Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1960

Vol. 52 No. 7

Army Pensions Bill, 1960 ( Certified Money Bill )— Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Is é príomh-chuspóir an Bhille éifeacht reachtúil a thabhairt do na méaduithe ar phinsin chréachta, ar phinsin mhíchumais agus ar phinsin phósta agus ar liúntais áirithe do chleithiúnaithe daoine marbha a deonadh ón lú Lúnasa, 1959, amach, ar údarás Meastacháin Bhreise le haghaidh pinsean a ritheadh i nDáil Éireann ar an 22ú Iúil, 1959.

Tríd is tríd, tá na méaduithe sin, a bhfuil trácht déanta orthu in Alt 2 go hAlt 25 go huile, de réir na méaduithe le haghaidh pinsinéirí Stáit, i gcoitinne, a údaraíodh ag an Aire Airgeadais ina Ráiteas ar an gCáinaisnéis in Aibreán, 1959, ach nuair a luaitear dátaí cáilitheacha maidir le hurscaoileadh, meastar, ós dátaí an lú Meán Fómhair, 1949, agus an lú Aibreán, 1950, a ghabhann le hathruithe ar phá an Airm, go bhfuil siad níos oiriúnaí ina leith sin ná an lú Samhain, 1948, agus an lú Samhain, 1952—is é sin, na dátaí a luadh sa Ráiteas Cáinaisnéise do phinsinéirí eile Stáit. Tá pinsinéirí oifigeach a bhfuil a bpinsin gaolmhar do phá, ag fáil méaduithe de 6% nó de 4% (de réir an dáta urscaoilte) faoi réir na teorann, áfach, nach féidir pinsean a mhéadú thar an tsuim a bheadh iníochta dá n-urscaoiltí an duine atá á fháil ar an 2ú Samhain, 1952, sa chéim chéanna, leis an tseirbhís chéanna agus faoin ngrád céanna míchumais. Tá pinsinéirí eile faoi na hAchtanna, nach bhfuil a bpinsin gaolmhar do phá an Airm, ag fáil méadú de 6%. I gcás baintreach le Síniúir an Fhorógra, 1916, áfach, nach bhfuair méadú ar a liúntas bliantúil nuair a méadaíodh pinsin Stáit i 1956, tá an liúntas is iníochta léi faoi Chuid II den Acht Arm-Phinsean, 1937, á mhéadú (le hAilt 17) chun go mbeidh sé mar a bheadh, dá mbaineadh méaduithe 1956 agus 1959 leis—is é sin 6% i ngach cás ar leith. Meastar go gcosnóidh na méaduithe atá á soláthar sa Bhille £11,500 in aghaidh na bliana. Nuair a bhí an coinníoll i dtaobh cleithiúnas i leith baintreacha agus leanaí daoine marbha lenar bhain an Dara agus an Tríú Sceidil leis an Acht 1923 á thógaint as na Sceidil sin le hAlt 2 den Acht 1959, tharla nár luadh Alt amháin (Alt 2 den Acht Arm Phinsean, 1946) de na hAilt a thug cumhacht chuige agus a bhí ag gabháil leis na Sceidil. Tá sin á dhéanamh anois in Alt 26 den Bhille seo agus le héifeacht amhail ón dáta ar a ritheadh an tAcht 1959.

Bhí ar intinn feidhm a bheith ag an am-theorainn fhadaithe atá ann faoi Alt 9 den Acht 1959 maidir le hiarratas ar liúntas faoi Chuid II den Acht 1953, ó ghaol do dhuine marbh ag a raibh seirbhís roimh an Sos, a thagann i dteideal an liúntais tar éis bás a ghaoil lenar íocadh ar dtús é. Tá an intinn sin á cur in éifeacht le hAlt 27 den Bhille seo.

Le hAlt 37 den Acht Arm-Phinsean, 1953, cuireadh srian le "hath-phinsin" nó le pinsin "phósta" áirithe a mhéadú nuair a bhí siad ina gcuid de phinsin mhíchumais ba mhó iontu féin nó i dteannta pinsin Óglaigh na hÉireann, ná £450 sa bhliain. Is chuige Alt 28 den Bhille seo chun an srian sin a bhaint amach i gcás pinsinéirí a urscaoileadh (scoireadh) tar éis an lú Eanáir, 1953, trína thabhairt, go mbeidh éifeacht sna cásanna sin ag na méaduithe a bhaineann le "hathphinsin" nó le pinsin "phósta".

Tugadh Ailt 29 agus 30 isteach mar leasuithe ag céim Choiste an Bhille i nDáil Éireann de bhun iarratais ina leith a rinneadh ag roinnt Teachtaí. Ceapadh na hailt sin chun go bhféadfaidh daoine ag a raibh seirbhís roimh an Sos cáiliú le haghaidh pinsean pósta agus chun go bhféadfaidh a gcleithiúnaithe cáiliú le haghaidh liúntas—ar choinníoll go ndearnadh an pósadh roimh an 5ú Lúnasa, 1953, agus go gcomhlíontar, ar ndóigh, gach rud eile atá leagtha síos ag an Acht. Ba é an 5ú Lúnasa, 1943, an dáta a achtaíodh an tAcht-Phinsean, 1953, agus, faoin Acht sin, fadaíodh an dáta cáilitheach cheana go dtí an 10ú Nollaig, 1932.

Tá súil agam go bhfaighidh Seanadóirí sa ghearr-chuntas seo ar théarmaí an Bhille, léargas ginearálta ar a bhfuil sa Bhille ar fad.

The main object of the Bill is to give statutory effect to the increases in wound, disability and married pensions and in certain allowances to dependants of deceased persons which were granted from 1st August, 1959, on the authority of a Supplementary Estimate for pensions passed in Dáil Éireann on 22nd July, 1959.

The increases, which are dealt with in Sections 2 to 25 inclusive are broadly in accordance with the increases for State pensioners, generally, authorised by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement in April, 1959, except that where qualifying dates of discharge are mentioned, 1st September, 1949 and 1st April, 1950, being dates associated with Army pay changes, are considered to be more appropriate than 1st November, 1948, and 1st November, 1952, the dates mentioned in the Budget Statement for other State pensioners. Officer pensioners whose pensions are related to pay are receiving 6 % or 4% increases (depending on date of discharge) subject to the limitation, however, that a pension must not increase beyond the amount which would be payable if the recipient had been discharged on 2nd November, 1952, with similar rank, service and degree of disablement. Other pensioners under the Acts, whose pensions are not related to Army pay are receiving an increase of 6%. In the case, however, of the widow of a Signatory of the 1916 Proclamation who did not receive an increase in her annual allowance when State pensions were increased in 1956, the amount of the allowance payable to her under Part II of the Army Pensions Act, 1937, is being increased (in Section 17) to the level which it would have reached if both the 1956 and 1959 increases applied (6% in each case). The estimated annual cost of the increases provided in the Bill is £11,500.

When the removal from the Second and Third Schedules to the Act of 1923 of the dependency requirement in respect of the widows and children of deceased persons to whom the Schedules applied was being effected in Section 2 of the Act of 1959, one of the enabling Sections associated with these Schedules (Section 2 of the Army Pensions Act, 1946) was not cited. This is now being done in Section 26 of this Bill—with effect from the date on which the Act of 1959 was passed.

It was intended that the extended time limit afforded by Section 9 of the Act of 1959 should operate in respect of an application for an allowance under Part II of the Act of 1953 from a surviving relative of a deceased person with pre-Truce service who becomes entitled to the allowance after the death of the relative to whom it was first paid. Section 27 of this Bill gives effect to that intention.

Section 37 of the Army Pensions Act, 1953, imposed a restriction on the increase of certain "further" or "married" pensions where they formed part of disablement pensions which, alone or when aggregated with Defence Force pensions, exceeded £450 per annum. The purpose of Section 28 is to remove that restriction in the cases of pensioners discharged after 1st January, 1953, so that from 1st August, 1959, the increases applicable to "further" or "married" pensions will be enabled to take effect in such cases.

Sections 29 and 30 were introduced (by way of amendments on the Committee stage of the Bill in Dáil Éireann) in response to representations which were made by a number of Deputies. The sections are designed to enable persons with pre-Truce service to qualify for married pensions— and their dependants for allowances— if the marriage took place before 5th August, 1953, and if, of course, all the other requirements of the Acts are complied with as well. The 5th August, 1953, was the date of enactment of the Army Pensions Act, 1953 (under which the qualifying date had already been extended to 10th December, 1932).

I trust that this précis of the terms of the Bill will have furnished Seanadóiri with an outline of what is contained in the measure.

I want to thank the Minister or anybody who gives anything to the ex-soldiers. Does the Minister realise the position of Army pensions generally in relation to the continual diminishing value of money and the hardships caused to old soldiers by the steadily lessening value of the pensions awarded to them? I do not intend to deal with pensions awarded to generals, colonels or people in high categories. I am vitally affected by the pensions awarded to private soldiers.

This does not arise.

It might arise generally on the Bill.

The Army Pensions Acts deal only with disability pensions.

It does not arise on this Bill at all?

The Senator is thinking of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes. They do not arise.

In Section 4, there is a reference to "further pensions".

They are married disability pensions.

There is nothing in this Bill affecting the normal Army pensions?

No. They are Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes. Shortly, there will be an amendment to the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes.

On which I can come in. I apologise.

I should like to say in relation to this Bill, and what I say really applies to all the Bills before us now in relation to the raising of pensions, that I do not quite understand why it is that such a small percentage, in most of the cases in this Bill a percentage of from 4 to 6, is considered adequate as an increase in pension, whether it be a disability pension or otherwise, in order to cope with a rise in the cost of living since 1953 of 15 per cent.

It is obvious that pensions, by their very nature, are less in amount than salaries. Being less in amount they are, as it were, less resilient under the impact of a rise in the cost of living. There is less slack to be taken in. In other words, a pensioner living on a small amount of money will be squeezed even more by such a rise than a person living on a relatively small salary, which however small is nevertheless larger than a pension.

In Bill after Bill introduced by Minister after Minister dealing with pensions, we find a miserable percentage increase, as in this Bill, compared even with the increases, not always adequate, proposed in relation to salaries. It is generally recognised that the cost of living has gone up. It was considered necessary, and the Government came in and told us so, to increase the salaries of Supreme Court Judges, High Court Judges and other judges by 10 per cent., to allow for differences in the cost of living since 1953.

It was considered necessary to raise the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General by over 18 per cent. owing to similar considerations. These percentage increases related to salaries, consequently to amounts of money considerably in excess of the amounts upon which the people affected by this Bill have to live, people on disability and wound pensions. Yet, for these people, living on these much smaller amounts, the Minister comes here and asks us to allow him to increase them only by amounts ranging from 4 to 6 per cent.

In the Dáil, talking about the Bill on the increase of salaries for Judges, the Taoiseach himself in the debate admitted that the cost of living had gone up since 1953 by approximately 15 per cent. He admitted that the 10 per cent. they were then suggesting in relation to Judges' salaries was in fact not quite enough. Nevertheless, that 10 per cent. was quite considerably in excess of what we are to-night being asked to grant under this Bill. In other words, as I read them—I should like to hear the Minister's opinion—these increases are grossly inadequate. It is easy for us to stand up here and say that, I know, but it is our duty to draw attention to the fact that a different practice is being applied by the Government as between people on relatively high salary scales and people out on pension by reason of disability or some other reason.

As the Minister stated, these increases have been paid since last August. That being so, this is merely a Bill to legalise the payments now being made. Undoubtedly, like Senator Sheehy Skeffington, every one of us would like these increases to be much bigger, but we have to be grateful for small mercies and appreciate concessions when given. Indeed, we do appreciate them and we hope that, when the time is opportune, the points made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington will be remembered.

This is a Bill to legalise increases already given. As Senators will see, the increases come under about 18 different headings. I suppose it is a Bill on which there can be no controversy, seeing that the persons concerned are enjoying the increases already.

Last July on the occasion of the debate on the Army Pensions Bill, 1959, I requested the Minister, at Col. 253 of Vol. 51 of the Official Debates to consider further matters which I thought should be included in the Bill. The Minister was good enough to tell the House that he could not consider those points at that time, but that he would consider them for further amendments on the first opportunity. He has done that in this Bill and I am very glad to be able to thank him very sincerely for this concession which he has given to a number of people who required it very much.

It will have far reaching effects in so far as it will apply to widows of men who lost their health and who because of being in poor health, went to early graves, as a result of their activities in the fight for freedom. This Bill will have far reaching effects in providing for the widows and, in many cases, orphans, of those men. I certainly congratulate the Minister on the success that he has had in dealing with this matter, and he will have the thanks of many widows and orphans of men who deserve well of this country.

In connection with that, I want to refer to the removal of the marriage ban or, if you like, the extension of the marriage date, because it was rather strange that over the years we stood over the fact that if a man married on a certain day, he would be entitled to a further married pension, but if he married the day after, he would not be so entitled. I think that was not morally sound. On that occasion I advocated, and I should like to advocate again, the entire abolition of a marriage date. At the same time, we are grateful indeed that the Minister and the Government have seen their way to extend the marriage date to 5th August, 1953. But it certainly appears to me that that is not quite right. If a man married on 6th August, 1953, he should still be entitled to a marriage pension.

Or even the 7th.

It is very hard to bring a clause like that into a Bill and make a law like that in a free country where a man is entitled to something if he gets married on 4th August and the same man if he gets married under the same circumstances on the 6th August gets nothing.

Not the same man.

He might turn up on the following day.

He is the same man and the circumstances are the same and it would be the same woman, too, if she did not turn up on the 5th. At any rate, I think that is still the marriage ban and I have no doubt that the day will come when somebody will stand up in this House and ask for the removal of that ban sometime after 1953. However, we are grateful indeed, and I am anxious to know whether or not an application must be made in each case. I understand that the numbers are not large, but I can quite understand the case of a widow in some part of the country who might not be in touch with what has been happening in this House and when this Bill becomes an Act, will she know that she is entitled to apply for this widow's pension? How will she know that? How will it be advertised?

In previous Acts, there were advertisements in the daily and weekly Press, but I think that, in addition to that, notices should be displayed in every post office and sub-post office. In that way, word will get around and the people entitled to this pension will have an opportunity of hearing about it and making application for it. I am satisfied that the Minister has done a good job and I shall conclude by offering him the thanks of the House and our sincere appreciation of the work he has put into this since the last occasion when he appeared here with an Army Pensions Bill. I assure him I am speaking on behalf of many of the people concerned when I say that we are grateful.

In my opinion, there is very little to congratulate the Minister on or thank him for in this Bill. I suppose some people must be thankful for small mercies. I remember the occasion when a 50 per cent. increase was given to some of these people, and those who gave the increase were assailed and attacked by the people now in Government. Senator Ted O'Sullivan said that he would have liked the pensions to be much bigger. There is little use in saying those things in the Seanad. He is a member of the Government Party and I dare say he attended the Party's meetings at which they agreed to give £10 per week, or £500 a year, to High Court judges already in receipt of salaries of over £4,000. That was the time when he should have put up the arguments he is now putting up and have said: "If we can give £500 per year to people in secure positions, surely we can give a better increase than 1/- or 1/6 per week as we are giving to certain people under this Bill."

This Bill is supposed to mitigate the hardship caused through the continued uprise in prices. Those people are incapable of working or of adding to their pensions in any way. The majority of the husbands gave service to this country in the past and helped to build up this State. These people retired on pensions in days and circumstances which were easier and when the cost of living was much less than it is to-day. They looked forward to security in their old age. Now it cannot be denied that hardship exists and that in the majority of cases, it is severe. There is very little being done in this Bill to give those people security, to give them justice, or to give them fair play.

We can all criticise this Bill on the grounds that the increases to be given are very meagre. In the Dáil recently, when the Taoiseach spoke about judges' salaries, he said that they should get a salary sufficient to put them in a position in which they would be as far as possible immune from improper influence of any kind. It is a pity the Taoiseach, the Minister for Defence who is here tonight and the Government did not give those pensioners increases to keep them as far as possible immune from hunger and want. They are not getting any such increases in this Bill. In spite of the increases they are getting, grave hardships will still exist amongst those unfortunate people who were led to expect so much from the Government when they were in Opposition.

I think it was on Budget Day last year that these people got the first indication from the Minister for Finance that it was proposed to introduce Pension Bills during the year to cushion them against increases in the cost of living. Many of the increases were brought about by deliberate Government policy and deliberate action on the part of the Government. High hopes were again raised in the breasts of those people when they saw the increases which the district justices and the judges got. The lowest increase granted by the Government to these people was £175 per year. They ranged up to £500 per year. When those people saw those increases being given, they were entitled to say to themselves that if the Government had this money to expand, they could expect something worthwhile. Fianna Fáil have been in labour for almost a year and they have definitely produced a mouse. Some of these people are getting increases as low as 1/- and 1/6 per week.

I think it is a disgrace especially coming from a Party who claim to represent the poor and who brag so much at times about all they are doing for the poor of this country. They have made many people poor but they have done very little afterwards to relieve the hardships which they themselves, through deliberate budgetary policy, imposed on those people.

We can bring our minds back to 1956. The people who were then in Opposition are now in Government. Increases were given to some people ranging up to 50 per cent.

I would draw attention to the fact that the Minister has already indicated that this Bill has nothing to do with increases in salaries or with the Defence Forces.

I know, Sir.

The Senator will have to relate his arguments from this on to the Bill.

It does concern pensioners. I am talking about pensioners who are getting meagre pensions and meagre increases under this Bill.

The Senator has been discussing salaries.

I only made a comparison.

The Senator will now come to the Bill.

The Senator is relating his speech to the Bill, Sir. I think the 1957 Budget increased the price of the loaf from 9d. to 1/2d. The people who were getting those pensions have to buy the loaf. They have to pay 5d. more for it. They are even paying ½d. more for it since the day before yesterday. The Budget increased the price of butter from 3/9d. to 4/4d. Those pensioners have to buy butter to put on their bread and it is costing 7d. per lb. more. The least they have to use is six loaves or two pounds of butter a week making an increase of 4/- per week.

We have, as the Minister stated, granted those unfortunate people an increase which in some cases is as low as 9d. per week. I think it is a disgrace. We all know in this country that it is the poor man, the man with the very small pension of £2 or £3 per week, who has to depend on bread and butter alone. Such a pensioner cannot go to an hotel. The cost of living has hit the pensioners mentioned in this Bill harder than anybody else and there is very little being done in the Bill to alleviate their hardships.

I must thank Senators generally for the manner in which this measure was received. Senator Sheehy Skeffington mentioned that the judges got a 10 per cent. increase but, of course, these Army pensioners, under the Army Pensions Acts, got an increase in 1956 in conjunction with State pensioners generally. This is a further increase now in 1959.

Senator L'Estrange suggests apparently that these disability pensions should be something of the same order as judges' salaries. No doubt, we would all like it if that could be done. It is not done and never has been done. The fact of the matter is that judges and people of that nature everywhere are, in fact, paid large salaries. It is not possible to provide similar amounts for disability pensioners.

Nobody is worth more than £1,000 a year, it was said.

The Senator was not referring to the Army Pensions Acts at all. He was talking about people who have retired on pension. There is nobody dealt with under the Army Pensions Acts by way of retirement pension as such. I explained in my opening address that this Bill deals with disability pensions generally. I shall repeat what I said for the benefit of the Senator—wounds, disability and marriage pensions and certain allowances to dependants of deceased persons. I am not surprised that Senator L'Estrange knows nothing about these Bills. They refer to people who received wounds or contracted disability during the period 1916 to 1923.

I thank Senator Ted O'Sullivan for his remarks in relation to the extension of the married date for further married pensions. I cannot agree to his suggestion that the latest date for marriage should be abolished altogether. I am definitely of the opinion that there must be some time limit laid down in this respect. I can see no case whatever for removing it. If you have no time limit, then you can possibly have, as occurred, I believe, in other countries, even deathbed marriages for the sake of getting this further married pension which continues on to the widow.

That would never happen in this country.

It happened in other countries, at any rate. I think the latest date for marriage that is laid down now in this Bill is very reasonable. It is about 30 years after the date on which the wound was received or the disability contracted, and that is a reasonable period. It is practically inconceivable that anybody affected would be under the age of 50 years, at any rate, by 5th August, 1953, so that I think this date will inflict no hardship on anybody. As I said here before, even to extend it as far as it was done before, to 1932, was a considerable concession, but now that we have extended it to 30 years after the date on which the disability could have been contracted, we have done all that anybody could reasonably expect.

With regard to making applications for these pensions which are affected by the extension of the marriage date, we shall do everything we possibly can to make sure that everybody concerned will know what the position is. Anybody we know of who is affected will be notified. In addition, we shall advertise the provisions of the Act in the Press and on the radio. People who are affected generally are in touch with the various Old I.R.A. organisations, and the provisions of the Act will be fairly widely known among them. It is unlikely that there will be anybody left out through not applying. Certainly, everything we can do to make this new concession known to the people concerned will be done.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill considered in Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I wonder if the Minister would refer to the First and Second Schedules and give us an indication of the kind and number of people who receive pensions, say, of £300 in column 3 and especially those who receive a pension of £73. Are there many people in that category? I would be particularly interested in the average age of the people in that category, and also of the people who will be covered by the pensions to be granted in Column 3 of the Second Schedule. It does not appear that a sum of £4 per annum to somebody enjoying a pension of £69 at the present time will go any distance to alleviate the hardship they will undoubtedly suffer from, and neither will the sum of 9d. per week make any appreciable difference whatever to a person in receipt of 14/6 a week. I should like to know what kind of people will be in receipt of these pensions, particularly in the lower ranges set out in Column 3.

The different rates of pension are proportionate to the degree of disability assessed by the Army Pensions Board, and the Senator may take it that those at the lower rates would have comparatively slight degrees of disability. With regard to the average ages, in the case of a wound or disability incurred in the period 1916-1923, we could assume that there would be very few of the people concerned under the age of 20 in 1923, so that the average age would be about 60. Naturally enough, on the lower rates of pensions, the amount based on the figure of 6 per cent. works out smaller than it does at the higher rates of pension, but the people on the lower rates have very small degrees of disability.

If people who received wounds and are consequently receiving disability pensions in respect of wounds received between 1916 and 1923, is it any matter for congratulation in this House that in 1960, at a time when Ministers are saying that we are at the dawn of a bright future, we are on the verge of a major economic break-through, the best we can do for these people is to give them 9d. a week for wounds received in trying to establish the freedom of this country? It is nothing for us to be proud of.

We gave an increase of 6 per cent. to State pensioners generally.

I am not at all impressed by neatness of mathematical calculations. Giving a man 9d. a week and saying that it is 6 per cent. still leaves it 9d. a week, and it is an insult to give it to him.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill".

This is just a continuance of the miserable figures in this Bill. I should like to ask the Minister in the case of a widow of a soldier who is to receive, in view of whatever she is receiving at present, 22/9 per week during widowhood and 8/6 a week for each child while she is living, how these figures compare with the lowest rate of widow's pension, let alone contributory pension?

They would also have the widow's pension, in addition to this.

I do not understand that that is the position. I understand that there is a considerable degree of interlocking in these cases and no certainty at all that they will get the widow's pension.

The Minister for Health will take it from them, if they win a crossword.

I do not wish to take up the Minister flatly but I understand that it is not as the Minister says now.

If they qualify for the widow's pension.

There is a proviso in that—if they qualify.

Of course.

Perhaps we should not comment on this. I can see concern in various parts of the House about this matter. It is no wonder I see concern.

Will these pensions be taken into account at all in calculating means?

Any widow who qualifies for a widow's pension will get it, irrespective of this.

Has the Minister directed his mind to the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts, which say that in taking into account the means of a widow, no regard will be had to any pension she is getting under this Act? Is that what the Minister is saying is the position?

As far as I know, that is the position.

I think the House is entitled to some more certain knowledge that that. However, there is another matter I want to refer to, that is, the allowances to dependants. There is provision for repayment of the amount proved to be expended on educational fees not exceeding £60 in any year, in respect of any one child. I wonder would the Minister indicate upon what the judgment will be based as to what are fees properly and necessarily incurred to provide education. Is it merely related, say, to fees that would be payable for a child attending a vocational school or a secondary school where fees have to be paid or does it also include an allowance while the children are attending school?

Supposing they were attending a day school in the city and the fees were £20 per annum, would the balance of the £60 be paid to the parents or the guardians of the children in respect of maintenance?

What would the position be if the children were sent away to boarding schools?

We would pay the fees up to £60.

If a child goes away to boarding school, would the full £60 be paid?

It seems to me that if a child is sent away to boarding school, that takes away from the mother of the child any responsibility for feeding him and providing pocket money for his activities outside school hours. There is not any reason why the difference between the amount of the school fees and the amount payable, £60, should not be paid to the mother in respect to the maintenance of the child at home.

There is an additional allowance paid in respect of each child, apart from school fees.

I am aware of that. It is an allowance that certainly will not maintain a child. We all know that.

I should like to suggest that the Minister might consider, in the light of what Senator O'Quigley has said, that in interpreting this last clause, the people whose duty it is to interpret it would be bound to interpret "educational fees" as comprising only tuition fees, even if paid to boarding schools. They could take it to include what might be regarded as board and lodging. The narrow interpretation could be taken as meaning tuition fees only. In that case, if the children went to boarding school, perhaps only a small proportion of that £60 could be allowed under the terms of the Bill as drafted.

That is not the way it is interpreted.

Who, in fact, would interpret it? Is it the Minister?

Yes. The Department interprets it, or it is interpreted by the Minister. That is how it has been interpreted in the previous legislation which is now being amended. The educational fees would be such amount as would be regarded as having been properly expended.

The parents are the chief educators of the child so I cannot see why the parent of the child who is receiving some of its education at home—not necessarily tuition in respect of academic matters—should not be entitled to get at least as much as the boarding school would get. The Minister might well consider that educational fees embrace a good deal more than mere tuition, and stretch the interpretation to enable payments to be made in respect of school-going children up to the age of 18 years who are maintained at home. I press that on the Minister.

Educational fees can be interpreted only as fees in respect of education and we are interpreting it quite liberally. I agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that the full amount of fees for boarding school would be paid up to a limit of £60 but I cannot see how it would be possible to stretch it to make payments in respect of something other than educational fees, as suggested by Senator O'Quigley.

Suppose a child is living with his mother 15 miles from a day school and the mother decides that, instead of sending the child to a boarding school, she will send him to the town 15 miles away where an aunt of the child lives, and the child can stay with the aunt, attend the day school, and go home at weekends. Would the Minister, in that case, make the payments up to £60 in respect of the child who is residing with an aunt and not attending boarding school?

I do not know of any case such as that suggested by the Senator. I do not know if such a case has ever arisen, but the matter would be considered, if it did arise. It is purely a hypothetical question as far as I am concerned.

So far as hypothesis is concerned, my experience has been that in the country where people live seven or eight miles from a town with a day school, children stay with relations or other people rather than attend a boarding school. I should hope that the Minister would interpret that as part of the fees necessary to educate a child, even if the child were not attending boarding school.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.
Barr
Roinn