the old people and the people of the country generally believe that the Minister for Finance is going to restore the shilling. As some Deputies pointed out, hardly 50 per cent. of the old people will benefit by this restoration, hardly 15 per cent. will benefit to any appreciable extent in the congested areas of West Cork, Kerry, Donegal, etc. The rate of pension remains the same. Yet Deputies on the other side tell us that the Minister has kept his word— Deputy Sheehy stated that the Minister had "almost kept his word." The Minister for Finance, in the course of his defence last evening, said that every penny additional given to the old age pensioners would have to come out of increased taxation. Other Deputies have dealt with that matter. The Minister added to that that the country would be unable to stand a rise in taxation. The only thing I should like to say in connection with that is, that it was found possible in this House to provide money for many other things. When the Government wanted money for certain purposes, it was found possible to provide it in spite of the bad economic condition of the country. Here is a thing that goes to the very roots of this boasted freedom and of this boasted civilisation that some of the Deputies on the other side of the House are so fond of talking about; here is a thing that goes to the roots of the boasted status of which they constitute themselves the defenders, that unmasks the hypocrisy of their attitude in connection with the entire position, and they say they cannot find money for it without further taxation.
The Minister later stated that if the Dáil went further than he proposed it would postpone necessary measures. Why, he does not tell us. He added that the old age pensioners should wait for further progress before additional assistance could be given to them. If the 300,000 people who, I infer, were affected by this Old Age Pensions Act had been in a position to fight, I wonder what would have been the attitude of the Dáil and of the Minister for Finance towards them in 1924? Were they not the weakest section of the community—the section that could not hit back? Were they not the people who were down? Had they been in a position to organise, had they been in a position to do what other people in this country succeeded in doing—forming a great national organisation and putting their case properly before the people—had they been in a position to utilise the influence which they undoubtedly commanded, does the Minister not think there would have been almost a revolution at the time he passed that Act in 1924 amending the Old Age Pensions Act? Yet, he speaks of prosperity of the country having turned the corner, and of the improvement in trade conditions and things generally—he speaks of all that, while, as Deputy Morrissey said in introducing his motion, the first martyrs of the so-called liberty which we have obtained in this country which was once Ireland are the old people who cannot hit back. The Minister, the Government generally and the Deputies on the opposite benches are attempting to camouflage the whole thing, to side-track the real issue, to make the people believe that this State, which can be represented on the League of Nations, which can afford the luxury of a Seanad and a Governor-General, which can afford the luxury of an Army Pensions Scheme which more affluent States would not and could not undertake—that this State cannot provide for the old people who have gone through the toil and stress of life in this country. These self-constituted defenders of the wonderful social system which we live under, this magnificent freedom we have, refuse to improve the condition of the old people, and give them only the right to starve in their own country. The Minister for Finance said further that there was no foundation whatever for describing the cut in the old age pensions as robbery. If it was not robbery, there is no other word in the English language that can characterise it sufficiently. If it was not robbery to take from the people who were down and unable to retaliate and to give back to the people who were in a position to press the Minister for Finance, then I do not know what robbery really is.
The President approached this question in the same flippant manner in which he approached the question of unemployment in this House. He approached it jokingly, trying to pass the thing off, trying to score little debating points off opponents and trying to camouflage, as other Deputies on the Government Benches tried to camouflage, the real issue. He said that the teachers' salaries were cut down and that the salaries of the Gárda Síochána were cut down before the old age pensions were reduced in 1924. He said that they had done this for the benefit of the country and that they had established a sound policy. Yes, they have established a sound policy, a policy, as another Deputy I think mentioned, of taking from the weak to give to the strong. They have established the sound policy of attempting to exterminate the weaker people in this country who cannot retaliate. They have established a sound policy on the very same lines as they have cut the old age pensions. They have cut the workers' wages from Cork to Donegal in this Free State. That is the sound policy which President Cosgrave so jocosely speaks of in this House and of which he is so proud. There is one thing certain, that the attempt which the President made in this debate yesterday to draw a red herring across the trail, the attempt to camouflage the issue so that the responsibility for the cut in the old age pensions would be attributed to incidents that occurred in this country a few years ago, will be seen through by the people whom Deputy J.J. Byrne characterised as the "unthinking people" of this country. One other Deputy on the Government Benches—Deputy Sheehy —in the course of a flowery oration stated that the Minister had "almost kept his promise." I wonder what the people will think of the word "almost" in that statement. The country, the Deputy said, was progressing and in a short period it might be possible completely to restore the old age pensions. That is the mentality of the Government Benches— the policy of wait, dilly-dally and delay instead of adopting the bold course, instead of making a noble gesture and giving to these people a thing that is their due. That is the way they are being treated as slaves and given, as Deputy Hogan said, convict status instead of being treated as honourable citizens of this State who have helped to build the country up. Instead of being treated properly, they are being treated as if they were people whom the Government could afford to ignore, as people who did not count.
The real capitalistic mentality, the mentality which is associated with the rotten social system which exists in this country, is exemplified in the speeches of the President and of the Ministers. The country is progressing; there is happiness; there is prosperity —but the old age pensioners can afford to wait. They cannot hit back. Therefore they are not to be tolerated or counted. Deputy Carey, in the course of a brief speech, said that the increase of one shilling was quite enough. In reply to suggestions from this side of the House as to how economies could be effected and the cut restored without increasing taxation, the Deputy said that no member would be in this House were it not for the work done by the Army pensioners. I know that down in my constituency there is a list of them. If Deputy Carey would only take a walk through his own constituency he would find that the same story obtains there as in my constituency, and that very little work was done by any of these pensioners to secure the vaunted freedom which we possess in this country which was once Ireland. Deputy J.J. Byrne suggested, in regard to the economies which could be effected, that only £20,000 or thereabouts could be saved. The Minister for Finance some time ago, in the debate on our proposals for economy, discussed the possible economies that could be effected in the Civil Service. By adopting some of our proposals—some of the suggestions that we put forward for economies—he found that £216,000, representing relief in taxation equal to a farthing in the lb. on sugar, could be saved.
I did not say that these would be possible economies. I said they would be impossible economies.
I do not think the Minister desires to be shown the way to economise. I think he has his mind made up, like the other Ministers in the House.
Well, there are economies that can be effected. There is a way by which the old age pension can be restored to its former status without increasing taxation or inflicting hardship on any section of the community. We demand that that restoration be made. The people of the country demand it. The electors have sent you here, and they have sent us here, to see that the interests of the people as a whole are safeguarded. The interests of the weakest class are in your control now. It is up to the members of the Dáil to make it plain to the Government in the Division Lobbies that the people whom Deputies represent demand a restoration of the pre-1924 status. As has been suggested here, the Minister, instead of trying to evade the issue and trying to draw a red herring across the trail and bluff the people further, should examine the position in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with respect to contributory pensions at the age of 65. I strongly support the motion. I think the old people in the country who are supposed to benefit under this so-called restoration will get a very unpleasant surprise when they find out it is merely a continuance of the bluff that has existed for the last five years.
There are two matters before the House: the motion by Deputy Morrissey to restore things as they were before the Act of 1924, and the Government's amendment, moved by the Minister for Finance, that refuses to go as far as Deputy Morrissey's motion goes, but that restores the shilling to sixty per cent. of the actual number of old age pensioners. I want to make it quite clear we are not claiming that we are restoring sixty per cent. in the way of money taken away in 1924. What we do say is this: that with the most careful estimates we can possibly make we may safely claim that sixty per cent. of the old age pensioners will get the additional shilling. That is what is involved in the Minister's amendment. We admit that forty per cent. of the actual number of old age pensioners, those at present receiving some form of old age pension, will not receive any extra benefit. The question is, what is a proper policy for the House to assume in the interests of the country—in the interests, not of any particular class, but in the interests of the country as a whole? What is the proper policy to assume in regard to those two rival proposals? Is the wisest course merely, according to the last Deputy, to ignore material considerations, to ignore that it is a question of pounds, shillings and pence— that the whole thing is a matter of pounds, shillings and pence? That is quite a characteristic remark and a characteristic ignoring of the real facts of the situation that I might expect from the opposite benches.
On a point of order, I did not say "ignore material considerations" in attempting to solve this problem. I said the mentality over there appeared to take no account of anything but material considerations.
There may be a point in the personal explanation. I fail to see it. The fact remains that what interests the old age pensioners, this House and the Government is how much they are going to get. That, I understand, was the burden of the case made, up to the speech of the last Deputy. We are to ignore these things; we are not to benefit the State but to be guilty, if I may use the phrase guilty, of a splendid, a noble gesture—that was the phrase used. We were not to exercise any wisdom; we were to give up the policy of dilly-dally. We, unfortunately, as a Government have not merely to give a popular vote as Deputies of this House but we have to weigh up every consideration. Whether other Deputies like the matter or not, we have to ask ourselves: "Can the country at the present moment afford to do this?" Even if we were only looking at the interests of the old age pensioners themselves, would it be wise if we take a step that we now think financially unsound for the country which will hit everybody in the country, old age pensioners and everybody else?
Reference has been made to the increased prosperity of the country. Our contention has been that we have turned the corner; that we have, to a certain extent, been able to overcome the effects of our own civil strife; that we are recovering as other countries are recovering from the inevitable depression that followed the European War. All we ask is that we should utilise and make the most of that beginning of prosperity; that we should not, merely in order to be able to perform a noble gesture, do something that would be undoubtedly popular but that would damage, as we know it would damage, the whole future prosperity of this country. Remember that we are dealing with a question of prosperity. Deputy Morrissey's speech and his personal explanations would suggest that it is not the question. What he has to face is not what the Minister has to face— whether the country is prospering or not—but whether actually the country has sufficiently prospered. He has to show that it has sufficiently prospered to meet this additional charge. It is no good quoting statements from Ministers or others unless the Deputy is prepared to accept them as to prosperity. You cannot have it both ways.
We have been taunted again and again because, when demands were made for expenditure of this kind, for various types of expenditure, we always asked the question: "Where is the money to come from?" I suggest it is our duty as a Government to put that factor before the House. Any Deputy who has been in the House for four or five years will bear me out when I say that the House is liable to forget, when asking for increased services, the question of the provision of money. Unfortunately it is the business and the duty of the Government to ask themselves that question and to put that question clearly before the House. To taunt us that we continually ask that question is not to get rid of or answer the question. We have to repeat the question again and again from these benches because in our minds no satisfactory answer has been given to that question in this and other matters.
In the course of the debate there were I admit, speaking generally, two methods suggested of meeting this expenditure. One apparently was—I do not say that the suggestion was put forward—that we ought to increase taxation, but when the question was put, would certain people agree to taxation, the answer was yes. The Minister for Finance has dealt with the unwisdom from some points of view of doing that.
I think one of the Labour Deputies made it quite clear that his assent to that proposition was certainly conditional. It was by no means unqualified. He assents to taxation, but only taxation of certain values. It was not to be on tea or sugar apparently. In other words—and this is to a certain extent what it means—we are to be asked, I presume, judging from some references made from the other benches—I hope I am not misinterpreting the Deputy—but certainly the suggestion has been made in this House that we should go back on the cut in the income tax; that we should restore the income tax to where it was before the last Budget. When the problem of the last Budget was before the Government they had to face a certain situation. With the surplus that year at their disposal they could have done various popular things, things that would have got them votes at the General Election. They knew that there was an election coming on; but they determined in the interests of the country as a whole that the interests of the country would be better served, that more industries would be established, and that it would be an impetus to establishing industries to give this reduction in the income tax. They knew and realised that it would be a very solid effort to make a contribution, and not merely a passing contribution, but a permanent contribution, to the problem of solving unemployment and to the problem of dealing with unemployment if the income tax were cut down by one shilling in the £.
May I suggest that I am rather shocked to find from the opposite benches the suggestion that that was no good for the country? I thought it was one of the economic doctrines of at least a portion of these benches that the best way of benefiting the country was to have no income tax at all. Certainly the proposal to abolish the income tax altogether has not come from any Deputies on these benches. But any argument apparently is good enough with which to whack the Government or to whack the Minister for Finance. The other method proposed was a reduction of expenditure. There is not a more popular cry than the cry of a reduction of expenditure. I think it was Deputy Lemass who said that if the Minister had devoted his time to seeing how expenditure could be diminished, rather than to seeing how taxation could be increased, he would benefit the country enormously. Some other Deputies on the benches opposite have not the experience of this House or of Parliaments that might help them to deal with that question What has been our experience of this matter in the Dáil? There are various Votes and Estimates which are in the hands of Deputies every year. When we come to discuss those Votes, what is our experience? Has the demand from various quarters of the House and from every party in the House been a demand for diminished expenditure? Nearly every Deputy who has been a member of this House for the last four years knows perfectly well that one of the most difficult tasks, and in some respects one of the most unpopular tasks, that the Government or the Minister for Finance has to face is that he has to refuse demands for increased expenditure.
There has been hardly a single vote, with one or two notable exceptions, in which the demand has not been for increased expenditure. The one or two exceptions would be in certain things like the Governor-General's Vote and matters of that kind. In all the other items the demand has been for increased expenditure. As each item comes up it has been pointed out "economies are very well, but this is not the proper place in which to practise economy, this is a remunerative expenditure; instead of having this Vote less it should be more. This expenditure will pay for itself, and it will help to develop the nation and help the prosperity of the State. Economy here would be fatal." I suggest to those who are so keen on suggesting methods of dealing with expenditure just to wait until the debates on the Estimates come round next April, and to show us where, with safety and with proper regard for the interests of the State, real economies can be effected. It was only a few months ago that there was a motion in this House which led to the setting up of a Committee, a motion that coincided with the view taken beforehand by the Government that certain money was necessary for relief work. In addition to that, a Committee to deal with the problems of unemployment was set up. Do Deputies think that that may not lead to increased expenditure on the part of the State? Is it not the experience of everybody who has to deal with public affairs that that is so? I will ask Deputies to deal with this motion seriously. Is it not a fact that one of the hardest tasks that the Minister for Finance is faced with is having to refuse to give way to the increased demand for increased expenditure? We have plenty of examples of it. Our experience is demands for increased expenditure practically on the one hand, and demands for decreased taxation, when you have to raise the money to meet the demands for increased expenditure. Perhaps it was not without a certain amount of symbolism, if I may use the word, that the day this motion was tabled by Deputy Morrissey—a motion that would cost the State half a million a year—the front page in two Dublin dailies was taken up by a demand for decreased taxation. That is precisely the task that the Government have to face year after year, and every Deputy who has been in this House knows that that is the case. I think it was Deputy Ward who suggested—I have taken down his words—"We should ask ourselves a question: Can the country afford extravagant salaries and pensions that are paid to other sections of the community, largely in the State's service, such as civil servants, teachers, police, local government officials, and so on?"
Speaking of my own particular service, I can hold out no prospects of a reduction in that service to the Deputy. The salaries of the teachers were increased, undoubtedly, from what they were in 1914. That is so, and there was very good reason for it. The salaries of the teachers were decreased a couple of years ago, and there was good reason for that too. But I do not think, in the interests of the service and in the interest of education, that a further decrease can be contemplated by the Government. No further decrease in the Vote for Education can be contemplated by the Government. I see a demand made for it. I can tell Deputy Ward that I can gather, so far as I am concerned, that it would be disastrous to the interests of education, and, being disastrous to the interests of education, I believe it would be disastrous to the interests of the country. I believe what the country wants is not less but more money spent on education. Undoubtedly the Minister for Finance will have put up to him a demand not for less expenditure on education but for greater expenditure, and where is he to meet it? I would ask the Deputies to consider all these things. It is not an increase in this particular expenditure alone that the Government have to consider. It is a demand for increased expenditure in every useful service. I would ask Deputies who are supporting Deputy Morrissey's motion to the full extent to bear that in mind. Of course there are other suggestions made also. One is the question of dealing with the Civil Service. Deputy Byrne, to a large extent, has answered that already. I do not intend to traverse again the ground that he has covered, and covered fully. There is one thing in that connection, and that is the question of the Treaty rights of the civil servants. Is it intended to repudiate these rights or not? On the other hand, there is the question of efficiency. I am fully convinced, and I know those who have been directly or indirectly concerned with the Government of this country for the last five or six years will bear me out, that the money spent on the higher posts in the Civil Service is well spent money. The other great item of expenditure which, I think, Deputy Corry first mentioned, and which was repeated again and again, is Army pensions. We as a Government, and I as a member of the Government, do not intend to deprive of their pensions the men whom we believe to have saved the country when it was face to face with destruction. I will be surprised if members of the Labour Party will subscribe to a policy of that kind either.
A DEPUTY
What consideration have you given to the men who put you in this House, first of all?
The Deputy possibly cannot follow a reasoned discussion.
A DEPUTY
Quite clearly, I can follow you.
I am dealing with the various questions as to how this increased expenditure is to be met. I am dealing with the suggestion made by Deputies from the opposite benches, that these Army pensions we have voted should be done away with. They do not err on the side of generosity. I have heard criticism of them, and the criticism generally has been from the opposite side to generosity. I think those who have been in the Dáil before the present year will remember that when the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Defence were criticised, it was not because the pensions had been too many or too big. Everybody knows the jeer that greeted the Minister for Defence: "When is the Pensions Bill coming on that you promised?" The demands have been here, as elsewhere, not for less expenditure, but greater expenditure. Apart from that, this Government, as long as it is in power, will not completely forget the men who saved the country.
The other item is immense savings on the Army. I think it was the Deputy, who I understand has a large Army experience, possibly in different armies, who suggested that out of the expenditure of two and a quarter millions on the Army, three-quarters of a million could be saved. Anybody who has listened to Budget speeches in this House—and if they have not listened they might at least go to the trouble of reading them—will understand that of the expenditure on the Army of two and a quarter millions only one and a half millions is met out of taxation. That is, that the Government have recognised that owing to the abnormal condition of the country from 1922 onwards, a certain amount of money that could not be regarded as normal expenditure had to be spent on the Army, and that it was only fair that that should be met, not out of ordinary revenue, but by means of borrowing. That was done. Already, therefore, the saving of three-quarters of a million, mentioned, I think, by Deputy Carney, does not save you one penny as far as this is concerned. If you take the normal expenditure of the Army as being one and a half millions, his suggestion of a reduction by three-quarters of a million brings you to the one and a half millions, which is precisely the sum that is met out of taxation in our Budget.
Would the Minister consider my suggestion, and take the normal expenditure as one million and not one and a half millions?
No, because there are people—Deputy Redmond is not one, but he will recognise that there are others in this House— who think the best way would be to abolish the Army altogether.
That is not my suggestion.
I made it quite clear that that was not Deputy Redmond's suggestion. We do not think—I think we have the bulk of the country behind us in not thinking—that an effort to pare down the Army and the Gárda Síochána will be to the permanent advantage of the country. We feel that if that were done—done unduly—the country might have to pay very dearly for it and that everybody would suffer—old age pensioners and everybody else. The other suggestion made was that we were spending too much under the Secret Service. I wish we were, because I feel there might be some opportunity of dealing with some of the plots that are still in existence against the safety of the State. I remember a very celebrated occasion in this House when it was suggested that we did not spend enough—that a certain disaster that recently befell this State would not have occurred had we been more generous in spending in that particular way. The President, I think, was taunted with the question: Did he in America say that we cut off one shilling from the old age pensioners? What he did tell the American people was, and it is a factor which should be borne in mind, speaking in a country in which old age pensions were not a national or a local charge, that we spent such a large proportion of our revenue —one-ninth or whatever the exact figure may be—on old age pensions; that there were few other countries in Europe, if any, that spent such an amount of their revenue on this particular service.
What we have to face therefore is this: The Minister for Finance is convinced that with safety to the State he can restore the shilling to 60 per cent. of those who at present enjoy the old age pension, but to go beyond that he does not think would be good for the finances or the safety of the State. We have had, since taking over the Government of the country, to undertake services that were never performed in this country before. New forms of expenditure had to be met. These could only be met ultimately by taxation. If you increase old age pensions you can only increase them by a very considerable increase in taxation. Is the present moment the time to do that? The answer of the Government is, that in giving the concession that they now give, they meet 60 per cent. of the cases. And remember it is the needy cases that are the ones that will get the increase; these will be dealt with and their claim will be satisfied. If the signs of prosperity that we now see continue, then will be the time to consider whether there should not be an expansion of the concession now given.
Not belonging to a party, the members of which see eye to eye on all questions, I think I will be absolved from being whipped up to speak on this motion. I should say at the outset that I am in entire agreement with the terms of Deputy Morrissey's motion and with his objects. If that motion had been accepted without question by the Government, and if when it was tabled they said, "We will give that," I would have very serious misgivings that the old age pensioners would get any more than they have to-day. Why do I say that? When this cut was made in 1924, I think I am right in saying that it was sandwiched between a cut on the teachers and on the Civic Guards. It was represented to the House, and I think accepted—I am glad to say I was not in the House when the cut was made—but I think it was accepted that there was a ten per cent. reduction on old age pensions, teachers' salaries and the Civic Guards. This motion of Deputy Morrissey, if it has done nothing else, has shown us exactly what 10 per cent. means on old age pensions. What happened? The Minister for Finance on that occasion said to the old age pensioner: "Let me see your purse, how much have you got in it? You have 15/- in that purse, I will take out one shilling as the State wants it," but by a little bit of legerdemain he took two shillings along with it; he palmed the other two shillings, and no Deputy saw the Minister palming the two shillings.
Yes, the Labour Party saw it.
If that is so, it is a very strange thing that after four years this is the first motion tabled to restore it.
There was no hope until now.
Somebody had a little gibe at the Independent members, but the hope to-day is here on those benches for the old age pensioners. The reason I am anxious to speak upon this subject is because the Minister for Finance has tabled an amendment to this motion. As I said earlier, suppose he had not. Suppose he agreed to accept this motion. There are several ways, by administration and by instruction, to see that although on paper it is supposed to cost a half million of money, that that half million of money would never go to the old age pensioners. And the hope that I see that the pensioners are going to benefit by this amendment is that the Minister for Finance has gone one-third of the way. He says that the old age pensioners are going to be benefited by £175,000 per annum. This is a definite statement, and it is up to this House to see that by no political or administrative jugglery that £175,000 will become a myth, but that it will be a reality.
Various suggestions have been put forward as to how the £175,000 is to be got. I make no suggestion. It has been suggested that a reduction in the cost of the Army could be made. That that could be done, I am quite certain. It has been suggested that the salaries of the Civic Guards could be reduced. They could be reduced. On the other hand, the Minister for Finance suggested that restoring the whole shilling and to restore all pensioners to their old status would mean putting an additional burden in the way of a tax of an extra sixpence on tea and one penny on sugar. I have nothing to do with that. The Minister is giving away no Budget secrets, I am sure, but what I am concerned about is that he has given a definite guarantee to find £175,000 more for the old age pensioners than they have enjoyed for the last four years.
I congratulate Deputy Morrissey upon having brought forward this motion. I am sorry that the Minister for Finance is not in the House, because I would make an endeavour to bring Deputy Morrissey's motion and the Minister's amendment a little bit more into consonance than they appear at the moment. I think, while the Minister has made this offer of £175,000, which I hope will not be spoiled in administration, he might go a little bit further in the way of giving a guarantee that the moment the finances of the country warrant it, he will go the whole way in the restoration of the shilling and, perhaps more than that, that he will consent to reduce the age from 70 to 65.
Deputy Carney touched upon the question of dud rifles and ammunition. Perhaps it will be unpopular if I say that I wish to God a good rifle or good ammunition never came into this country. I would also like to see whatever dud guns there are in the country loaded with confetti, but, unfortunately for us, we are more in the habit of attending funerals these times than political marriages. Confetti is usually used in marriages. When we have all those at this House and the people outside united in the bonds of toleration, when old age pensioners and other citizens will not be laid on the table and dissected for political purposes, I think then we will find we will be able to get the money; that we will be in a sounder economic position when everyone is pulling together for the common weal, and when those little issues, quite proper in their way, are not being used by one side and the other for political advantage. I do not wish to delay the House any longer or to interfere with Deputy Morrissey in his reply, which, I understand, is to conclude by 5 o'clock. I throw out the suggestion, if the Minister for Finance thinks it worth while, and Deputy Morrissey thinks it feasible, that there should be a little advance on both sides, so that after all the extraneous matter and the heat imported into the debate, when it is over, the people outside will say that the Dáil, in considering the question of the old age pensioners, had treated them fairly.
Members of all Parties outside the Government Party enjoy the happy privilege of being in the position of supporting and voting for anything brought forward of a popular character, regardless of what effect their action may have upon the finances of the State. If Deputy Morrissey's motion is passed it will cost £500,000, and that money will have to be found by the Minister for Finance. He has definitely stated here that if it is to be found it must be found by additional taxation, and additional taxation at the present moment is unthinkable. I have very little doubt that when the Budget comes on important savings can be effected. But what about the demands in connection with the reduction of taxation on particular matters, the beer and spirit duties, the entertainment taxes, the motor taxes, and many other things that at the present time are handicapping the trade and commerce of the country, and incidentally creating unemployment? I cannot understand the attitude of the Labour Party in stating that the reduction of income tax has not benefited materially the people they represent. The remedy for unemployment is to provide employment, and the way to provide employment is to reduce taxation, to encourage the development of industry, the development of trade and commerce, and to attract capital into the country. The fact of our income tax being lower than the income tax in England or in Northern Ireland has attracted capital into the country, and I believe, now that the conditions in this country are more stable and peaceful than they were, you will see development at a rapid rate in the future. One of the real difficulties in this country is unemployment, and I believe the reduction of the income tax will go further than anything else the Government could do to provide employment.
This motion brought forward by Deputy Morrissey is, of course, one that we should all like to vote for if the conditions in the country justified it. My opinion is that this motion was not brought forward so much in the interest of the old age pensioners as that it is the third round of a contest that has taken place here in an endeavour to defeat the Government. The first two rounds of the contest have failed, and the third round will fail. I believe if the Government were defeated it would be the worst day the old age pensioners of this country ever saw.
Therefore, whilst I am very confident that with improved conditions in the country in the near future the Minister, possibly at Budget time, may reinstate the full amount to the old age pensioners, I am satisfied that he has met Deputies fairly, and that what he has proposed will relieve the persons who at the present time are suffering the severest privations by the cut.
I desire to ask the Minister for Finance a question, as I have been one of the principal movers in this House, both by question and speech on every available occasion, in regard to the matter of giving an increase to the old age pensioners.
I hope by vote, too.
Mr. BYRNE
When giving my vote I am anxious to satisfy myself that by so doing I am not increasing the cost of living on the very poor in the area which I represent. I represent one of the Dublin constituencies in which possibly you would find more poverty and destitution than in any other part of Ireland. The suggestion has frequently been made here that if Deputy Morrissey's motion is carried it may mean an increase in the cost of tea or sugar on these poor people. An increase of one halfpenny or one penny a pound in the case of a workman who has a family of seven or eight children would indeed be a very serious matter. I am not prepared to ask these poverty-stricken people who use, perhaps, in the case of each family, six or seven pounds of sugar in the week, to contribute an additional 3d. out of the St. Vincent de Paul dole which they get or out of the poor relief which they receive towards this motion of Deputy Morrissey's. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that this is not his last word, if he finds he is in a position to give more from the surplus which may be there when he is preparing his Budget? If the surplus is there when he is preparing his Budget, I would like to know from him will the old age pensioners have first claim on that surplus? So far, no one has asked for that assurance.
There was no use.
Mr. BYRNE
No one asked him for that, although previous promises have been used in the debate rather effectively. Next year, if I am here, I hope to be able to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is a surplus, and that he promised in 1928 that he would give the old age pensioners the first claim on it. I would like to know also from the Minister if he can give us any assurance as to whether there is any possibility in the near future of the old people getting any consideration from him, and that if there is a surplus available it will not be devoted to decreases in taxation in regard to those who are not as badly in need of relief as the old age pensioners. I am not here to be used by any party for political advantage.
Under which flag?
Mr. BYRNE
I can quite plainly see that there is a great desire to use this motion for political purposes, but I will not be associated with such a campaign. If any other motion were proposed I might be with them, but I will not stand for any party in the House or any individual using the sufferings of the poor and of the old and infirm for the purposes of gaining political advantage. I hope the Minister will deal with the question which I have put to him, and that the old age pensioners will get, in the near future, first consideration from him if a surplus is available. That is the assurance I am seeking from him.
I want to say at the start that, as far as some of us are concerned, in discussions of this kind we are inclined to sympathise very much with the Minister for Finance, because we know full well that with him lies the responsibility of seeing now proposals are to be met from the financial point of view. I want to assure him and the Minister for Education, who spoke as if we were altogether forgetful of these things, that, in making up our minds to support Deputy Morrissey's motion we took care to satisfy ourselves how the increase in expenditure which it would mean, if we were not able to get reductions in other quarters, should be borne. There are people, of course, always who want to have their loaves and eat them. There are people also who are like the cat that wants the fish, but will not wet its feet in order to get them. We believe in this case that the fish are worth wetting our feet for. We believe that to meet the needs of the old people and to give them the restoration of the cut which Deputy Morrissey's motion proposes, it is worth making certain sacrifices, even if we have to make them.
There are Deputies here who, some years ago, made certain declarations which, perhaps, it would not be out of place to remind them of now. On the 21st January, 1919, there was, side by side with a certain declaration of independence, also a statement called a democratic programme which was supposed to express their social ideas. There are two paragraphs, but one is more immediately germane to this report than the other. The two go together, and, with your permission, A Chinn Comhairle, I will read both. They say:—
It shall be the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the children and to secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food, clothing or shelter, but that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite for their proper education and training as citizens of a free and Gaelic Ireland. The Irish Republic fully realises the necessity of abolishing the present odious, degrading and foreign poor law system and substituting therefor a sympathetic native scheme for the care of the nation's aged and infirm, who shall not be regarded as a burden but rather entitled to the nation's gratitude and consideration. Likewise....
I think, A Chinn Comhairle, that is sufficient for my purpose. I wish to remind Deputies who subscribed to that declaration that they should ask themselves before they vote whether they mean to be true to that declaration, when they can be true to it, or whether they mean to run away from it.
To my mind, there is no money that is so well-spent, and no money for which we get such value as the money that is spent on the children and on the old. I certainly will not be one who will ask the Minister for Education to try to reduce the Education Vote. I hope that Deputy Morrissey's motion will pass, and that the next motion that we will have in the Dáil will be to give an old age pension to everybody over 70; to reduce the administration costs by not inquiring whether they are needy or not, but to give a pension to everybody over 70 years. That would remove from these poor people the fear and the danger of being left destitute in their old age. I believe that is nothing more or less for the community than an ordinary form of contributory insurance. The taxpayers, if such a course were adopted, would be simply insuring themselves. When they became old and were no longer able to work they would be insuring themselves against being left destitute. It is nothing more or less than that. At present it does not appear to be that, I will admit. Why? Because we have to provide now for those who were not provided for, for the aged of the present period; but once it is established it is nothing more or less than an insurance by the community of its members.
I believe, however, with most of the members who have spoken on our side, that this money can be got at the present time without putting any further burden by way of extra taxation on the people. When we look through the Estimates for the current year and see, for example, a sum of £1,623,000 for the Civic Guard, a sum of over £2,262,000 for the Army, a sum of £217,160 for Army pensions, not to speak of other similar sums, anybody who examines the amounts in detail will find that by a reduction of these the half million which is required can be very easily got. If this House is prepared to pass the motion, and pass immediately after it a motion that there should be a committee to go into these matters and see wherein these reductions can be made, I am sure that a composite committee of this House would be able to find where the savings could be effected. If the Minister wanted to provide for a new war he would have no difficulty in finding the amount.
We were told yesterday by Deputy Law—I am quoting from a newspaper —that it was the worst form of economy to underpay those who had charge of public affairs. I agree with him, but to underpay men is a very different thing from what we propose to do. We are not asking you to underpay men. What we say is: give them a reasonable sum, such as the country can afford. Give them such a sum as will save them from necessity and relieve them from anxiety with regard to earning their bread, or educating their children. Save them from all these things certainly, but do not make the mistake of thinking that you are going to get such service as the nation needs simply by paying them big salaries. It was not the reward of money that ever got decent service for any nation in the past or that will ever get it in the future. We will get service from those who look for rewards, not financial rewards. Even empires which can afford to give big sums in order to attract people into their service do not get the best service by the amount of money they give. The best service given is from that part of the community who are honoured by being able to serve, who feel that the fact that they are able to serve and that they get the opportunity of serving, is the highest reward they can get, and they look for no other profit. They are relieved of the anxiety of having to earn their bread.
So far as we are concerned we expect that the people who go voluntarily into the public service—they are not compelled to do it—whether they go up for election and become Ministers, or whether they go into the service otherwise voluntarily, when the scale is known—if they choose that particular way of satisfying their ambitions, if you like—will be content to get from the people of this country the amounts the people can afford ordinarily to give them. We believe that the salaries, whether in the higher Civil Service, where salaries are over £1,000 a year, or in the case of Ministers, are based on a standard which this country cannot afford to pay unless we are going to get the money by reducing the sum that is given to the old age pensioners, or denying children the education they should get in order to fit them to be good citizens to the nation. Our attitude in the matter is very clear. We are for the motion. We hope it is going to be the first step for a more general pension for all who are over 70, and for checking the waste of money spent in administration of the present code. We hope that those who are on the opposite side, and who at one time subscribed to the democratic programme, now that they have an opportunity of acting up to their professions, will act up to them and will vote for the motion.
Before Deputy Morrissey concludes the debate, might I be allowed to say a few words in answer to Deputy A. Byrne?
I take it there is no objection to the Minister making a second statement?
I just wish to say, in answer to Deputy Byrne, that the Government regards what is being done as the first instalment—an instalment which can be justified by the fact that an economic improvement has begun. It is their view that if that economic improvement continues the whole cut should be restored, and furthermore, if conditions sufficiently improve, that the provision made in respect of pensions should not be of a less standard than in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Perhaps I might also preface my remarks by saying something to Deputy Alfred Byrne and by pointing out to him how much or how little what the Minister for Finance has just said is worth. May I remind the Minister for Finance, and Deputy Alfred Byrne, that the Minister made this statement on the Budget in 1925:
"We believe some revision of the Old Age Pension Act, 1924, will have to be given precedence of any further reduction of taxation, however much required——"
If conditions have improved.
These are the exact words of the Minister.
Out of the context.
Certainly not. And might I remind the Minister, and Deputy Alfred Byrne, that in the last Budget, when the Minister had a sum equal to the sum that had been taken from the old age pensioners—in other words, the Minister had over a half a million pounds, roughly the amount that was taken from the old age pensioners—instead of keeping that very definite promise and giving the old age pensioners precedence over any further reduction in taxation, "however much required," he gave it to the people who were fortunate enough to be able to pay income tax. And when the Minister and Deputies on the Government Benches ask where the money is to be got, and when we are asked what is to be taxed, tea or sugar—why these two are singled out I do not know, unless it is to provide Deputy Alfred Byrne with an excuse for voting for the Minister's amendment—I say the proper place to get the money is where you put it when you took it from the old age pensioners. The Minister took over half a million pounds from the old age pensioners, and last year he gave over half a million pounds to the people who pay income tax. The President, I think, said that income tax was responsible for half the revenue of Great Britain, and that it is responsible for only 25 per cent. of the revenue of the Free State. Whose fault is that?
When we are told by the President and by other speakers on the Government Benches that this motion is put down for the purpose of making political capital out of the old age pensioners, I suppose I would be entitled to say that the Ministry reduced the income tax last year for the purpose of making political capital. They made monetary capital out of it as well as political capital, because they were able to run two elections with apparently unlimited funds, with full-page advertisements in the papers day-in and day-out. Certainly the money to pay for these costly advertisements did not come from the old age pensioners. But what amused me most in this speech—and there were speeches made from the Government Benches which had very little to do with the motion, if anything at all—was how that Minister, above all others, could tell us that the best way to improve people's positions in life was to reduce their salaries and their pensions. The Minister, quite solemnly and seriously, told the Dáil that they did a good turn to the old age pensioners by cutting down their pensions in 1924, and that, as a matter of fact, if they were to accept this motion they would be injuring the old age pensioners, because taxation would be so much increased as a result that their last position would be worse than their first. I hope that the Minister will extend that principle to the Government Departments, starting with himself. When we hear all this talk, particularly from Deputy Alfred Byrne, of the fear that the taxation would hit the people in his constituency, who, according to himself, are the poorest in Ireland—the taxation would hit "the poorest of the poor"— would Deputy Alfred Byrne tell the House how much taxable commodities a person can buy on nine "bob" a week? When Deputy Alfred Byrne accuses not only this Party, but accuses me personally, of trying to exploit the poor and the aged by putting down this motion, I might remind the House, and particularly the new members, that there is no member of this House ever exploited the poor more than Deputy Alfred Byrne himself. He even went to the extent of parading them outside and got crippled men into the Dáil to obtain political kudos for himself.
On a point of personal explanation, as regards what the Deputy is referring to, a certain Minister made a statement that he wondered did Deputy Alfred Byrne's cases exist. I brought them to the House to show that they did exist, and I got the sympathy of Deputy Morrissey and his Party for doing so.
Deputy Byrne will always have the sympathy of Deputy Morrissey and his Party on the side of the poor. I am glad the Deputy, in his personal explanation, has confirmed what I just said. Perhaps, there is some little connection between Deputy Byrne's attitude to-day and the fact that he was asked to preside at the big meeting which was held in O'Connell Street a short time ago. Deputy Alfred Byrne should be the last person in this House, or outside of it, to speak of exploiting the poor. There is no man in this House who has done it more successfully, so far, than Deputy Alfred Byrne. Leaving the Deputy, and coming to the President, I usually listen to the President with a good deal of pleasure. Notwithstanding what some people may think, I listened to the President with a good deal of pleasure yesterday. I must say that he talked nonsense in the most delightful way. I was inclined to say that there was no Deputy in this House who could talk nonsense so delightfully as the President until I listened to Deputy J.J. Byrne to-day and then I had to change my mind.
There was one thing quite evident from the President's speech. That was that he knew nothing whatever about the motion or amendment with the exception of a few notes he got from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, as he was going out. Therefore, he joked on everything, from Document No. 2 to the salaries of the national teachers and the Gárda Síochána. When I had the temerity to make an interjection the President characterised it as senseless. Those of us who know the President for the last five or six years are aware that when something is said which the President does not like he always pretends to be intensely angry and indignant. When the President reminded us that England had been making a lot of money out of this country for a number of years, I simply interjected that it was the first time I heard the President admit that, and that he did not make the statement in the discussions in this House on the London Pact. It will be for the House to judge whether that interjection was a senseless one or not. It was at least as sensible as the answer the President gave us in the discussion with regard to Article 5, when he said that the only figure he had in his mind was a huge nought and that he got it. He did. But with all the President's talk, and all the figures supplied by the Minister for Finance and all the confusing figures brought in by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, we cannot get away from the fact that what was given to the old and to the blind of this country by a foreign government—by the British Government—was filched from them by their own Government. Nothing can get away from the fact that there is at least one section of the people in this country who have a perfect right to say that they were better off under the British Government than they are under an Irish Government.
I wonder when will they be able to get back.
I want to put this aspect of the question to the House: that under the Minister's amendment a person who should have some special concern for the Minister, the person who is thrifty and industrious, who buys Savings Certificates or puts whatever savings he has in the Post Office Savings Bank, is cutting a switch to beat himself, because those very savings will be brought against him when he comes to 70 years of age and applies for a pension. The amount of his pension will depend on whether he was a waster or whether he was thrifty and industrious. If he was thrifty and industrious he will get either no pension or a small pension, whereas if he was a waster, or an idler, he will get the full pension. That is what the Minister's amendment amounts to. There can be no question about that. Let Deputies face up to that fact and not try to get out of their responsibilities and to change their previous convictions by simply saying that we on these benches are trying to make political capital. It seems to me that the only way you can make political capital is by doing something that the majority of the people of the country think you ought to do. I contend that that is what we are here to carry out—the wishes of the majority of the people. I contend—I defy contradiction from any member of the House—that it is the desire of the majority of the people that the old age pensioners should be put in at least as good position as they were when this State came into being. That is all the motion seeks. All that has been said about political capital is all so much moonshine. Listening to the Minister for Finance last night, I understood, for the first time, how he had enveloped the members of his Party in such a fog that they had agreed to support his amendment. He read out, I presume for the Party meeting, the figures which he trotted out here last night. I suppose, quite rightly, that they had faith in the Minister, that they took his statement for what it was worth, and that they believed, until they were disillusioned yesterday, when, I suppose, it was too late, that every old age pensioner was getting back the shilling. I hope they see the difference now, and I hope Deputy Alfred Byrne will remember that in 1924 he referred to the Minister's Bill not as an Old Age Pensions Bill, but as an Old Age Punishment Bill.
In my opinion, the only serious contribution to this debate from the Government Benches came from the Minister for Education. I did not agree with what he said, but I congratulate the Minister for Education on the way in which he kept to the motion, and dealt with it. As I have said, I do not agree with his arguments. I do not believe for one moment that this State would collapse if the old age pensioners got what is their due. I do not believe for a moment that if it were necessary to increase taxation to meet this motion the people of the country would not stand for it. I believe they would. I was asked yesterday if I would be prepared to advocate an increase of taxation, if it were necessary, in order to give effect to this motion. I said then, unhesitatingly, and I say now, that I am prepared to do that and go before the country at any time. I do not believe that there is any necessity whatever to increase taxation upon any of the necessaries of life in order to give effect to this motion. If it is necessary to increase taxation at all, the taxation can be got from other things. I have pointed out to the Minister that the proper place to find this money is where he put it, when he took it from the old age pensioners —the pockets of those who are fortunate enough to be able to pay income-tax. I hope the House will pass this motion.
The Deputy referred to the confusing figures which I gave yesterday. If I have permission, I should like to say a word or two to make the position clear.
On a point of order, before you put the amendment, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, I want to submit that your constituents are being disfranchised, due to your presence in the Chair during the division.
The Deputy will allow me to conduct this division in the manner laid down by Standing Orders. I do not propose to enter into any argument as to whether the interests of my constituents are being looked after or not. I am going to conduct this division in the manner laid down by Standing Orders.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlan.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- John Daly.
- Michael Davis.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- John Good.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Patrick Michael Kelly.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- Joseph Xavier Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Martin Roddy.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Richard Anthony.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Henry Broderick.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Patrick Clancy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Coburn.
- James Colbert.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Daniel Corkery.
- Richard Corish.
- Martin John Corry.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Tadhg Crowley.
- William Davin.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- Edward Doyle.
- James Everett.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Seán French.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Patrick Hogan (Clare).
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- William R. Kent.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Kililea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben Maguire.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Timothy Joseph Murphy.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- William Archer Redmond.
- Patrick J. Ruttledge.
- James Ryan.
- Martin Sexton.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipp.).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
- Richard Walsh.
- Francis C. Ward.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.