The Minister and the House are aware that the old age pensions Estimate has always evoked a lively debate here. That is because that section of the community is the most deserving and, being unable to help itself, is solely dependent on the State and on the goodwill of the Minister for Finance. Time and again, we have been told, when we asked for an increase for the old age pensioners, that if the Minister for Finance gave such an increase, when Budget day would come along, there would be severe criticism of the consequent increase in taxation. Such criticism would be directed against the administration of various Departments where, we believe, there is overlapping and overstaffing and not against taxation devoted to increase of old age pensions. I want the Minister to understand that the Party of which I am a member plead the cause of the old age pensioner because they believe that an increase such as they advocate is justified.
The attention of the Minister and the Government should have been given to the old age pensioner long since. After six years of war and a constant rise in the cost of living, the present Minister for Finance and his predecessor were prepared to give only the miserable pittance agreed upon over a year ago and that only on condition that the local authority would meet three-quarters of the increase. Does the Minister for Finance really believe that 2/6 is sufficient to meet the increased cost of living? Does he believe that an old man or woman down the country or in a city or town can live on 10/- a week, plus 2/6 or 1/6, as it is in my county? Does he believe that, while he is feeling it damned hard to live on his own allowance and while higher executive officers of his Department and every other Department are constantly looking for increases and bonuses to meet the increased cost of living? Does he believe that, while teachers and workers tell us that they cannot live on their present income? If the Minister had been in O'Connell Street an hour ago, he would have heard the President of the National Teachers' Organisation state that teachers could not live on the salary at present paid them. Notwithstanding that, the Minister is prepared to sit content on his bench and let the old age pensioner live on his miserable pittance, plus the supplementary allowance of 2/6 and, in some counties, less than that. Before the old age pensioner qualifies for that supplementary allowance, he must bring himself to the lowest depth of degradation and prove beyond nay or yea to the investigation officer that he is a pauper, dependent on the 10/- granted to him by an Irish Government or by the British Government prior to 1922. Surely the day has dawned when the Government must recognise their responsibility towards the aged and the infirm, the widow, the orphan and the blind. No matter from what side of the House Deputies make the case I am making, I say that they are not exaggerating or that they are not doing so from political purposes. They are doing so for reasons of simple justice and humanitarianism. It is a terrible state of affairs that you should have investigation officers who are, in many instances, abusing their position—going around the country and having the audacity to frighten and terrorise old men and women into making false statements. In many instances, they go into their stables and unlock their doors.
They count the number of chains and ropes there and in this way estimate the number of horses that are there. Then they get them, under threats, to sign documents so that they can go to the post office and the bank to investigate their accounts. The Minister knows as well as I do that in rural Ireland, particularly County Mayo, Donegal, Clare and parts of Kerry and West Cork, it has been the tradition, since the Famine days, when large numbers of people had to leave this country, for young people to sustain the old, the infirm, their parents and younger brothers and sisters; that it has been the custom to send to this country money which, when the parents had deducted sufficient for their own requirements, was lodged in the bank to be held for their children when they returned home. Yet, the investigation officers of the Revenue Commissioners have the audacity to take that into account when assessing the means of the old age pensioner. That is a crime and a shame. In the past few months I have been making representations to the Revenue Commissioners in regard to two particular cases, and I have been turned down point blank. In one case I have proved, beyond yea or nay, that the money in question had been sent from America by the sons and daughters of the person concerned to be used as a dowry for the son and daughter who had remained at home on the miserable, unarable, small and uneconomic holding. Notwithstanding the fact that proof was produced, that woman was threatened with legal proceedings if she did not return the £50 that her late husband had drawn from the State. By the meanest and the lowest type of threat, this old woman was forced to sign a statement to authorise the investigation officer to go to the National Bank in Ballyhaunis and inquire as to the amount lodged to her credit there. She was merely acting as the custodian of this money. The investigation officer reported it and then there came letter after letter, threat after threat from Dublin Castle, to force her to return the £50 that her late husband had received in the form of old age pension and the £25 that she herself had drawn.
The Minister and the Revenue Commissioners have no sympathy or consideration for that old person. There are many of that type throughout rural Ireland. It is a disgrace that the earnings of sons and daughters should be taken into account and that investigation officers should exceed their duty by issuing threats and taking unfair advantage of such people, some of whom are over 90 years of age, who are easily frightened and are prepared to say anything. The statements made by them are not accurate or not statements that would be made if they were in their senses.
I would therefore ask the Minister to consider the position of old-age pensioners. It is a disgrace that they should be humiliated by having to collect the supplementary allowance through the relieving officer. The Minister may claim that there is no other way. He may say that I am not aware of the fact that the local authority contributes three-fourths of the supplementary allowance. Is it not possible to get the local authority to transfer to the Department of Finance the appropriate sum to supplement the one-fourth that is contributed by the State and have it paid direct through the post office? In that way these people would be relieved of the humiliation of having to collect it from the relieving officer and of the necessity of having to walk eight or ten miles to collect it wherever the relieving officer appoints. In many instances when they attend at these places the officer is not there and no excuse or explanation is given. Is that the position we are to have under the Fianna Fáil administration? Is that the position that the Minister and the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party boast of when they are down the country travelling, as Deputy O'Higgins said, in State cars at State expense? They would be better employed if they told the people the truth rather than preach false doctrines.
I would ask the Minister to take into consideration the following points: First that investigation officers should not be authorised to take into account money held in the post office or the bank by parents acting as custodians for their children in England or America; secondly, that the investigation officer has no right to threaten or frighten old people into signing documents to authorise him to make investigations in the bank or the post office; thirdly, that the investigation officer has no right to go into a cowshed or barn in order to find out the number of cattle that are there or to count the number of chains and ropes; fourthly, that it is time to discontinue the system of paying the supplementary allowance through the relieving officer, causing inconvenience and hardship to old people who are unable to travel the distance that is sometimes involved.
These are the four points that I would ask the Minister to take into consideration. If he does something on these lines his action will be appreciated by every Deputy and by the poor old men and women who are depending upon and are expected to live on this miserable allowance. I cannot ask him on this Estimate to increase the pension. At a later date we may deal with that in the form of a motion, as has already been done by this Party and other Parties in an effort to impress on the Minister the necessity for an increase in the old age pensions that would meet the requirements of these people at the present cost of living.
