Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Feb 1929

Vol. 28 No. 2

Public Business. - Vote 7.—Old Age Pensions.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £175,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun íoc Pinseana Sean-Aoise fé Achtanna na bPinsean Sean-Aoise, 1908 go 1924, chun Costaisí Riaracháin áirithe a bhaineann leo san, agus chun Pinseana fén Blind Persons Act, 1920.

That a sum not exceeding £175,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the payment of Old Age Pensions under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith, and for pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920.

This Estimate arises out of an Act which was passed by the Oireachtas about this time last year. When the Bill was before the House, I estimated that the additional expense would be £150,000 in the first year, and ultimately £175,000. That estimate was based on a certain number of sample cases, the facts of which were examined by the Revenue Department. It proved, however, that the amount of the Estimate was rather lower than it ought to have been. Moreover, recently partly through the benefit of the doubt being more consistently given to pension claimants than in the past, a tendency that previously existed, for the number of old age pensioners to decline, has stopped; and in the last two or three years there has rather been a tendency for the number of people in receipt of old age pensions to increase. That tendency, together with the increased charge thrown upon the Exchequer by the Act of last year, accounts for the Supplementary Estimate.

What I wish to direct the attention of the Minister to is the difficulty in finding out the ages of certain claimants. As we know, in a large number of districts the parish registers have been destroyed, or perhaps they were never kept. The Minister talks about giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimants, but——

I waited to see if the Deputy's point was in order in this matter of a Supplementary Estimate. This is a motion for a supplementary sum due to an increased rate. The Deputy's point is a general point, but it would not arise under this Estimate at all.

Yes, but there are a number of people whom it concerns at the present moment.

That has nothing to do with the question of order. A Supplementary Estimate can only be discussed on the basis of what the extra amount is required for. This Supplementary Estimate is not required for the purposes about which the Deputy is talking.

Anyhow, I wanted to draw the attention of the Minister to that point.

And I allowed the Deputy to make his point before I ruled him out.

The motion for £175,000 is for a very large amount. The House ought not to pass it without a very considerable sense of responsibility. The responsibility for this amount rests not so much upon the Minister as upon the whole House. The whole House is responsible for this increase in expenditure, and this increase in expenditure will have to be met out of revenue. That ought to be clearly understood. This amount has absorbed the whole of the £150,000 which the Minister for Finance is going to get next year out of his woollen tariff. I think we ought very clearly to understand that in passing this Estimate, however willing we may be to do it, we are committing ourselves, and have as a House committed ourselves to an expenditure of that money which we will have either to find or to save. I suggest that in passing it, we should do so with deliberate advertence to that responsibility.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share