Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 18 May 1923

Vol. 3 No. 16

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

The PRESIDENT

I beg to move: "That a sum not exceeding £2,177,000 be granted to complete the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1924, for Old Age Pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 to 1919, for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith, and for pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920." A sum of £1,093,000 had been voted on account.

The amount is slightly less than last year. I think we are rather committed to the disbursement in the case of "A" (Pensions, £3,270,000), which is scarcely just. I think quite a number of people are getting pensions from the State at the present moment who are living in fairly comfortable houses, supported by their relatives. This is a question which will have to be considered, whether it is a just burden upon the State to charge it with contributions in respect of such persons. It was not the original intention. The original idea was that persons who have reached the age of seventy years should not be left in want, but a great number of people in this country have got pensions who, under normal circumstances, would certainly not require them, and in respect of whom it was never the intention of any State to bring in legislation to provide them with pensions. However, that does not arise now. It is a matter for future consideration. I now move this vote.

Mr. P.J. McGOLDRICK

I just wish to say that, in my opinion, it is a false principle to suggest economy under this particular head. Economy has been enjoined upon the Ministry, but they have a discretion, as far as I understand, to try and keep expenditure as much as possible below the Estimates. While it might be safe and useful to do that in other Departments, the application of such a principle in this Department, dealing with Old Age Pensions would, in my opinion, be absolutely wrong. I do not think it is right to enjoin, or to expect, economy under this particular head. This is a Department to which, I think, too little attention is given, and I think that above all others in the country it is one that should have very special attention given to it. We all know that in this Department the very greatest difficulties are placed in the way of old people who are rightfully entitled to get the pension. Instead of the spirit of the Pension Act being extended towards them, these poor old people are faced with the greatest difficulties in the matter of establishing their exact position on the question of age. In my opinion these difficulties, instead of being placed in the way of old people, should be removed, and every facility should be given to them so that when they are qualified by age that they should at once receive the pensions they are entitled to. I think something should be done in that way to make it easy for those who are rightfully entitled to the pensions to get them. I know, because of the difficulties principally on the question of age that have been placed in the way of old people, that glaring cases of hardship have occurred, and a terrible injustice has been done to poor people who, while rightfully entitled to get the Old Age Pension, were denied it because of their inability to establish their cases on the question of age. I think a Nation like ours should not tolerate injustices of that kind. If we were to do so, in the present conditions in the country, we would be doing, I think, a very wrongful act. I think the Ministry should realise its responsibilities in this matter, and should give to this Department, above all others, very special attention. What I urge is that greater facilities should be given to old people who are entitled to the pension, but who may have difficulties about establishing their ages.

Now, I would ask the Government, under this head particularly, to say that they are animated by the spirit of what this Act ought to have intended, whether it intended it or not, and that is to try to provide for the poor people who are deserving and ought to participate in the charitable nature of the scheme as it was formulated and designed, that no difficulties will be placed in their way, and that no economy at all will be practised to hold up the progress of this particular matter.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

There is a good deal in the argument of the Deputy. There are undoubtedly, cases of hardship where deserving applicants do not, for one little technicality or another, receive the Old Age Pension. That may be due sometimes to misunderstanding on the part of the applicant, and, in some cases, misunderstanding, and perhaps rather big generosity of heart, on the part of some of the Pensions Committees, but frequently cases arise in different parts of the country where the local committees have recommended these pensions in certain cases, and for one reason or another they have been turned down by the Department. No doubt, the Department must stand on the strict letter of the law in these cases. Perhaps some of the Committees thought they were doing a good thing for the country by getting as much out of the British Treasury as they could, and they think they can do the same now, and the Department does not intend to allow them. But there are people in some parts of the country who, in default of getting this pension, are being put on the rates, are being maintained through some of the County Home Health schemes. The question has been raised two or three times here, mostly by way of question and answer, in certain cases, particularly as to the absence of such things as baptismal certificates. In a good many cases it is not possible for people to get baptismal certificates. The Minister has answered that question not many months ago, but I think it would be useful if he would give now a statement of the evidence that would be acceptable to the Department in default of compliance with certain technical regulations such as baptismal or marriage certificates. Not every old age pensioner has had the fortune, or misfortune, to get married and can supply a marriage certificate in default of a baptismal certificate. There is another point that might be answered, and that is what is the position of a pensioner who, for one reason or another, has removed out of the Saorstát into the Six Counties or to some part of Great Britain? Will the pension be paid by the Saorstát?

Mr. R. WILSON

He would be a brave man who would stand up before the electors at present to say that this Vote should be done away with, but the magnitude of the expense to the State can be realised when you see that every man, woman and child in the Saorstát contributes £1 to the old age pensioners; and as each old age pensioner gets £26 per year, there is one pensioner in every 26 inhabitants of the Free State. That will give you an idea of the expense that this State is under in connection with this Vote, and if Great Britain were paying at the same rate as that which applies to this country, their Vote, instead of being £16,000,000, would be something in the neighbourhood of £40,000,000. Now, my complaint is that too many people are trying to get this Old Age Pension, that there are many people who have children well able to support them, and, having regard to the fact that our country is not paying its way at present, efforts should be made— I do not say in the case of want, but in cases where it is pretty well known people can live by the support of their friends—to stem this tremendous Vote of £1 per head on every man, woman and child in the Saorstát.

Mr. J. LYONS

I am wondering at the speech of my friend on the right, Deputy Wilson. I am wondering whether the Old Age Pension was first given to relieve distress or as a kind of gratuity to honour old age. The Deputy speaks of every person in the Saorstát giving £1 per head. I think that every person who contributes towards these Old Age Pensions will agree that when a man or woman has had the honour of living to the age of 70, that person should be entitled to the pension. I do not take into account large farmers, a great many of whom at present are making their wills when they come to the age of 69, and handing all their property over to sons and daughters so that they themselves may become eligible for the pension. I see here in the Estimates for 1923-1924 the sum for Old Age Pensions is £3,270,000, and 1922-'23 it is £3,320,000, a decrease of £50,000. Item B., "Expenses of Pension Committees," is £7,700. I am beginning to wonder where this expense goes to. I am acting on an Old Age Pension Committee for the past three or four years, which, like hundreds of other committees through the country, is honorary. Of course, that £7,700 goes to pay high officials who go around the country, such as Excise officers and Income Tax officers, etc., trying to deprive the people of their pensions. If a house seems to be clean and tidy these officials say: "Those people are not entitled to the pension," but if they go up to their knees in slush at a farmer's house they say, "Those people are entitled to the pension." I really think that something ought to be done to improve this Act.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot go into the improvement of the Act at this stage.

Mr. LYONS

All right, I will confine myself to the Estimate. At present there are hundreds of old men and women who are up to the age of 70, and who are certainly entitled to the pension, but owing to not being fortunate enough to be able to secure their birth or marriage certificates they are denied the right to the pension, and, as Deputies have already explained, they are an incumbrance on the ratepayers of the locality in which they reside. I think there is a certain provision in the Act that allows a person to get a pension if the applicant can find two people older than himself or herself in the district to guarantee that they knew the applicant for such a number of years. I would like the Dáil to realise that the present generation does not live so long as generations of the past. As we go along we die younger, and it is very hard for us to find people living in the neighbourhood with the required knowledge. For instance, in another 40 years will we find one in Dublin to say "I knew President Cosgrave when he was a boy"? It will be impossible. Therefore, I think that if these people got two magistrates to sign a declaration on their oath that they were of the age, that should be sufficient to secure for these people the pension. Another matter I would like to place before the Dáil is the case of a working man who happened to be 68 years of age. If his wife happened to be 70, and if that man is in receipt of 35/- per week, that woman is deprived of the pension owing to the income brought into the house by the sweat and labour of that old man. But, then, on the other hand, you will find if a person had saved a certain amount of money, or some of their rich friends died and left in their will an amount of money to be put in the bank—say £450—at the age of 70, that £450 should be quite sufficient to pay for the maintenance of that person until the day he would have to go to the next world and give an account of his services here. That person is entitled to the pension, but the person in receipt of 35/- a week is deprived of it. Something, I certainly say, will have to be done with regard to this Old Age Pension. I have been on a sub-committee, and we have certified in several cases that the people were of the age, and when it came up, of course, to headquarters, they say they are not. They are poor, and, of course, they do not help the poor; they help the richer. If you happen to put them up the ladder, it seems to be the duty of the aristocrats to put their feet on their necks and push them down. That is the idea, and certainly something wants to be done to give the pension to those who are entitled to it. I know there are a great many people getting the pension who could live without it. I agree with removing the pension from those people who made their wills and gave their property to their own offspring, but if the decrease means depriving the working man who has worked all his life, I object to it.

Mr. D. MORRISSEY

I should like to bring one specific case under the notice of the Minister. In replying to a question of mine, I think, on Wednesday, about a man who was refused the Old Age Pension, the Minister said that the pension was disallowed, not on account of age, but because his means were estimated to exceed £49 17s. 6d. per year. What exactly does that mean? Is it because a man is supposed to have earned £49 or £50 that he is not entitled to the pension; is it because that man earned that last year, and is now incapable of working because of old age and bad eyesight, that he is not entitled to receive the pension now?

Mr. BLYTHE

It falls to me, I think, to answer the questions that have been raised in respect of Old Age Pensions, because I am the Appeal Officer in this matter. Deputy Morrissey asked a question. I am not sure, without having the papers before me, of the facts, but I understand that there has been no allegation that the man is not still earning more money than is allowed by the Act. There certainly was no statement on the papers that I saw that he had ceased to earn money.

Mr. MORRISSEY

He has.

Mr. BLYTHE

If he has ceased then it is another matter, but that case was not put up, and there was nothing in the papers to indicate that he was not still earning. I have no sympathy with practically anything that was said by the Deputies who have spoken on this question. I am satisfied there are thousands of people getting pensions who are not entitled to get them, and I certainly propose, so far as I am concerned, to see that pensions are not given in the future, as easily as in the past, to people not entitled to get them.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair at this stage.

Mr. BLYTHE

I have no wish to deprive, or intention to withhold the pension from anyone justly entitled to it, but that is a different thing from saying that we should show no slackness, or that we should go outside the law or go outside the equity of the case. This question of baptismal certificates, and the impossibility on the part of some people getting them, has been referred to. We had the other day the case of a man who about four years ago sent up affidavits to prove that he was 70 years of age. It was stated that no baptismal certificate could be found in his case. His application was refused, but he turned up next year with further affidavits to prove that he was 70 years, and that no baptismal certificate could be found. He was turned down again. He came up three or four times at intervals of about a year, and then, last year, he really arrived at the age of 70 years, and he produced the certificate. This is a matter in which a great deal of fraud is practised. The fraud does not seem very serious to the individuals, and I would not place very great reliance in affidavits on this matter. There are numbers of people who would not get into the witness box in a criminal trial, or in any serious matter, and swear a lie, but who would swear a false affidavit in these cases. They think it is no great harm, as the State can afford to pay a poor man 10/- a week, so that while we accept affidavits we cannot be expected to place explicit reliance on them. We must have regard to any other circumstances that come to our notice, and if there are any suspicious circumstances unless the affidavit was very specific and seemed to bear the stamp of truth upon it, I would not undertake to believe it simply because it was sworn to.

A great number of the people have assigned their property to their children or others. They are really supported, or would be supported, by those children or those other people, and there is no reason at all why they should get pensions. Many of them have slipped in and got pensions in the past. In view of the heavy charge those pensions involve, I think we will have to be a great deal more strict in future. In many cases people's incomes have not, in my opinion, been estimated properly, and people who have no need of a pension, and could do very well without it have been granted a pension. There are people who are supported on property quite sufficient to bear them comfortably and they have got a pension. There again we will have to be more strict. The Local Committees are not giving the assistance they should give in the administration of this Act. It is the general rule for local committees to try to get pensions and not sift cases. I have, of course, known where cases have been sifted, and I know of Committees who do their duty well and have tried to get at the truth, and do not try systematically to mulct the National Exchequer. Taking the Committees generally, they do not do their duty in any conscientious manner, and they do not assist in the way they should. The charge involved by Old Age Pensions is a very high one, and while we do not want to do injustice to anybody, or inflict hardship on anybody, we must reduce that charge as far as it can be reduced within the law. It seems to me this whole question of Old Age Pensions is one that has had results that were not expected. There is no doubt that the granting of Old Age Pensions has led to persons taking out-door relief who would have been reluctant, and, perhaps, ashamed, in the past, because of their circumstances, to have applied for out-door relief. They could have got along, and would have got along, without it. There is no doubt the way in which Old Age Pensions were granted, especially to people not entitled to them, and not needing them, has had a certain demoralising effect. To prevent that we will have in future to be very strict in seeing that people who do not need, and are not entitled to, pensions do no get them. It has been stated by several Deputies that something must be done in regard to this matter of pensions, and that is what I propose to do.

Mr. JOHNSON

Frankly, I do not like the note that is struck by the Minister regarding Old Age Pensions. It indicates that in the mind of the Ministry it is simply a form of poor relief, and something that should be discouraged. We heard a good deal during the last twelve months from the Ministerial benches about the necessity for fulfilling the obligations we have taken over in respect of Civil Servants and in respect of property people. We have heard a good deal from the Ministers about the necessity for doing justice to people in regard to their property, not acting in such a way as would make them feel that the new regime was going to deal unjustly and unfairly with people of property, and not make them feel that the new spirit of the country was going to penalise that particular section of the community. I say that we have at least as big an obligation to the Old Age Pension poor.

Mr. BLYTHE

Hear, hear.

Mr. JOHNSON

We ought to honour fairly and faithfully the obligations to those who have been brought to old age, and who have been receiving pensions under British law, rather than talk in the way Ministers have been talking, when, without threatening to deprive the justly-earned Old Age Pensions, they indicate that they are going to tighten the screw, and, if possible, deprive as many as possible who have hitherto been entitled to them, of Old Age Pensions.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Entitled?

Mr. JOHNSON

Yes; entitled to them by law.

Mr. BLYTHE

Not by the law.

Mr. JOHNSON

I have no objection whatever to ensuring that there will be no fraud.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Hear, hear.

Mr. JOHNSON

I have no objection whatever to that, but I know that the kind of instruction that goes out from the Central Office, requesting a tightening up, very often results in injustice, and when we are told that there is going to be some effort made to penalise the old man or woman because his or her relations are in a position to maintain him or her, that is a breach of the law. You have no right to take into account the wealth, the worldly conditions, of the relatives, and, because of their ability to maintain a pensioner, to compel that pensioner to become a dependent upon his or her relatives, as the case may be. If any of you know anything of the conditions in this country, as in every other country, you will realise that in the case of some relations it is a punishment to ask old people to be dependent upon them. One of the virtues of this Old Age Pensions Act was to make the old man or woman feel that at least they were paying their way to some degree, and make them have a feeling of some independence, so that they could say, "I am paying my way in my daughter's, son's, or son-in-law's house."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

"Having made over my farm to them."

Mr. JOHNSON

Even "Having made over my farm." That may be discreditable in the minds of Ministers and in the minds of farmers, and in the mind of Deputy Lyons, but are we considering this matter as a matter of poor relief or not? Is it to be considered as an honourable obligation of the community to a citizen who has served the community well and honourably? Is the community going, at least, to ensure that that person is entitled to an independent old age? You may have cases where men hand over their property to their sons. Possibly for 20 years the sons have earned all that is handed over to them. I believe, although it is not in the Act, that every person, rich or poor, ought to have this pension. The Act makes a limit of income, and I am prepared to stand by that, and ask that it should be fully honoured. I do not think that the Ministers look at this problem from other than a financial point. There should not be any penalisation of thrift. We do not desire that the man or woman should always, of purpose, spend every penny they earn. You encourage them at other times to be thrifty and to save something to assist them in their old age. Then when they come to old age and have money to enable them to live decently, or help towards enabling them so to live, you say "we will not pay them the pension because they have saved some money." I say that is a distinct discouragement to the thrift which, at other times, you are urging them to follow. I would ask the Ministers and the Dáil generally to bear in mind that this provision for old age pensions was drafted and brought into operation as something distinct from Poor-Law Relief, and has not the character of Poor-Law Relief. It is a pension, an honourable pension, and you ought not to degrade it: unfortunately, Poor-Law Relief is generally considered to be degrading. It ought not to be brought into the category of Poor-Law Relief, and we ought not to make threats or suggestions that that is to be the end of our administration. Now there is a matter of more detail I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister for Local Government. It is a typical case, I believe, and I think it would require just that touch of sympathetic consideration that is required in the administration of this Act. A young man leaves Dublin to go to the country to work. He leaves a mother and the mother's sister, and he takes responsibility for their maintenance. They become eligible for the Old Age Pension. He keeps them with the assistance of the Old Age Pension. The mother becomes decrepit and is obliged to go into hospital—the hospice for the dying, in fact. The aunt could go on to the Poor Relief and continue to receive her pension, or the pension could go to her maintenance. But because maintenance in the hospice is counted as income, bringing her outside the limit allowed by the Act, the pension is lost, The son is faced with the problem, whether he is to send the aunt into the Workhouse—put her upon the Poor-Law Relief—so that he can help to maintain his mother in the hospital. I suggest that an hospital case of that kind ought not to be taken into account as relief, bringing the person outside the range of the Pensions Act; that, as a matter of fact, the hospital people ought to receive the benefit of the pension, rather than that the son's income should be drawn upon to keep the mother in the hospital, so that he might be allowed to continue to maintain the aunt as well. That is a case where sympathetic consideration is required in the administration of the Act; but by the very hard and fast line that is being taken under the impulse of the instructions given by the Minister for Local Government —judging by his speech here to-day —they are driven to take the hard line, which is doing an injustice, and I say, is not carrying out the spirit of the Act, which is to consider Pensioners as men and women who have served the State, who have done their work for the time, and towards whom the State has an honourable obligation. I hope it will not be considered in the light of something dishonourable or in the nature of Poor-Law Relief, or in the nature of something that people ought to be ashamed of asking. The very fact that they have lived their life to the age required, ought to be reckoned to their credit and not to their discredit. Because the amount is so large is not the fault of the Old Age Pensioners. That is one of the responsibilities we took over, and it is one of the facts of the situation which we were all aware of when we were demanding the right to administer our own affairs, and to take over these financial obligations. Let us not think of repudiating this particular obligation at any rate.

Mr. SEARS

I would like to say one word about the subject that has been introduced as to Old Age Pensions. On both sides of the Dáil it was taken for granted that the fact of the old farmer signing away his right to his property, was a thing strongly to be condemned. There might be another side to that question. When the Old Age Pension Act was introduced I regarded it as very welcome, for the reason that when a farmer came to the age of 70 years, it would be an inducement to him, if he got 10s. a week, to hand over the management of his farm to that middle-aged son or young son.

Mr. LYONS

Or boy.

Mr. SEARS

That son would probably be 30 or 40 years of age, and the farmer, in consideration of getting the pension, would sign over the holding to the son. Anyone interested in agriculture in Ireland must admit that it is a most desirable thing that the management of the small farms of Ireland should be taken out of the hands of men of 70 years of age. From the point of view of agriculture, and from the point of view of the State, it is a most desirable thing. From the point of view of the individuals living in the house, it is a most desirable thing. Very often the fact that the father will not give up the holding prevents his son getting married. That is no new thing. Either the farm should be in the hands of a man of 70 years of age, or in the hands of a man of 30 or 40 years of age. If the old man who worked it all his life assigns it to his son, then he has no way of living. After all his years he has no way of living. The passing of the farm from himself to his son has beggared, or, at all events, has qualified him for the Old Age Pension within the meaning of the Act. To turn round and say to him, "You deliberately signed away your holding in order to get the pension," is to accuse him of what is not a very heinous offence. I say it is a very obvious and reasonable thing to do—just as a man in the position of a policeman, or a coastguard, or any other position walks out and lets his son walk into the post. When he walks out of the receipt of benefit from the farm he must get something instead of it. I say it is one of the best things in the Act. It might be said in defence of the other point of view, that the least the son might do would be to support the father and mother. Very well. It often happens that that father and mother might have sons abroad, or sons in Dublin, far better off than the son left at home, and why should not they through the State, contribute towards the maintenance of this man, as well as the son with whom he is living in the house? Besides, it leaves the father and mother independent. I am sure one of the intentions of the Act, and with the Act we must carry out its intentions, was to put the old man and woman when they reach 70 years of age in a position of independence, some independence as far as the pensions go. I am entirely of opinion that every man and woman of the age of 70, no matter what their means are, should get 10s. a week. If they are well-to-do, if they have a large income, very well; they have paid more towards the State and towards the support of Old Age Pensions than any other man. They should get the Old Age Pension. It should not be a question of measuring out what is their income. Once they are 70 years of age they should get the pension. The qualifications for getting the pension were prescribed in the British House of Commons, where they could look back over long traditions as regards baptismal certificates, and union records, and they can have all these particulars with regard to the age easily specified and easily ascertainable.

In Ireland, owing to circumstances connected with foreign rule, the parish and the State records are either not there or are badly kept. Therefore you have a pitiful wrangle between the old age pension applicant on the one side, and the Excise officer on the other side, as to the applicant's age. The Minister for Local Government has told a story which I believe is quite accurate, and which I accept, but other stories can be told on the other side. I had a letter some time ago from a priest in Mayo giving a list of the names of twelve applicants for old age pensions in his parish, and he said that he was positive that everyone of them was over the age of 70. He said he could get reliable people, over 70 years, to testify to the fact that these applicants were eligible. All the applicants were, however, turned down. I am sure that the Excise officer who investigated the cases was acting honestly, and I believe the priest was also acting honestly. The Minister for Local Government previously told us that there were a great many old age pensioners in Mayo, but he must remember that three-fourths or five-sixths of the farmers there are under the £6 valuation. It is not the fault of the applicants that the records are not there, and when they are not there people cannot be blamed for putting up the best case they can.

Mr. BLYTHE

The reference to Mayo had not to do with old age but with blind pensions. I said that it appeared that there was one person out of 431 over 50 years of age, who was blind and destitute in County Mayo, whereas in the respective county which I come from, County Monaghan, the number was 1 in every 5,000.

Professor MAGENNIS

You have opened their eyes.

Mr. CORISH

I would like to press for a definite reply to the question asked by Deputy O'Shannon as to what is to become of persons for whom there is no record of age. Up to this, affidavits were received by the Local Government Minister, and were accepted in most cases but the reply given to Deputy O'Shannon has been surrounded with such ambiguity as to leave the matter in a position worse than before. In County Wexford, where one church was burned down, it is impossible to get certificates in that parish. The position of persons for whom records cannot be got should be made known.

Mr. HUGHES

While I do not agree with much that has been said about people with means getting pensions, I agree that there are a number of people who do not get, but are entitled to them. I will never be one to say, where a man disposes of a farm, in his old age, to his son, who is bound to maintain him, that he should get a pension from the State for doing the State out of money it should have got. I know of cases where people have been refused the pension although younger brothers or sisters who were able to get certificates got the pension. Yet it was known in some instances that people who were over four years older than people receiving the pension could not get certificates and the pension was refused. I think that is a case the Government should take into account where it is proved that the applicant is older than the pensioner. As regards the remarks of Deputy Sears about old men disposing of their farms to their sons, I know many cases in which men who did so were not afterwards wanted in their own house. I hope that the farmers in this country, whether they get the pension or not, will keep the land in their own hands.

Mr. O'CONNELL

There is one point in connection with this matter to which attention has not been called, and which arises out of Deputy Wilson's reference to the proportion of people in receipt of old age pensions in this country as against England. It is well known that our old people who have reached the age of 70 are the remnants of a six million population, because in the forties we had a population of eight million, but we have had a dwindling population since. There is, therefore, a bigger proportion of old people in this country than in England or in any country where there is an increasing population. That should not be forgotten when looking into the question of proportion of old people in receipt of pensions. Deputy Sears drew attention to a very important matter with regard to old people who give over their farms. It is well known that in the West of Ireland, especially in Galway and Mayo, there are a very large number of holdings which really cannot be called farms in the strict sense of the word, and which are uneconomic holdings and insufficient to support even the owner. Deputy Sears also struck a note—a very important one, to my mind, and well worthy of consideration. I think there is a great deal in his suggestion that a man who owns a farm is no less a worker than a man who occupies any public position. The man who owns and works a farm works it for the good of the community, and, having reached the age of 70, is equally entitled to a pension with any other worker who reaches that age. That is a point of view that is worth some attention, and might be worthy of further development. I notice in the Estimate that there is a decrease of £50,000 in the amount of pensions payable. I would like to know whether that is due to the tightening up of which the Minister told us, or whether there is a decrease in the number of people who have reached the age of 70. With regard to the matter of age, the Minister has told us some peculiar stories, but there are one or two on the other side. There is a case, for instance, in Galway where a daughter has got the old age pension, but it has been refused to her mother.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think that I will say anything in reply to what Deputy O'Connell has just said; but in reference to the case of a younger brother, we would not in any case refuse a pension to any man whose younger brother was getting a pension. We are, however, up against the fact that when one member of the family gets a pension and baptismal certificates are not available, then all the other members of the family claim to be older. If it were clear that the person seeking the pension is older than the one who gets it, we would grant the claim at once.

Mr. JOHNSON

Before the Minister replies generally I would like to raise another point, which is, perhaps, going a little bit off the discussion. It has reference to the Blind Persons Act. I do not know if there is any return available to tell us the number of persons at present in receipt of pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act and the Blind Persons Act. I should like to know, if it were possible for the Minister to tell us even generally, the number of persons in receipt of pensions under the Blind Persons Act and the Old Age Pensions Act.

The PRESIDENT

The number of persons in receipt of old age pensions is 129,883, and in receipt of blind pensions 3,282. I think it will be noticed from that that a great number of those are in receipt of pensions for which they can scarcely have just claims, and if the case made by Deputies is correct, there are persons refused pensions who are entitled to them. Very few people can tell me anything about old age pensions and applicants. I was a member of one of those Committees for a number of years, and I know most of the tricks and the peculiar activities of the applicants. I know of one occasion where a church was burned and the records were missing. That is a great disadvantage to several pensioners. But the burned church served its purpose to other candidates in the old days. Where they could not furnish evidence of their birth, and where all other avenues of information were closed, they were surely born in that district where the church was burned. I know of one person who got a pension at the age of 59. The residence, of course, was given in the district where the church was burned.

It is fairly obvious that 129,883 is a fairly respectable total. It means one old age pensioner out of every 25, and Deputy Lyons mentioned yesterday that there was a family he knew of with ten children and the father and mother. We will imagine another family of the same sort, and half a family of the same size, and those three together would not have their quota of old age pensions. It was not the intention at the beginning to give a pension to every person of 70 years of age. If that be the intention now, a larger sum will be required. It was the intention at that time to provide some small sum to assist persons who had reached 70 years of age and to give them some little comfort. It was not enough to keep them at that time, but that was the intention. Persons in receipt of out-door relief were barred. It was obvious that persons who were independent, and at the same time not independent, should get it—persons who were able to keep themselves apart from any assistance from Poor Law relief. If the Deputies consider the scope of the Act should be enlarged, I hope when the time comes they will be able to devise some means for raising the revenue. If we are to carry out the obligations in respect of various services to those people, the best way is not to consent to a reduction in the revenue amounting to £800,000 in the case of sugar and £200,000 in the case of tea.

Mr. JOHNSON

Can the Minister not suggest another way?

The PRESIDENT

If any suggestions for raising the revenue are made, I shall be very grateful for them.

Mr. JOHNSON

I suggested a tax on imports.

The PRESIDENT

I am not satisfied that that tax might not react unfavourably in other directions. I would not adopt it right off. If you put a tax on imports, it may have a serious defect.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I would suggest a tax on betting.

Mr. MILROY

I would suggest a tax on speeches.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We are now discussing old age pensions.

The PRESIDENT

It was not the intention in passing this Act to provide pensions for persons whose families were able to support them comfortably. It was not the intention of the Ministry, and it never was the intention of the Ministry, to withdraw this pension or to exclude from its benefits persons such as were described by Deputy Sears. Any bona fide cases that can be established, and which meet the provisions of the particular Act in question, each and every one of those we are prepared to honour; but we are not prepared, especially in regard to the experience we have had, to continue to be humbugged. There are other means of using money raised in the State than giving it to persons who do not really require it, and for whom it is not alone an assistance, but, on the contrary, a luxury.

Question put and agreed to.