asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he can state on what grounds it was decided that Mr. Bartley Fox, of Farrellmacfarrell, Dromore West, Co. Sligo, had not attained the statutory age for the receipt of a pension.

Three appeals in this case have been decided, the last on the 4th December, 1930. In each case the claim was disallowed as the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the claimant fulfilled the statutory condition as to age.

Is the Minister aware that the claimant's sister, Ellen Healy, has been in receipt of an old age pension for the last four years, that seven affidavits have been forwarded to the Department by aged residents in the locality testifying that the claimant is the next in order of birth to his sister—Ellen Healy— and that he is now over the statutory age? In view of this evidence and the fact that the Pension Officer has been unable to produce any evidence that the claimant has not attained the age of 70 years is the Minister prepared to reconsider the case?

If there is any additional evidence brought forward that will affect the matter at the time of the making of any other claim, it will be considered. It is not the responsibility of the local Pension Officer to produce evidence that a person is not the statutory age. The responsibility is on the claimants to produce evidence that they are the required age.

Does not the Minister think that seven affidavits—

Oh!

Does not the Minister think that seven affidavits made by old age pensioners in the district should be sufficient evidence, particularly as no evidence can be produced that the claimant is not the required age?

Not necessarily.

How, then, is the claimant to procure further evidence? He cannot get a baptismal certificate, and he cannot get any further documentary evidence regarding his age, except the sworn statement of persons acquainted with him from his youth. How is he able to get further evidence, or will the Minister turn down his claim on every occasion because the applicant cannot get a baptismal certificate?

Each case has to be considered entirely on its merits and on the general circumstances, but the complete absence of evidence cannot entitle a person to a pension.

Surely the sworn statements of seven people, each of them over seventy years of age, should be sufficient evidence, especially in view of the fact that the Pensions Officer produced no evidence that this claimant is not the statutory age?

Is it the Minister's contention that these affidavits are all wrong? Why does the Minister say that there is no evidence that the claimant is over seventy years of age?

Affidavits are things that have to be regarded in a particular light.

Like an oath.

Deputies will find certain reference to the question of affidavits in the Report of the Committee that examined into the question of old age pensions in 1924 and 1925.

I do not know what the Minister means by his reference to his regarding affidavits in a particular light. Surely if a person makes a sworn declaration that is false, the Minister or some Department under his control has power to proceed against such person.

If the Deputy wants to recommend that in the event of any affidavit in regard to an old age pension proving to be false, that such person should be charged with perjury, then before formally making it he should think over it.

I am not making any such allegation, but I say that there are seven sworn statements in this case, and they should be entitled to consideration.

They have got consideration.