Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 31 Jan 1952

Vol. 129 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 61—Old Age Pensions.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £337,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for Old Age Pensions and Pensions to Blind Persons (Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1951); for Supplements (No. 22 of 1946); and for certain Grants.

This Supplementary Estimate is rendered necessary by the Social Welfare Act, 1951, which effected certain changes in the means test for old age and blind pensions and also increased the rates of those pensions.

The means test, as Deputies will no doubt remember, has been relaxed in three ways:—

(1.) A farmer occupying a holding with a valuation up to £30 can, on reaching pensionable age, assign his farm to one or more of his children and thus qualify for an old age pension if not disqualified by reason of other means.

(2.) Sums up to a limit of £80 a year received by a person by way of disability or wound pension or other allowance under the Army Pensions Acts are disregarded for the purpose of the means test for old age or blind pensions.

(3.) Assistance received by a person from one or more charitable organisations up to a limit of £52 5s. 0d. a year is disregarded for the purpose of the means test.

It is estimated that these three relaxations of the means test will enable 7,000 persons who were not previously entitled to them to receive old age pensions.

The 1951 Act raised the maximum old age or blind pension to 20/- a week and enabled this pension to be awarded to a person whose means did not exceed £22 2s. 6d. a year. Formerly the maximum pension was payable only if the means of the person did not exceed £15 12s. 6d. a year. Persons whose means exceed £52 5s. 0d. a year but do not exceed £65 5s. 0d. receive a pension of 5/- per week under the 1951 Act where formerly they received nothing.

It is estimated that as a result of the provisions I have mentioned an additional sum of £337,000 will be required in the current financial year to meet the expenditure out of the Old Age Pensions Vote, and this is the sum I am now asking the Dáil to vote.

Mr. O'Higgins

There will not be any opposition to this Vote, but I should like the Dáil and the people to appreciate that this Vote is moved by the Minister to-night because the people of this country were lucky in that in recent years there was in power an inter-Party Government. The Social Welfare Act of 1951, the passing of which without opposition by this House necessitates this Vote, was merely the enactment by the present Dáil of certain sections of the Social Welfare Bill which was discussed here in the early part of the year. It represented a new deal for old age pensioners, or for those people who now qualify as old age pensioners, given and guaranteed to them by the inter-Party Government. That guarantee was so definite that, although the former Government and former Dáil were dissolved before the Social Welfare Bill became law, the undertaking had, of necessity, to be honoured by this Government.

I recall that while the Social Welfare Bill was being discussed, there was very determined, very violent and organised opposition by the Fianna Fáil Party to its enactment into law. I recall also that it was only during the stress of the last general election, when the Fianna Fáil Party were seeking any measure of political support they could get, irrespective of the manner in which they obtained it, that they gave a solemn undertaking to the people that if they were elected as a Government they would introduce the measure incorporated in the Social Welfare Act of 1951. Accordingly, the old age pension was raised to £1 per week, the means test modified and certain other provisions enacted into law entitling people to a pension which they otherwise would not have obtained.

Naturally, this vote will not be opposed from the Opposition side, but we hope and trust that the people of the country will realise that this measure of social service is one that was shaped and formed by the Minister's predecessor, and we hope and trust that the people, while recognising that, will still demand from the present Minister the implementation of the rest of the scheme. He has been in office now doodling for the past six and a half months, and the social welfare scheme which could have been introduced in a matter of weeks has still not seen the light of day. In this Parliament to-day we have had the disgraceful performance of 66 Deputies deciding that they do not want to work, and adjourning the Parliament for a fortnight when urgent work needs to be done, such as the introduction of the social welfare scheme.

Mr. MacCarthy

Is that not wrong? What they decided was they were not prepared to idle.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is pertinent for us at this stage to inquire when the Minister, armed as he is with a secretary and adviser, proposes to implement the rest of the inter-Party programme in relation to social services. What we have got in this Bill, and what we are voting to-night, is merely the minimum promised by the inter-Party programme and policy, and it is only being introduced by the Minister because he could not get out of doing it. The rest of the scheme must be implemented or some alternative proposed by the Minister. It is not wrong for us to point to the fact that over six months is sufficiently long for the Minister to shape the rest of the programme. I know that he has had to bed it down with Deputy Cogan, Deputy Browne, Deputy Cowan and the rest of them, but surely by now they should have smoothed out their difficulties, and should be in a position to tell the House what their plan and policy are.

Mr. McGrath

I did not think it would be necessary to tell Deputy O'Higgins that, when Deputy Norton was introducing the Social Welfare Bill, the Fianna Fáil Party and four Independent Deputies asked him to pass also the item now mentioned—the half crown to the old age pensioners and others—and to give that to them straightaway.

Mr. Davin

You voted against it.

Mr. McGrath

There was no vote. The Deputy is confusing two things.

Mr. Davin

There was, on 30th March.

Mr. McGrath

Anybody who was in the House at the end of 1948 when Deputy Norton was amending the Workmen's Compensation Act, will remember that he said he was introducing a comprehensive insurance scheme and Deputy Larkin, as he said here, only accepted the amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act in the light of a promise that there was to be a comprehensive insurance Bill and that workmen's compensation was going to be dealt with in it. Having kept that dangling before the inter-Party Government for three and a half years, he waited until they were going before the people to introduce the Bill and absolutely refused to consider passing these items on their own, although it could have been done in the space of a couple of hours or minutes, if necessary. They did not form part of the original Bill but were incorporated because of questions put down by members of Fianna Fáil, including myself, asking what was going to be done for these people. Now Deputy O'Higgins has the impudence to tell us that we had to do what they kept promising for years.

Mr. O'Higgins

So you did, and you do not like doing it.

Mr. McGrath

Our record in the matter of social services since Fianna Fáil came into power is there for anybody to see. We do not wait to be told what to do by Deputy O'Higgins or anyone else as regards these things. They only make promises but Fianna Fáil on coming into office implemented these items for which the Estimate is being sought now.

Mr. Davin

Deputy McGrath, who is a very honourable Deputy, was not here in October, 1947.

Mr. McGrath

He was.

Mr. Davin

If he was he would remember that the present Minister for Social Welfare turned down the Private Members' motion to give another £400,000 to the old-age pensioners. If he was here that night, he voted against it.

Mr. McGrath

That is not a fact and it has been contradicted time and time again.

Dr. Ryan

What were the terms of the motion?

Mr. Davin

The Minister will not deny that he turned down that particular proposal on the 22nd October, 1947.

Dr. Ryan

What were the terms of the motion?

Mr. Davin

To modify the means test, involving on the average 2/-additional to the pensioners who would qualify.

Dr. Ryan

And what did you do over there?

Mr. Davin

Has the Minister lost his memory? He is one of the shrewdest men sitting over there. If he cannot remember what happened he should send his private secretary to the library to get the information. He said that the country could not afford it. We had a general election three months afterwards and Deputy Norton became Minister for Social Welfare. He brought in a modification of the means test and passed into the hands of the aged and the blind not £400,000 but £2,500,000.

Dr. Ryan

£2,500,000? It never appeared in the Estimates.

Mr. O'Higgins

Do not talk nonsense.

Mr. Davin

Surely the Minister is not sitting in the seat he occupies now without having compared the cost to the State of old age pensions to-day with the cost when he was voted out of office in the early part of 1948? He can get the figures and quote them, and I challenge him to do so. Then he will see the difference between what was passed into the hands of the old age pensioners in 1947, the year ended 31st March, 1948, and what they are in receipt of to-day.

Dr. Ryan

I will give them.

Mr. Davin

Deputy O'Higgins was quite correct in stating that the Estimate we are asked to pass and which we will be glad to vote for—I am sure there will be no division on this—is merely to implement what was done by his predecessor in the inter-Party Government.

Mr. McGrath

What was promised.

Mr. Davin

I cannot blame Deputy McGrath if he fails to remember these things. I do not want to go into the question of the Social Security Bill. It has been my greatest pleasure since I came into public life—and I am here since 1922—to vote for the Second Reading, notwithstanding the fact that Deputy McGrath and others thought the Government was going to be defeated when we had the courage to put it to a Second Reading on the 3rd March, 1951. May I ask the Minister for Social Welfare to explain this, if he would be good enough to do so, in connection with this Estimate? On the evening of the day that he voted against the Social Security Bill, on the 3rd March last, he marched over with his colleagues to the Fianna Fáil headquarters in Upper Mount Street and there and then produced an alternative scheme which was printed in the Irish papers the following day. In view of what happened on the evening of the 3rd March—after they had examined their conscience, I presume—I want to know the cause of the delay in printing the Social Security Bill which he promised to produce to Deputies two weeks before we met yesterday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Davin

Old age pensions will be provided for under this. It is my hope —and if the Minister does what I ask I will give him the credit that he has been good enough to do it—that the Minister may be able still further to increase the old age pension maximum allowance, in view of the tremendous increase in the cost of living. He made a promise to the people on the evening of the 3rd March last year. What is the cause of the delay now, when he has all these experts and in view of what he said, that he had a plan for the provision of a social security scheme, before he was voted out of office in February, 1948? The Minister should take action in his own interests and particularly in the interests of the Party, which appears to be floundering in this matter on this occasion.

Mr. Byrne

I think this is a step in the right direction——

Mr. Davin

Of course it is.

Mr. Byrne

——but let me emphasise that it is only a step and that there are many more steps to be taken before we reach the payments to old age pensioners in the Six Counties. If we are to hold out an inducement and encouragement to our fellow-countrymen across the Border, one of the matters which must be attended to is to bring up the social services, especially the old age pensions, to the level that is being paid there. Our people are entitled to that consideration from the Minister. When this half-crown was first mentioned, we were told it was only a step and that it could be accepted as part payment of something better that was to come along. In view of the purchasing power of money having been reduced so much that even with the extra half-crown the value of the pension is back to what it was before the half-crown was given, the Minister should now give another 2/6, 5/- or 10/-so that the old age pensioners might be able to purchase the foodstuffs they could purchase a year or two ago. It will take another 10/- to do that. No one is boasting about this extra half-crown to our own people who served the country so well in days gone by. I earnestly hope the Minister will find it possible to give a further increase, even if he does not touch the maximum that is paid across the Border. If we increase it to the Northern level, it would be just a little encouragement to the older people in the Six Counties to consider sympathetically voting for the abolition of the Border.

In this cold, wet weather the voucher that is given for turf—and they are getting wet turf—is of very little value. I was wondering if it would not be possible for the Minister or the Government to give the old age pensioners a bag of coal instead of the wet turf taken from the dumps, for which they pay 9d. or 1/- per half-cwt. They complain that that turf is of no value at all. Perhaps it could be arranged through some organisation—his own, if possible—that the people would get a bag of coal a fortnight or even per month instead of the turf. We have nothing to boast about and we are not going to complain, but I ask the Minister to consider a further increase in the pension, to enable those people to purchase the food they could purchase a year or two ago.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I take this opportunity to ask the Minister two questions on which, if possible at this stage, he might give some information. I am informed that there is a residence qualification for the old age pension. The particular example I have in mind is that of a person who has been out of this country for over 12 years. This is a person who was born in this country and who, through force of circumstances had to seek employment in Great Britain. That person has now reached the age of 70 and in the normal course of events would qualify for an old age pension. I think it is rather harsh that the resident qualification of 12 years should be applied in her case because the last 10 or 12 years have not been what one might term normal times and unfortunately many people had to go across to Britain. Now in their declining years they come back here and they are debarred from receiving the old age pension by reason of the fact that they have been 12 years away. On the other hand they are citizens of this country, since they were born in this country.

The other question which I wish to raise is in connection with fuel vouchers for old age pensioners. I am informed—and I should like the Minister to enlighten me further for the benefit of some of my constituents —that since the extra half-crown was given, where a married couple are both receiving the old age pension, they receive between them only one fuel voucher as against two which they received heretofore. I do not know whether that is the responsibility of the local authority which issues the voucher or whether it has come as a direction from the Minister. I should like also to add my voice to that of Deputy Byrne—I refrain from any comment at all on the few remarks made by Deputy McGrath—in urging that the Minister, in view of the increased cost of living, should announce to old age pensioners that he is at least considering giving them an increase.

I do not think anybody in this House would expect the Minister to say straight off: "Yes, I am going to give them another 2/6 or 5/-," but I think there should be some sort of indication that if the cost of living continues to increase at the same rate as it is increasing at present, strong consideration will be given to the claims of old age pensioners for an increase.

Every Deputy will agree that the £1 which the old age pensioner receives at present is altogether inadequate to meet ordinary needs. When one considers the increase in the price of coal, milk and the various other commodities that are absolutely essential to these old people, one must agree that these old age pensioners are entitled to better treatment from whatever Government is in power. I think that in common with the increases given to other people in the country—wage-earners and people in receipt of superannuation from various sources—the old age pension should also be increased. We hear a lot of lip service paid to their claims and a lot of talk about the sacrifices they made and the respect which we owe to our elders, but the best way to show recognition of these facts is to give them some little financial assistance. It is fortunate that there was so much discussion about the last Social Security Bill inasmuch as the old age pensioners were singled out for special treatment under that measure. It is sometimes said that they are pawns in the political game, but I do not think anybody would object to that if it ultimately means that they gain something. I do not at all object to the idea of political Parties bidding for their support, and of boasting of what they are doing for the old age pensioners because that means that anything that can be granted to them ultimately will be welcomed by all Deputies.

Mr. Desmond

Naturally, members of all Parties will support this Estimate. I have no intention of delaying the House on it except to say, in view of some of the remarks made by Deputy McGrath, that, if, we are to be sincere, it must be admitted by the present Minister, as it is admitted by people in the country, that since 1948, no matter how the Minister may seek to check the figures given by Deputy Davin, pensions have been increased from 10/- to 17/6. It is true that some pensioners were getting 2/6 as a result of having to go to the dispensaries to the Home Assistance Officers but the plain fact is that the pension was increased in that period to 17/6. We are glad to know that it has been since increased to £1 but it will not be denied that it was not just at election time that Deputy Norton said that the increase of 2/6 would be given. The Second Stage of the important measure under which the increase was to be given was being discussed at the time and there was no talk of a general election then. I do not intend to go into the general question of social security but I should like the Minister to remember that he stated during the election campaign that neither he nor his Party was in favour of giving the old age pension at 65. Under the Bill introduced, and brought to its Second Stage by Deputy Norton, the inter-Party Government were committed to giving those sections who would automatically be covered by the Bill old age pensions at 65. If Deputy Norton's Bill had gone through, and if there was not an election at that period, it would mean that not alone would the pensioners be getting £1 a week much earlier but that a large percentage of them would be enjoying the pension at 65 in the case of men and at 60 in the case of women. It is well known, and it can be proved by checking the records of this House, that that Bill was introduced before there was any talk of an election. Furthermore, it was made quite evident by many speakers that the increase of 2/6 to be granted under that Bill, bringing the pension up to £1, was not to be regarded as the maximum. This is not the time to refer in detail to what the present Minister said in 1947, but he made it quite clear that neither he nor his Government was committed to giving a pension at the age at which the inter-Party Government were willing to give it.

Mr. McGrath

Would the Deputy say if these were contributory pensions?

Mr. Desmond

I stated that a large percentage of the pensioners would be enjoying a pension at 65 years of age in the case of men and at 60 years in the case of women.

Mr. McGrath

Not the £1 a week.

Mr. Desmond

Deputy McGrath knows full well that there was an increase of 7/6 in the country areas since 1948. That is apart from the 2/6 given through the home assistance officer, a method which Deputy McGrath supported. People got an increase of 7/6 in the country areas.

Mr. McGrath

That is not the point. The pensions at 65 were contributory pensions.

Mr. Desmond

I am not going to say that if Deputy Norton were in power old age pensioners would now have more than £1, because we do not know, but we do know that the inter-Party Government were for the extra 2/6, and that that in itself was not regarded as a final payment. The Minister has our support in giving this 2/6. I sincerely hope that in the future any opportunity that presents itself to improve the lot of the old age pensioner will find this House in full agreement on the matter.

Dr. Ryan

I should like to make a few corrections in respect of some of the statements which were made and also to express agreement on other statements which were made. It is not true that the Fianna Fáil Party were forced during the General Election to promise this 2/6. In the amendment which I proposed to the Bill in March, 1951, I included the 2/6 extra in the old age pensions.

Mr. Davin

You fought against Deputy Norton's Bill.

Dr. Ryan

I spoke for two hours and I explained my attitude at the time. I do not think it is necessary to go into all that again now. It is true that we voted against the Bill. Deputy Davin, in his speech, said that I was one of the best men on the Government Benches: I do not know whether he meant that to be a compliment. Deputy O'Higgins remarked that I have been in office now for six months and that I have not produced very much in that time. I thought I could have brought in this complete Social Welfare Bill within six months. I think Deputy Davin should not stress that, however, because Deputy Norton was three years in office before he did it. I suppose, naturally, that Deputy Davin thinks Deputy Norton is a better man than I am. He should, anyway——

Mr. Davin

You did your best to defeat the Bill.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Davin should think that Deputy Norton is a better man that I am, otherwise he is not true to his Party. If Deputy Norton took three years to do it I do not think Deputy Davin should expect another person to do it within six months.

Mr. Davin

You promised it.

Dr. Ryan

I know, but Deputy Norton promised it every week for three years.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

It is not a good comparison, because the Minister said in 1948 that when he relinquished office there were several schemes of social security that could be put into operation immediately.

Dr. Ryan

Certainly. Deputy Norton said there was no scrap of paper, but when I went back to the Department and asked for my scheme they handed it to me. They were able to hand it to me, and yet Deputy Norton could not see it. In 1948, the Labour Party published their scheme. I was Minister for Social Welfare at the time. I was able to get the figures and I found that it would cost £44,000,000. That did not deter Deputy Davin and his colleagues. It was nothing to them. They were ready to put it into operation.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

The same as Fianna Fáil's bringing back the 44,000,000 emigrants.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy O'Higgins said that I brought in this Bill because I had to.

Mr. Davin

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

I would not mind if Deputy Byrne said that, because if he were Minister he would give everybody everything. He would not keep anything from anybody. He is the most generous man in this House. I do not think Deputy Byrne ever thought anybody got enough. I am not saying anything against him. That is his nature. He thinks like that. He cannot help it. But it is different when Deputy O'Higgins says it, because he belongs to the Fine Gael Party, who took 1/- off the old age pensions. For the member of the Party which was so mean as to deduct 1/- from the old age pension to say to me: "You brought this Bill in because you had to," is just turning the House into ridicule.

Mr. Sweetman

If that is the best argument the Minister can put forward he must be in a bad way.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Davin said that in October, 1947, I voted against the motion. I did. It could have meant £4,000,000. The Deputy was far too modest in his estimate.

Mr. Davin

I publically challenge the Minister on that. The Minister said that it would cost £500,000 but not more than £750,000.

Dr. Ryan

It could cost £4,000,000 because there was no limit to it.

Mr. Sweetman

Is the Minister seriously saying, as Minister, with all the resources of his Department behind him, that that motion would cost £4,000,000.

Dr. Ryan

It could. Does the Deputy know what the motion was? The estimate was £750,000.

Mr. Davin

The maximum, you said.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister is taking the example of the Tánaiste— chance anything.

Dr. Ryan

I said the estimate was £750,000 but it could cost £4,000,000. Do Deputies realise what the motion was? It was put down by Deputy O'Higgins and another Fine Gael Deputy. It was such a ridiculous motion that the Labour Party did not take any part at all in the debate except to vote. Neither Deputy Davin nor Deputy Norton spoke on it.

Mr. Davin

The Minister must have lost his memory on figures and everything else.

Dr. Ryan

The Labour Party were ashamed to speak on it. All they did was to vote on it. I remember saying that as far as (a) and (b) were concerned they were already conceded. But (c) was that the earnings of a man over 70 would not be taken into account. Did Deputy Norton attempt to embody that principle in legislation in the course of his three years in office? Of course he did not. It was all right for Deputy Davin to walk into the Division Lobby in 1947 and ask: "Which way am I to vote?" He voted with Fine Gael as he usually did, but he did not know what the motion was about. I think Deputy Davin is an honest man and that he would not have voted for it if he knew what it was about. But Deputy Norton never attempted to bring that into operation. A motion was brought up by Fine Gael, in their usual irresponsible way when there is another Government in office, saying that the earnings of a man over 70 should not be taken into account. Of course, it was the most ridiculous motion ever brought in, and I naturally voted against it.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Have you a copy of the motion?

Dr. Ryan

I have looked it up. That is what the motion was. Every time that the subject of social welfare comes up here either Deputy Norton or Deputy Davin tells the House about my voting against a motion in 1947 for improving the means test for old age pensioners. Of course I did, and I would vote against it any time you bring it in. Deputy Norton voted for it, but he was Minister for Social Welfare for three and a half years and he did nothing about it. I am sure that if he were Minister for another ten years he would do nothing about it. Yet the Labour Party quoted as an injustice against the old age pensioners that I voted against it. Deputy Davin said that Deputy Norton gave £2,500,000 more to the old age pensioners.

Mr. Davin

I shall have another chance of dealing with this.

Dr. Ryan

It was £1,500,000 that he said, not £2,500,000. However, the Deputy was nearer the truth than he is usually.

Mr. Sweetman

I think Deputy Davin also mentioned widows' and orphans' pensions when giving the figures.

Mr. Davin

£2,750,000 is the right figure when you include widows and orphans.

Dr. Ryan

The increase in the Social Welfare Vote for the three years that the Coalition Government was in power was about £1,500,000 altogether. How that was distributed I do not know.

Mr. Davin

£1,000,000 does not matter.

Dr. Ryan

No. You can distribute it whatever way you like. Deputy Davin painted a beautiful picture. He said that I produced an amendment to Deputy Norton's Social Welfare Bill. Naturally, I did it on behalf of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Davin

When the Vote had been taken.

Dr. Ryan

I am a good Party member. Deputy Davin says that when the proceedings concluded we marched over to Mount Street. It is only a small matter and I will forgive him for making a mistake. I remember that I was in a desperate hurry and I left here immediately. I left somebody else to correct the proofs—they were all right, of course. Anyway, I did not go to Mount Street, nor did any member of my Party. As far as an alternative scheme is concerned, I do not know what Deputy Davin is talking about——

Mr. Davin

It was published in the papers the following day.

Dr. Ryan

An alternative scheme? What was the difference?

Mr. Davin

There is a complete loss of memory.

Dr. Ryan

I remember that there was a summary which I made up myself to show the members of my own Party what this proposal was going to cost. A copy of the summary was there and it was handed to the Press with other things. As far as I remember there was no departure from that summary in the speech made here.

Mr. Davin

You increased the cost by adding to what Deputy Norton was proposing.

Dr. Ryan

I said the increased cost would be £4.6 million. Deputy Norton said it would be £10,000,000. I will be bringing a Social Welfare Bill before the Dáil and we can analyse these figures. I do not say the scheme will be the same as Deputy Norton's, but I say that it will be quite evident when I bring the scheme before the Dáil that Deputy Norton was making a very wild guess when he said it would cost £10,000,000. It will be nothing like that. We could not afford that amount of money.

Deputy Byrne said that he hoped this was only a step. I suppose that is true —probably it is. Deputy Byrne also said that there was an increase of 10/- a week in the cost of food. I am afraid he will have to refer that to some economist. It appears to be a rather wild statement and could hardly stand a test. Deputy Corish asked two questions. As to the first, the residence test is this:—

"He or she must have resided in the State for an aggregate period of 30 years. In the case of an Irish citizen not less than six years or in the case of any other person not less than 16 years of that period must be after 50 years of age."

As far as the person mentioned by Deputy Corish is concerned, if the person has lived for 30 years in the aggregate in this country and has been here for six years between 50 and 70 years of age he should be eligible for a pension on the residence test at any rate.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Does it mean six years prior to the application?

Dr. Ryan

Of the 30 years, six must be between 50 and 70 years of age. However, if the Deputy thinks it should be amended we can consider that when we come to the Social Welfare Bill. As to the fuel vouchers, it is not true that any change has been made since the 2/6 extra was given. The same conditions apply and these conditions have been circulated to the local authorities concerned year after year. It is a matter for the local authority to make its own conditions. Some local authorities make different conditions from others. I could not say, unless Deputy Corish were to ask a question about it, whether there is a change in any particular town or not.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

There is no change as far as you are concerned?

Dr. Ryan

No. Deputy Corish also made the point that £1 is not sufficient for a man or woman to keep himself or herself. The way I look at these social welfare schemes is that I think it could be argued that an old person could not keep himself on £1 a week. I am afraid we have to admit that it is not sufficient, but the hope always is that with £1 per week some relative will give him a little assistance to help him over his difficulties, or, if the person is absolutely destitute, the local authority must come in with some contribution from home assistance.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

They do not do that. If any relative assists a pensioner and it is found out by the investigating officer the pension automatically goes.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I believe it is regarded as charity now.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. We must be clear with regard to another matter because Deputy Desmond has not stated the position correctly. The old age pension was 10/- up to 1947. In 1947, when I was Minister for Social Welfare, we gave an increase in all the ranges of the social services. As far as the old age pensioner is concerned, the increase was 2/6 in the rural areas and 5/- in the urban areas. In addition to that, in the rural areas it was arranged, if you like, that where the local authority thought that a recipient of an old age pension was not getting sufficient they could give an extra 2/6 and the central authority would recoup the local authority in that case to the extent of 80 per cent., I think it was. I know that the local authority was recouped a large percentage.

Mr. Desmond

Is it not correct to say that the 10/- was the maximum in rural areas and that the additional 2/6 bringing it to 12/6 was got by the recipient going to the home assistance officer?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Desmond

I had cases of it and I know it.

Dr. Ryan

You are wrong in that. In 1947 the old age pensioner automatically got an extra 2/6 in the rural areas and 5/- in the urban areas. In addition to the 12/6 in the rural areas he got another 2/6 by going to the dispensary.

Mr. Desmond

Not in the rural areas.

Dr. Ryan

There is no use in the Deputy trying to persuade me that that is not true, because I know that Deputy Norton brought it up to 17/6 all round, and now it is up to £1. Deputy Desmond and Deputy Davin have said that, if the Coalition Government had remained in power, the old age pensioners would now be getting a higher pension, and would be getting it at 65.

Mr. Davin

I say this positively, and I invite the Minister to examine the records, that the Social Welfare Bill would be in operation on the 1st January if the inter-Party Government had remained in power and Deputy Norton were Minister for Social Welfare. I invite the Minister to examine the official records on that for confirmation.

Dr. Ryan

Not only the records confirm it but Deputy Norton who, when speaking on a recent occasion on the Social Welfare Bill, admitted that although he had hoped to bring it in on the 1st January, the officials had told him all the time that it would be impossible to do that before the Ist April.

Mr. Davin

Who instructed the officials to prepare the record of what you are saying now? Who gave the instruction?

Dr. Ryan

I know that sometimes, even though an instruction is given, it cannot be carried out. I gave an instruction that the social welfare should be through before Christmas, but it was not carried out.

Mr. Davin

Blame yourself.

Dr. Ryan

It is on record in a file in the Department that I gave an instruction that the Social Welfare Bill should be through before Christmas, but it could not be done, and it was not done. Deputy Norton admitted that, although he gave an instruction, the officials told him it would be impossible to implement the scheme before the 1st January.

Mr. Davin

They gave him their own opinion.

Dr. Ryan

Well, that is the position anyway, and I suppose there is not much use in arguing about it. The last thing I want to refer to is this. Deputy O'Higgins said that the Bill was brought in and the people of the country could thank the Coalition Government for it. Well, now he is absolutely right. It was the Coalition Government, and not the Department of Social Welfare, because it was the only Bill that I have known in the last 30 years of Government in this country which did not originate in the Department. I asked for the file of this Old Age Pensions Bill to see what were the views expressed by the various Departments on it, and to my amazement, and for the first time, I read that a direction came from the Government to the Department to say: "You are to bring in a Bill on the following lines."

Mr. Sweetman

The difference was that we governed and not the Civil Service.

Dr. Ryan

That is all right, but it was the only occasion during 30 years where that was done, where the Government said: "We will give 2/6 a week increase to the old age pensioners and tell the Social Welfare Department to get it done." It was the only occasion on which that was done in the last 30 years. It was the only occasion on which it was done by the Coalition Government and, of course, we know why. It was done just before the Bill was brought into the Dáil, when there was a break in the Coalition Party. The Government considered the matter, and found that the only thing they could do was to increase the old age pensions and say, as Deputy Davin said to me tonight—it is the old argument used against recalcitrant Deputies: "Are you going to vote against the increase for the old age pensioners?" That is what kept them together up to a certain stage, but they broke eventually.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

You told them to go to the home assistance officers, that you were not going to give them the half-crown.

Dr. Ryan

I do not want to be offensive to the Deputy, but I have explained all that.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The inter-Party Government removed that.

Dr. Ryan

I ask the Deputy to listen to me because I want to instruct him for his good. I have already told Deputy Desmond what happened in that case. I am not going to repeat it again because it would be boring to other members of the Dáil, but the Deputy can read what I said in the Official Report.

Mr. Desmond

It is not correct.

Dr. Ryan

It is. I do not bet, but I will bet 2/6d. with the Deputy that I am right.

Mr. Desmond

I will take you.

Dr. Ryan

All right. I do not bet anything worth while. I say that the Old Age Pension Bill, as far as the Coalition Government are concerned, originated in an endeavour to keep the Coalition Party together, but that, as far as this Party is concerned, it originated in an endeavour to do what is just to the old people of this country. That is the difference between the two sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.