As Deputy Rowlette has no chance of putting in an amendment, if he wants to raise Section 6 again, this is his opportunity now, because I am asking the House to take all the stages.

The Minister then will consider any amendment I may propose?

Certainly, with the permission of the House.

I propose that instead of the words "not exceeding £150" there be inserted the words "not exceeding the sum of £100 per annum."

The Deputy will please give the Chair the amendment in writing. The Chair would like some guidance from the Minister as to whether this is public money.

It is, Sir.

In that case the Deputy it not entitled to submit an amendment increasing the charge, but the Minister might take notice of the terms of the amendment.

I do not know, Sir, if I can exactly advise you on this matter. The funds to be expended, of course, are the funds of the Hospitals Sweepstakes, and whether or not it would be in order to put in an amendment disposing of funds of that kind I do not know.

As far as the Chair is concerned, I think the Deputy would be in order, since no charge on public funds is involved.

They are only public to the extent that the Exchequer gets some of them.

Would the Minister agree to the amendment in different terms?

I would agree to an increased amount, but I would not agree to anything in the nature of a pension. I would agree to anything in the nature of a gratuity.

Would the Minister suggest an increased sum?

Is the salary £150 at present?

Yes.

How long has he been drawing it?

20 or 25 years.

How old is he?

Somebody told me he was 83 years of age. I do not know whether that is correct or not.

£100 a year is not much to give him.

I would rather give him a gratuity.

It is a usual thing when abolishing an office to give two-thirds.

Not for a part-time office. He holds many other posts.

I should like to ask the Minister whether, in connection with the grants paid to the hospitals superintended by those boards during the last few years, a considerable amount of money has been saved to the State?

That is so.

In regard to an elderly official, as in this case, there is no question of any serious amount, and, if the Minister is meeting the matter in the spirit in which Deputy Dr. Rowlette asks him, he might perhaps agree to change the measure so that it will read "payment of such sum as the Minister for Local Government, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, may agree upon."

The Deputy is going to make it hard for him to get anything. Why not give him £100 a year? It is only two-thirds, and that is the usual thing on the abolition of an office.

It is usual in the case of a permanent official, but this is only a part-time official. That is different.

Surely the Minister can at least compromise and give him £75 a year.

I would rather confine it to a gratuity, whatever the sum would be.

I do not know how well-off this gentleman is, but to a very old man the safety of an annuity is much more valuable than a lump sum of money.

This might be a question of giving a pension for a part-time post. Anybody who has been connected with the Department of Local Government, Deputy Mulcahy or Deputy Cosgrave, for instance, will appreciate this, that if he once gave way on this question, and certainly on a principle of this kind, then he would have dozens of other cases where it would be argued that in such and such a case the position was a part-time one and a pension was sanctioned.

I understand that this one differs from all the other cases, and that the money comes from the Hospitals Sweep, and not out of the taxpayers' pockets. Therefore, they could not say what the Minister suggests. Goodness knows, the Hospitals Sweeps people are lavish enough in many ways.

I think if I suggested to the House to give him a sum of £500 as a gratuity, it might meet the situation.

I am afraid it is better to accept the Minister's charity.

Generosity.

The words of the section will be amended to read, in lines 29 and 30, "not exceeding £500."