asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he can state why the old age pension of Thomas Farrell, Clonkeen, Streete, Westmeath, has been reduced; if he is aware that the Coole Sub-Committee granted 9/- in this case, and whether as the applicant has no means of livelihood he will sanction the full amount.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - OLD AGE PENSION REDUCTION.
SEAN O LAIDHIN
In reviewing and adjusting the pension under the Act of 1924 in this case the pension officer estimated means at £36 8s. 0d a year., and fixed the pension at 2/- per week. The pensioner appealed and the Coole pension sub-committee allowed 9/- a week. The case then came to me for determination on an appeal from the pension officer and it was decided that the claimant was entitled to a pension of 3/- a week as from the 5th September last. That decision was based on means exceeding £31 7s. 6d. but not exceeding £34 a year.
It appears that the pensioner was maintained by his employer both when the pension was first granted and also at the time of the review. If at any time that arrangement should cease, or the pensioner's means diminish, it would be open to him to raise a question with the pension officer and to apply for a suitable increase in his weekly rate of pension.
Is the Minister aware that this particular applicant is only maintained by his employer for charity, that he is not capable of work, and did the pension officer take into account the amount of food he was getting as part of his income when this food is given to him as charity, and that he has no other way of living unless he goes into the county home?
Does the Minister realise that his reply is a direct condemnation of anybody who is receiving any sum in the way of charity or assistance, which would bring him to the pure pauper stage, the bare subsistence level?
I am only responsible for carrying out the Act as passed.
Would the Minister be able to say if this case is appealed against that he will give fair consideration to it.
Fair consideration has been given. If the circumstances of the applicant change a different answer can be given, but if his position continues as at present there is no reason why his pension should be increased.
Would the Minister give a man 73 years of age 10/- a week and his food as a workman? Does he think that people are that foolish? This particular man is kept simply by the employer, and unless he gets the pension he must become an expense on the ratepayers of the county and will have to be kept up by the county home. In this case I think it is nearly time that the committee promised should be set up to go into the question of the old age pensions, which are a disgrace to the whole country.