Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 1924

Vol. 9 No. 9

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - ADMINISTRATION OF OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT.

Motion by Deputy McKenna:—

"That a Special Committee, consisting of nine Deputies, to be nominated by the Sessional Committee of Selection, be appointed to enquire into the system under which the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924, is being administered in the Saorstát; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and that the quorum of the Committee be five."

ACTING-CHAIRMAN (Mr. George Nicholls) took the Chair.

Mr. McKENNA

I rise to call attention to a matter of vital importance to thousands of people in the Saorstát. I desire to bring before the Dáil some of the gross irregularities in the system under which old age pensions are administered. There is a growing conviction amongst the people that a large number of people over 70 years of age are being unfairly treated, and deprived of the maximum amount of the pensions to which they are justly entitled. The administration of the Act by the Local Government Department, as a final court of appeal, is very unsatisfactory and it seems to me a great misfortune that so much power, practically the power of a court of law, is given to the Local Government Department or whatever that body is, in reference to the final decisions under the Act. I am sure the Dáil would like to know who is the Local Government Department? Is it the Minister? Who is associated with the Minister, or is the work of the Department in this particular question left to a junior clerk or office boy in the office of the Department? Surely it is not the intention of the Act that simply because a person's name cannot be found on the register, through no fault of his own, or that of his parents—the census 70 years ago having been taken by the police officials— that he should be deprived of his pension. Yet we are daily receiving complaints from applicants that claims have been disallowed on the question of age.

You have in the Local Pensions Committee something in the nature of a judicial tribunal. You have a body of men selected locally much in the same fashion as you have a jury selected and having no interests in the Finance Department or Local Government Department on the one hand or in the applicants on the other. It was thought, and I believe rightly thought, that the decisions of the sub-committees would be given full effect to, by the Local Government Department. I am in a position to point out to the Dáil that such is not the case and that pensions have been cut in the recent revision in such a fashion that few Deputies outside the Ministry ever anticipated, would be so drastic.

Mr. JOHNSON

Some of us did.

Mr. McKENNA

I will give credit where credit is due, but speaking for myself, and, I believe, for the majority of the members of the Party that I have the honour to sit amongst, I did not believe that when the Minister for Finance asked for powers from the Dáil to cut those pensions, he would ever have obtained the necessary permission if Deputies understood the arbitrary and absolute powers vested in the hands of the Local Government Department. Everybody believed, as I said before, that great discretion would be given to the Local Pensions Committee. What do we find now? Letters are daily pouring in upon us telling us that pensioners who were in receipt of an allowance of 10/- per week have been cut to 6/-, and pensioners in receipt of 8/- have been cut to 4/-, and in some cases the pensions have been disallowed altogether. The result is, that the people have no confidence in the action or discrimination of the Local Government Department or in the judicial character of its decisions. Many people believe—and I would like to have this matter cleared up—that there is some underground communications between the Local Government Department and that of the Minister for Finance.

I maintain that the revision which has been made is a very unfair one, and one that is not in keeping with the Old Age Pensions Act. I want a clear answer from the Minister for Local Government or from the Minister for Finance as to what instructions were given to the pension officers in the various districts on this matter. I would like to know whether any instructions of a special or confidential character have been issued to pension officers of setting themselves to the task of, so to speak, hunting down old age pensioners with the object of having their pensions disallowed. I am also especially anxious to get from the Minister for Local Government the instructions which were issued to the pension officers as to estimating the cost of maintenance of these poor people who are living with their married sons and daughters. I have an idea that they adopt a rough-and-ready method of assessment of the profits derived from small agricultural holdings. If that is so, it is an extraordinary thing—that this Act, passed for the benefit of the aged poor, should be administered by the pension officer with a rough-and-ready method of assessment. I would like to know where are the instructions or who is in power? The committee have no power. The pension officer recommends and in nine cases out of ten his decision is upheld. This question of maintenance is one that requires to be dealt with. In many cases the father or mother hands over the little farm to the son or daughter, but the pension officer suggests that the transfer is bogus and that it is made over for the purpose of qualifying for the pension and the applicant is disqualified.

I would like to point out to the Dáil that, after the Old Age Pensions Act passed in an alien assembly, the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Birrell, admitted in the British Parliament, on this very question, that this was a well-established custom in Ireland, and that it was not a question of fraud—he was referring to the transfers to obtain pensions. Here, however, under a home Government, we are confronted with cases like those, where pensions have been disallowed owing to the transfer of lands. I should like to say a word in reference to one class of case which is very prevalent, and which causes a great deal of dissatisfaction, and that is where an applicant has his case considered by a pension committee, who come to the conclusion that his means are such that he is entitled to the maximum pension, but the pension officer arrives at a different conclusion. The officer holds that the applicant is entitled to a modified pension. You have, over and over again, cases of that kind, where the local committee recommends a pension of nine or ten shillings, but the pension officer recommends one of four or five shillings. There is then an appeal which comes before the local government department, and in nine out of ten cases the decision of the pension officer is upheld. I am not so sure but that the cuts are illegal, and I believe that if a good many cases were taken into a court of law, it would be found that the Minister has no legal power to uphold the decision of these officials.

In 1910 there was a famous case tried in the King's Bench before four very eminent judges—the late Lord Chief Baron, Lord Justice Cherry, Lord Justice Holmes, and the then Lord Chancellor. That case has a great bearing on present administration, although we are living in a new regime. I would like to point out that that, in my opinion, has a bearing on some cases in which cuts have taken place. I will read the decision of Lord Justice Cherry:—

"In this case I think that the findings of the Committee upon the facts before it cannot at any time be set aside by any court or ignored by any Government official. The pension must be paid at the rate awarded until the determination of a question, properly raised under Section 7, which either alters the rate of the pension or may put an end altogether to the right to receive it. In the present case the question was raised, not by the pension officer, but by the pensioner. It related only to an increase in the amount of the pension, and the claim for an increase was based, not upon any alteration in the pensioner's means, or even upon any fresh evidence as to the amount of his means at the time the pension was granted, but upon an allegation that the Pension Committee had erred in calculating the yearly value of those means."

His colleague, Lord Justice Holmes, said:—

"I notice that the Lord Chief Baron, in coming to the same conclusion, seems to have been of opinion that there can be no reconsideration of an order granting or refusing a pension unless it can be shown that there has been a change of circumstances after the order has been made."

I would like to know from the Minister whether he has consulted the law officers, before making these drastic cuts. In my opinion there is a lot of common sense in the judgement I have read to the effect that if the decision of the local committee is given the case cannot be reconsidered unless there has been a change of circumstances after the order has been made. How are we to know whether there has been a change of circumstances in a lot of these cases? By what regulation, or by what method, does the pension officer decide the value of the pension, and where there is a small holding of land, how does he arrive at the applicant's income? As regards the question of age, a great deal of trouble arises owing to the fact that we have not a proper census. In those days, when the census was taken, it was taken by police officials going round the country. In England they are a lot fairer than we are here. I was over there recently, and I made inquiries regarding the administration of the Act. I find that the English Local Government Department have accepted as evidence of age a family Bible, for instance, in which different dates of birth were registered. They have also accepted photographs, including photographs of tombstones, and they accept a number of things which we would not accept here. I am told by people that the Department now will hardly accept an affidavit, and they look upon decent men almost as perjurers if they sign to the effect that they believe so-and-so to be such an age. In a bad year like this, when people never wanted the pension as badly as they do now, I think that is very unfair.

The majority of the Deputies associated with me on these benches voted for the cut in the belief that there were going to be a number of cuts in the various departments of State which could be better afforded than the cut in old age pensions. Now we feel sore that there is no attempt to effect cuts in any department of State which could afford them better than these poor people. I maintain that there is a case for a full inquiry and that the maladministration of the Act and the way in which it has been worked justify an inquiry. Until such inquiry is held and reports its conclusion to the Dáil, I am satisfied that the people will have no confidence in the honesty and straightforwardness of the Local Government Department. I move the motion standing in my name, and I hope that the Government will agree to have a committee of inquiry set up.

Mr. J. COSGRAVE

I beg to second the motion.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I am glad to welcome Deputy McKenna into the ranks of the converted. It took a good deal of teaching and preaching from these benches to get people to see the right with regard to administering old age pensions in a proper way, and keeping them up to a proper standard. The Deputy has analysed the position closely and he has put it very fairly to the Minister. I will endeavour to give some concrete cases as proof that what has been said by Deputy McKenna was quite correct. The first case I have to submit is one where an application was made for an old-age pension. The applicant when applying for the pension was able to produce all the necessary evidence, and yet for fifteen months her case was not considered by, or submitted for consideration to, the proper authorities. She made repeated applications, and she got people of some prominence in the district to make the necessary representations, and yet no notice was taken. She then wrote to me as a last resource, and I raised the matter on the Old Age Pension Estimate. The President was good enough to say he would have the matter investigated, and within a fortnight of the sending of a personal letter to the President the pension was paid in accordance with the justice of the case. I should like to know if the Old Age Pension Act is administered in a proper fashion why it is necessary that that old lady in a backward part of the country, and having little means of communication with the people who could bring her case to light in a proper manner, found it necessary to write to me, and that I should write to the President, and that she should wait fifteen months for the pension.

Take another case: the wife of a working man made application for a pension. It was granted by the committee. The case was appealed on the grounds that this man was getting more than would legally entitle his wife to the pension. The following is an extract from a letter written to me by the Local Government Department:—

"The Pension officer appealed on the ground of blindness, and also on the ground that Mrs ...........'s means exceeded £49 17s. 6d. a year. In his report the Pension officer stated the woman's husband, when working, earns £2 10s. 0d. to £3 a week, and when out of work received £1 a week unemployment benefit, and he estimated the man's total annual means at £100."

What are the facts? The man stated to the pensions officer that he got £2 10s. a week when he worked, that he worked thirteen weeks in that year, and that his unemployment benefit was in direct ratio to the number of weeks he worked. Yet this woman's application was turned down, and she did not get the pension until it had been taken up by a Deputy, representation made to the proper quarter, and a question put in the Dáil about it. Why is it necessary that this should be done, and that Deputies should be asked to make these representations when the case was clear?

Here is another blind pension case: An application was made for the pension on the 26th April, 1923; it was granted by the Pensions Committee on the 19th June, 1923; it was appealed against by the pension officer, and an intimation was sent that a medical inspector would be sent to examine her. The medical examination takes place on the 10th July, 1924, and the pension is granted as from the 1st April, 1924. I want to know on what grounds the Department decided that the applicant was not blind from the 26th April, 1923, to the 1st April, 1924, seeing that the medical officer did not see the claimant until the 10th July, 1924? If that is the administration of the Old Age Pension Act, well then, it is not what we expected the administration of it would be.

Here is another case: Deputy McKenna spoke of affidavits not being accepted. In this case the eldest sister of an applicant for the pension is 72 years of age. He is the next, and his age cannot be got, but certificates of his sister's age are produced showing that she is 72. Affidavits are sent up by six old residents in the district stating that he is next to his sister, aged 72, whose certificate could be found, and yet for the last four months this applicant has not got any account of whether the pension can be got or not. These are concrete cases, and better than any amount of talk against the administration of the Pensions Act, but they are only examples taken by chance. There are scores of others, and if they show in any way maladministration, or want of fairness and justice in administration of the Pensions Act to the claimants, I think they will do good and necessary work. Deputy McKenna has, I think, raised a very important point, and I believe that the whole administration of the Pensions Act requires looking into.

Mr. ALFRED BYRNE

In supporting the amendment put forward by Deputy McKenna, I wish to draw attention to a return recently issued by the Department, which shows with what vigour the pension officers and the Department are applying the cut. In introducing the Bill, the Minister for Finance announced that he was aiming at a reduction in the cost of £300,000 a year. During the passage of the Act he made some small concessions to the very aged and others that he anticipated would reduce the saving temporarily by £80,000 a year. The return shows that the saving effected works out at probably £428,000 a year. That is an extraordinary miscalculation.

Mr. BLYTHE

With a view to keeping the Deputy from arguing on false premises, I did not say that I was aiming at a reduction of £300,000 a year. I said a reduction of £500,000 a year.

Mr. BYRNE

I am quoting from the extract, which says that the return shows a saving of £428,000 a year.

Mr. McKENNA

On a point of explanation, I saw it stated in the Press as coming from the Minister for Finance that he estimated that the recent cut would mean a reduction of £600,000.

Mr. BYRNE

I want to ask how the extraordinary difference in the figures arises—the difference in the figures in the Minister's speech when the Bill was passing through the Dáil, as compared with the actual facts. The pension was reduced by only 1/- a week, and I would like to know would the Minister produce a return to the Dáil showing how many pensions have been issued at 9/- a week. I want the Dáil to know that old age pension officers, in considering the maintenance, have assessed a bed and taken it as income, putting a value of 3/- on it, though the bed was provided by some distant relative or some friend. That assessment on the bed is put on for the purpose of reducing the amount awarded by way of maintenance. That was not the intention of the Old Age Pensions Act. It certainly was not the intention that a bed provided by a friend or relative, and put in a small closet room, should count as income. I have carefully read the maintenance clauses, and I fail to find that a bed should be valued as equivalent to 3/- income. If the Minister produced a list of pensions issued since the Act passed, it would show that not ten per cent. had been awarded 9/-. His officers have done what was never done in the days of the British Government by putting an assessment on beds.

Another point arises in connection with voluntary gifts. I know that claimants, when they stated that they had no income, were asked: "You are sure you have no income?" They replied: "None, whatever." Then they were asked: "Who pays your rent?" and the reply was: "My niece does." The rent of three shillings for the room, which is given voluntarily by the niece or some distant relative, is calculated as income under the Act. I do not think it was ever intended, even by those who supported the Minister in the cut, that the 2/6 or the 3/- rent paid by the distant relative should be taken into consideration when assessing the value of the claimant's income.

Deputy McKenna and other Deputies have gone very carefully into the difficulties that poor persons find in getting the pension. As far as I can see the economy axe that has been used by the Finance Ministry, in so far as it applies to pensioners, has been used well. Those using it do not care where it falls so long as they get blood, because it is really blood when you take from those poor people the 1/- or the 3/- that you have been deducting for the past few months. I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of not permitting voluntary gifts, or rents paid by distant relatives, friends or charitable institutions, to be taken into consideration by way of income. The British Government in their worst day never did that and this Government ought not to do it.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would like to support this motion. In doing so let me say that I am glad a number of Deputies have found out they were hoodwinked by the Minister when he brought in this Act. Perhaps in the future they will be more careful to read some of the Bills that are brought forward and not allow themselves to follow the Minister so blindly as a number of them has already done. One reason why I would like to see this committee set up is because it seems absolutely impossible for a person who makes a claim for a pension to get that pension unless he or she is able to produce a birth certificate. Despite what the Minister says when he indicates that affidavits will be accepted, we know that affidavits are not accepted, and time out of number they have been refused. As a matter of fact the position in the country as regards most of the old people who make claims for pensions, is, that when they find the pension officer has appealed against the decision of the Pensions Committee, granting them a pension, they do not go any further; they know it is useless and it would be only a loss of time. That is exactly the position.

With regard to applicants for blind pensions, as far as I know from the cases which have been brought to my notice, it is impossible for applicants to succeed in securing a pension unless they are stone blind. It would not be considered sufficient if they could be proved blind to such an extent that they are not able to carry on their ordinary work. When a case is appealed in that connection, and the matter is taken up with the Pensions Section of the Local Government Department, we are told that the medical inspector will call. I have a case in mind about which I wrote over twelve months ago to the Pensions Department. I was informed that as soon as an inspector would be in the district he would call to examine the person. The matter went on for three or four months. I wrote again and was told that the medical inspector had not been able to get there, but as soon as he did he would call and make an examination. The case has been going on for almost seventeen or eighteen months, and as far as I know the inspector has not yet called. I raised that particular case here and the Minister promised to have it seen to, but he has not done so.

He was actually misleading members of the Dáil and the people of the country when the Bill was introduced, because he said he was going to reduce pensions by one shilling. We know that what has actually happened is, that a number of people who were in receipt of a pension have had it taken away altogether. In a number of cases the pension has been reduced from 10/- to 7/- and 6/-, and in other cases actually to 4/-. Not alone have pensions been reduced, but it has been made almost impossible for people claiming pensions now to get any pensions at all because of the way administrative machinery has been tightened up. Of course there is a great amount of suspicion in the minds of Ministers and officials regarding the granting of pensions by local committees. I am sure some of the Ministers and some of the officials, if they bring their minds back to the state of affairs that obtained three or five years ago, might be under the impression that what then applied on those committees applies to-day. It was then the custom—and I am sure Ministers and officials winked their eyes at it—to give pensions to everybody, because the British Government was paying. That, however, does not obtain to-day.

I do not say that there should not be some supervision by the pension officers. I do not say that there is not some abuse. I daresay that there is some abuse, because it would not be possible to administer the Act without some abuse; but holding up pensions for 17 or 18 months is not the right way to administer the Act. The fact is that the poor people in the country are beginning to tick off on their fingers the number of Acts passed by a majority in the Dáil, hitting directly at the poor. I am going to say very plainly and straightly, because I feel it, that the poor people have gained nothing by the advent of the Free State; they have lost.

Mr. T. MURPHY

I think Deputy McKenna, in moving this motion, dealt with it rather mildly. I would be inclined to go further than he has gone in regard to the so-called administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. I think that Act is an absolute disgrace to the Government, and the manner in which it is administered is also a disgrace to the Government. Deputy Byrne referred to cases where pensions were reduced on the strength of certain perquisites that people had and he referred particularly to hard cases where people were deprived of pensions because of the little gifts they had from relative. I can remember a case where the old age pension was reduced because the crippled daughter who lived with the pensioner was in receipt of a couple of shillings per week. That is one of the many cases. Furthermore, there is another aspect of the case—a point that has not been touched on—in connection with the administration of the Act and the question of impartiality. I have knowledge of a case in which the administration has not been impartial. I have a case, vouched for by a Deputy, where a man and his wife, who have a large farm, are enjoying the old age pension because their son is a pensions officer.

I say, furthermore, that it has been remarked by a good many people that a great deal of the troubles that have lately fallen on the Government have fallen on them because of this Old Age Pensions Act. I think the sooner they consider the question of the setting up of this Committee, and even consider the scrapping of the Act altogether, the better for themselves and for the country as a whole.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister pointed out that he did not quote the sum of £300,000 as the amount to be saved. He says he quoted £500,000 as the sum that he expected. I think if he enquires he will find that £300,000 was the sum he intimated as the amount to be saved in the first instance, and ultimately he mentioned £500,000. Whether the ultimate period has yet arrived I do not know.

Mr. BLYTHE

If the Deputy would pardon me, at the moment I think I could make that clear. It is obvious, if you look at the figures, that the 1/- cut itself would give £300,000. Roughly, the amount spent on pensions was £3,000,000. Ten per cent. of that amount would give £300,000.

Mr. JOHNSON

Exactly. That just leads up to the point I was about to make. The Minister will admit, because he was present here at the time while the other Deputies were not, that we insisted from these benches that the evil of the proposal was not solely in the 1/- cut, but that it was wrapped up in the proposals for revaluation of perquisites and such like, and we insisted upon that as definitely and as persistently as it was possible to do. Yet the Deputies allowed that to pass. The Farmers' benches, unfortunately, saved the Bill. They could have defeated the Bill. I am sorry that they participated in the act of passing that old age pension reduction.

Mr. GOREY

Will the Deputy specify how we could have defeated the Bill?

Mr. JOHNSON

You could have used your influence with the Dáil and with the country to prevent the Bill being passed.

Mr. GOREY

By a vote in the Dáil?

Mr. JOHNSON

By a vote in the Dáil, and it would have been possible to have influenced the country by informing the people of the effects of the Bill. If the country could realise what the effects of the Bill would have been, the people would have risen and prevented the Bill passing.

Mr. GOREY

Risen?

Mr. JOHNSON

You have a £300,000 saving in respect of the 1/- cut, and you have at least £128,000, and possibly £200,000 of a saving in respect of the revaluation of perquisites. That means to say in many cases—and I want to give one instance where people have been depending upon a few shillings pension—that the pension has been reduced by 100 per cent.—wiped out altogether. In some cases it has been reduced by 50 per cent., in others by 40 per cent., and in others by 30 per cent. The case I want to quote is where it has applied in respect to blind persons in an institution. In this particular case I hoped to have the exact figures, but the main facts are: Seventy or eighty persons living in an institution for the blind have been in receipt of a pension. Owing presumably to the increased cost of foodstuffs, the valuation of their perquisites, and the amount they received for their food, clothing and lodging, what is received by the institution and by themselves has been revalued and, as a consequence, their pension is cut down to 1/-. Either the persons themselves or the institution suffers. The institution suffers, because it got the benefit of the pension, and the institution has now to apply either to the charitable public or else drive these people out.

There is no doubt whatever that the way the Act has been administered during the past twelve months or eighteen months or two years has been so rigorous as to create a belief in the minds of many thousands of people that the purpose of the Ministry responsible is to drive the people on to poor law, or to drive them to beg in the streets—to do anything but to fulfil the intentions of the Act. I think that the evils accompanying this administrative action are not so much in the cut of 1s., bad as that may be, but in the way it is administered. I asked the Minister on previous occasions to tabulate, and put on the Table, the orders that have been issued from the Department to the officials, so that we could understand what was the tone of the Ministry in respect to these pensions, what was the spirit in which they were administering the Act, and what kind of instructions they were giving to their officers. I hope the Dáil will agree to the motion of the Deputy, and I hope it will be interpreted, if it is passed, as authorising a complete enquiry into the method of administration of the Act. I think the Minister will have to plead very hard, and very eloquently, before he can convince us that the administration of the Act is being carried out in the spirit that was implied in the original Act—the original Act, not the last Act. The spirit of that Act was to ensure that people who had reached the age of seventy years would be reckoned to have done fair service to the community, and that they should not in their old age be bound to a life of utter dependence upon charitable neighbours, or to seek the aid of the poor law. I think we have got to remember that this is a Pensions Act, and it should be considered as such. I do not believe that its administration at the present time is being carried out in the spirit of the Old Age Pensions Act.

Mr. GOREY

Before the Minister replies, I should like to dispel some of the illusions that Deputy Johnson wishes to create, not in the minds of the Deputies here who know the circumstances, but in the minds of the public outside, who do not. I do not object to Deputy Johnson flinging around a little mud so that some of it may stick. That is tactics. For that reason I do not blame him for using tactics.

Mr. JOHNSON

The question is, is it true?

Mr. GOREY

Deputy Johnson practically represents us as being the creators of this cut, that it could not operate without our assistance, and that we could prevent it if we wished. Deputy Johnson knows as well as I do, and as well as every other Deputy here does, that whatever action we took, and if we voted 100 per cent. against that Act, we could not have prevented its enforcement.

Mr. JOHNSON

You voted for it.

Mr. GOREY

We voted for it. If we voted against it, 100 per cent. of our Party, we could not have altered the position, and Deputy Johnson knows it. He says that if we went to the country or did something very active that we could have raised the country. I make him a present of the whole joke. Now, in regard to the principle of the Bill and our action on it, I ask the Dáil to remember that the Deputies on these Benches, and I, are absolutely unrepentant with regard to what we did. When it comes to be administered and that is what this motion is dealing with—administration—our attitude is altogether different. We quarrel with the method of finding out ages and the trouble that is taken to prove men's ages and the lack of will on the part of pension officers to accept plain evidence. Particularly do I object to the method of putting down the gift of some friends to help any particular individual. I am speaking for myself in this matter. I think it is absolutely abhorrent if I choose to be kind to an individual that the Government should take advantage of it. If I choose to give a room in my house to some person that is put down as an asset belonging to the nation. The Government claims it. If the Minister is charitable —maybe he has some little money to give away—and if he chooses to exercise his charitable instincts, it goes for nought. His kindness is subtracted from the income of the unfortunate individual. That was never contemplated by any Deputy in this House, and I am sure it was not contemplated by the Minister himself. I am sure he does not stand over this policy. If he does, it is something that we do not expect, and I think it will reduce the Minister in the eyes of all of us to a level that we did not expect he would descend to. The case that was instanced by Deputy Byrne certainly indicates a line that was never contemplated by any of us on these Benches, and I venture to suggest that it was never contemplated by any Deputy in the House.

Mr. JOHNSON

Read the Debates.

Mr. GOREY

The Debates may disclose one thing. Different meanings can be read into words but the true meaning of the words will always remain. I say we are unrepentant with regard to the principle. People with an income of their own, independent of the pension, ought to have that taken into consideration. People who get a present from some friend, altogether outside of income, altogether outside anything but the kindness of a relative or friend, ought not to have that taken into consideration. We are unrepentant with regard to anything we have done. What we intended to do we did, and anything that has taken place without our knowledge and that we did not intend is what we quarrel with. We are absolutely unrepentant and we offer no apology for our action.

Mr. LYONS

I wish to support this motion. It is information to me when Deputies say they did not at the time the Old Age Pensions Act was going through the Dáil, fully understand how serious it was for the old and infirm.

Mr. GOREY

On a point of explanation, Deputies have not said that in this debate. We say the administration has gone beyond what it should have gone.

Mr. LYONS

It is admitted now that when the Bill was going through the Dáil we understood that there would be at least a 10 per cent. cut in all the old age pensions. That cut was agreed to. I am very pleased now to see that those Deputies who agreed to it have seen the true light—that it meant a great deal more than a cut of 10 per cent.—and that they find out now really what was at the back of the mind of the Minister. There have been several cases of real hardship concerning the old and infirm and especially the blind. I know some cases where blind people up to 60 or 65 years of age were in receipt of pensions of ten shillings per week. They were first cut by a shilling a week and without any notification or without making any enquiries as to their financial position, there was another cut, making it four shillings. In other cases, on the question of age, I have myself, time after time, written to the Department concerning applicants for the old age pension. It was proved by documentary evidence that the applicants were over 70 years of age but they could not supply birth certificates and they were refused the pension. Two persons older than themselves had sworn affidavits, but these were not accepted. It seems that the memory of the persons concerned must go back to some historical event before their evidence can be taken. I think the Minister should accept this motion. I am quite aware it is not the fault of the Minister.

I fully understood at the time that the Minister had simply to put forward the Bill as he was directed by the Government. We were out for economy. The only people we could economise on were the old people who could not put up a fight. We did not cut the incomes of people at the head of the State, because they probably could put up a fight. I do not want to see any salaries reduced. I certainly do not want to see old people turned into paupers as they are being at the present moment. It is a great hardship on old people of seventy or seventy-one years of age when they make applications for their pension to be refused on the ground that they could not prove their ages by the production of birth certificates. I have known cases where they have produced the marriage certificates of their parents and these would not be taken in evidence. The mover of the motion says that they take photographs of tombstones in England as a guarantee of age, but in Ireland we will not accept the marriage certificate of the parents of the applicant.

There is another very serious thing to be considered in connection with this matter. It affects the worker. A worker may be sixty-five or sixty-six years of age, while his wife may be over seventy. He had been working when the wages were high or what were called high. His wage may have been £2 or £2 5s. a week, or 35s. a week, eighteen months or two years ago. His wife was in receipt of a pension of 6/- or 8/- and on going to the firm where the man was employed, the pension officer of the district reduces the pension without making any enquiries as to whether the husband was in receipt of the same wages now as eighteen months ago. They will not take a letter from that employer. I have personally submitted a letter from an employer, on behalf of an applicant whose wages were calculated on a period of six months, and it would not be accepted because they were not based on a twelve-months' period. That applicant cannot appeal for six months. By agreeing to this motion you will leave the old age pensioners in a position to make an appeal, and all papers and records that have been submitted to the local committee can be submitted to this Committee. I think the Minister fully realises, and the Local Government Department fully realises, that even at the time this reduction in the old age pensions took place the cost of living was not so high as it is now. The cost of living has gone up especially in the case of these old people who cannot afford to buy the expensive stuff that has fallen in price. They can only buy plain food which has gone up in price.

Taking these things into account, I think the least the Minister can do is to agree to the motion, especially as he is after saving a great many thousands more than he anticipated. He anticipated saving £300,000, but I think, if the truth were known, it must be over £800,000. A number of people are in receipt of one shilling weekly. Fancy walking three miles for one shilling! I wonder if Government Departments have any hearts at all. I do not suppose they have. If they have, I think they must be as hard as flint. I think the Dáil has an opportunity now of expressing an opinion, and I hope that Deputies will vote for the motion. If the Minister does not agree with the terms of the motion to set up a committee, he will make old people who have given seventy years of their lives to the State suffer. They will realise that they have a Government of their own established and that the first action of that Government was to penalise, persecute, and I might say, torture them. It comes to that. I hope Deputies will support the motion, and not be saying in three months' time that if they had known the contrary would be the effect, they would not have voted for a reduction in pensions. There is an opportunity now of undoing some of the things that were done. Every Deputy who voted for a reduction of the old age pensions has now an opportunity of repenting for the sin he committed against these old people in voting for the Bill.

As to certificates of age, surely it is sufficient if old people, eighty years of age, express their opinion. People of that age are not going to swear a false oath, and one would expect that an affidavit from them would be accepted stating that they remembered when an applicant was five years of age and that it was over 65 years ago. We find that such evidence is not accepted. It is necessary to recall the killing of some one, the building of a school, or the making of a railway, or some event that is mentioned in history. I am very pleased that Deputy McKenna has brought forward this motion. I hope the Minister for Finance will accept it, and that he will advise the Minister for Local Government to agree with him. In doing so, they will only be undoing some of the things that were done against the old age pensioners. The bit that was going into their mouths was taken from them, but if this motion is agreed to it will be an encouragement to them to live longer, and enable them to get some more nourishment. The nine shillings weekly would be given in cases where there is no other income.

I know hundreds of cases where the people are party depending upon home help. Complaint is made that the expenditure on home help has increased. Why would it not increase? The people who receive it have nothing else to live on. Unless some member of the county board of health or of a public body recommends them for grants of three or four shillings weekly, they have nothing to keep them. There is also the case of a man who is married, with a family of his own, whose mother resides with him. His earnings for his wife and family are taken into account, and his mother is debarred from getting the pension on that account. Surely that is not justice. I ask every Deputy to vote so as to try and get the Minister for Local Government, and the Minister for Finance to accede to this motion, with a view to helping the old age pensioners, upon whom the cut was such a hardship.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

This matter has been dealt with, I think in three aspects. There has been a discussion of the Act of 1924. I am not going to deal with the question of that Act. That was a necessity. It was a thing that was forced on us by circumstances altogether outside our control. The financial circumstances have not so changed that the Act could be repealed. We are still in the condition where our income from taxation does not equal ordinary outgoings, leaving out of account altogether compensation charges, and leaving out of account also any army charges in excess of £2,000,000. I would not like, when we come to the next Budget, to be in the position of having to propose an increase in taxation. I regretted that the Bill had to be brought in, and I also regret that it could not, at this stage, at any rate, be repealed or altered.

There has been talk about the system of administration. The system of administration is exactly the same as has prevailed since the Old Age Pensions Act came into operation.

We have the operations of the officers of Customs and Excise who act as pension officers, we have the pensions committee and the sub-committees which consider cases; we have the Ministry of Local Government, which acts as the appeal tribunal; we have the Post Office, which acts as the paying agent, and we have the Ministry of Finance, which deals with the general policy of legislation. That is the system which has been in operation since the old age pensions were introduced. If there were any desire to reconsider the system, I would not be averse to the appointment of a commission consisting of members of the Dáil and of qualified outsiders to consider whether another system of administration might not profitably be substituted for the system we have at present. It has been suggested by some people that the old age pensioners should be given the opportunity of going before a District Justice, and that their cases should be determined judicially by him. There are very strong arguments against that, even from the point of view of the old age pensioners. If it was considered wise, a commission could be set up to consider a scheme of administration. It has also been suggested that counties, out of the rates, should pay some proportion of the total charge of the pensions for the county, and that the Old Age Pension Committees should, with that check upon them, be given a much freer hand than they are given at the present time. There are objections to that. But if it is really desired to review the system of administration of old age pensions, it could be considered by a body set up to do that. I think, if we are going to have a general review of the system, it would better be done by a body consisting of members of the Dáil and of qualified outsiders, rather than by a Committee of the Dáil alone. If there was a feeling for that, I would not, as I have said, be averse to the setting up of such a Commission.

So much for the system. The real talk here has not been about the system at all. Except to a small extent, it has been about the administration. It is really premature to deal at present with the administration, but I will reply to one or two points that Deputy McKenna put. He asked whether there has been any special and confidential instructions sent to pension officers to hunt down, as he said, old age pensioners. Of course there were not. You could not send such instructions out. If any such instructions were sent out, you may be sure that they would not remain "special and confidential." Under the operative section in the Act, the instruction sent out to old age pension officers was:

"Every pension officer is to recalculate immediately the means of all pensioners in his station. Subject to review, the fixing of the new rate of pension is to be based on the particulars given on Form O.A.P. No. 58, except where the officer has reason to believe that the record thereon does not correctly represent the pensioner's true means."

Now, Form O.A.P. No. 58 is a special form, which was filled when the pensioner was originally given the pension. I should say that in, perhaps, 80 per cent. of the cases—certainly in the vast majority of the cases—the pension officers simply took the means they had already set down in the forms on record in their offices, and calculated the new rate of pension in accordance with the Acts. They had nothing to do except a quite mechanical operation. They had not even the time to go into a reconsideration of the means, on the spot, of the 120,000 pensioners, and it was not necessary in the big majority of cases to do so. The information which was already in the office was taken and, by arithmetical calculation, the new rate of pension was determined. In every case, of course, where the officer had some reason to believe that the form was inaccurate he did make an investigation on the spot.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are we to understand from that that the valuation of perquisites, meaning, say, the valuation of the food supplied to the old age pensioner, or the bed or lodging supplied, or the clothing he wears, was revalued according to to-day's prices? Is that the position?

Mr. BLYTHE

His means were set down in the form. They were already on record. Those means were taken and the new scale, laid down in the Act, was applied to those means.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister mean to say that no change in the valuation of perquisites has been made?

Mr. BLYTHE

Not in the majority of cases.

Mr. JOHNSON

How many thousand cases?

Mr. BLYTHE

If the value was wrong for the old Act it is no more wrong and no more right for the new Act. As a matter of fact, those perquisites are valued very low. They are valued at the present time, I think, well below what they might be if one wanted to put the uttermost penny on them. I do not accept the Deputy's statement at all. If there was only a question of a bed, it would not come into the account, because unless the person had at least 7/- of other means it would not be counted at all. I place no reliance at all on any statement of Deputy Byrne's in regard to this matter.

Mr. A. BYRNE

If he had 7/- it would count.

Mr. BLYTHE

I have already referred to the question of the "absolute and arbitrary authority," as someone called it, exercised by the Local Government Department. If a better tribunal can be suggested, on consideration by a suitable authority, I have no objection at all to the whole matter being gone into. Deputy Hogan referred to concrete cases. It is easy to bring up concrete cases when nobody else has any of the facts about them, and I could not argue with the Deputy in regard to that.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I can give the Minister the facts if he doubts my word.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not know whether there are not other facts, and I do not know whether the Deputy knows the whole facts.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

I have the facts as admitted by the Minister for Local Government and investigated by his inspectors. If the Minister doubts my word, I have the file in connection with these cases here and I will hand it across to him.

Mr. BLYTHE

I have not the facts and it is easy for the Deputy, who has them, to talk about these cases. I would remind the Deputy that some 20,000 pensions are granted per annum. No matter what system you have, you are bound to have refusals and you are bound to have people annoyed at refusals—even at refusals which could be argued with a good deal of plausibility and reason. There are now 119,031 old age pensioners. Of these 92,158 have the maximum pension; that is 9/-; 26,873 have less than the maximum: that is less than 9/-. Previously something like 10,000 had less than the old maximum of 10/-.

There has been an increase in the number of pensioners below the maximum, of 16,000. There is no use in talking about the behaviour of the Local Government Department in regard to these review cases. So far, the Local Government Department has actually received only about 2,400 appeals. It expects to receive perhaps about 4,000, but, so far, of these 16,000 only 2,400 have actually had appeals forwarded to the Local Government Department. Several hundred of these came in this week. So far, the Local Government Department has only dealt with 800 of these appeals, so that, nobody can say what way the Act has been administered so far as the question of deciding appeals by the Local Government Department is concerned. Deputy McKenna's statement in that respect is altogether premature. With regard to tightness of administration, I said when the Bill was passing that I favoured rather a definite reduction in the scale than trying to save a few pounds on the Vote by means of strictness in administration. In pursuance of the sort of undertaking I then gave the Dáil, about three weeks ago I had a conference with the Minister for Local Government and the responsible officials in his Department.

We then decided that while, of course, the law is binding on Ministers and officials just as on pensioners, so far as the law allowed and so far as discretion could be exercised within the law, it should be exercised to the benefit of the pensioners. We agreed that as such a large sum was being taken out of the Vote, that even if less rigid administration meant the loss of £20,000 or £50,000 per year, that loss could be afforded. We agreed that, in dealing with the question of review of means, wherever there was a doubt the pensioner should get the benefit of that doubt. Further, in dealing with the question of proof of age, we decided that we could afford now to give the pensioner the benefit of the doubt even if it meant that an occasional person under 70 years of age would get the pension. We agreed in the case of persons who had no means, or who had very little means and who would be entitled to the maximum pension—persons who were certainly very nearly 70 and might, so far as one could judge, be over 70— that they should get the benefit of the doubt even if there was no documentary evidence.

When Deputies say that, following this Act, there has been a tightening of administration they are taking a view that is altogether contrary to the fact. We have concluded that, because so much has been taken out of this Vote, we can afford to relax the rigidity of administration so far as it can be done without setting the Minister or officials above the law. After all, if a thing is not within the four corners of an Act, no discretion can be allowed a Minister or an official to override the law. So far as it can be done, we are endeavouring to alleviate the hardship this Act may cause to the poorer class of pensioners and the hardship that may be caused by the general difficulty of getting proof of age. I think I have said on that point all that is necessary at the moment.

In regard to the future system of administration, if there is a desire to review that system, I am prepared to have a Commission set up to go into the whole question of an improved system for the administration of the Pensions Act. In regard to the actual administration, I say that no case can yet be made, even if it should be possible later on to do so. We are still only at the end of the first stage. The "cuts" have been carried out by pensions' officers in accordance with the Act. The appeals have not yet, to any appreciable extent, been heard, and I think that nobody could form any opinion on the matter until the bulk of the appeals, at any rate, have been heard. If any person has not appealed within the usual time, that can be dealt with by means of a question in the ordinary way and the hearing will be expedited.

Mr. GOREY

I would like the Minister to answer regarding one point that was raised. Does he contend that the gift of any person to a pensioner should be calculated in the yearly means of a claimant?

Mr. BLYTHE

Neither the law nor the practice has been altered in that respect since we came into office or since the Free State was set up. We have not touched that matter one way or the other. Means given by a son or daughter are, and always have been, counted as means.

Mr. A. BYRNE

They were not counted as means.

The PRESIDENT

I can certainly contradict Deputy Byrne. I know they were, and I was a member of an Old Age Pensions Committee longer than Deputy Byrne.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would not notice anything that Deputy Byrne might say. The words of the 1911 Act are—"the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed." That has always, since the Act came into operation, been taken into account. We have not altered that. The Deputy may contend that it should be altered, but it cannot be altered without amendment of the law. I certainly think that though there might be a case in respect of gifts from an outsider, that it ought to be counted the duty of a son or daughter, who are in a position to do so, to contribute to the support of their parents. In any case, we have not altered the law or the facts in regard to that matter.

Mr. GOREY

I want the Minister to say whether that is good law or bad law. If a gift is made by deed, say, by a daughter, son or husband, I would say that that should be counted as means, but a gift from a nephew, niece or outsider, in the ordinary way, should not be counted as yearly means.

Mr. BLYTHE

It always was. Whether it ought or ought not to be so counted is a matter we could discuss some other time.

Mr. GOREY

Has the law ever been contested?

Mr. BLYTHE

It has been the practice.

Mr. GOREY

The practice is wrong.

Mr. A. BYRNE

rose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Before the Deputy proceeds, is this question going to be decided before 8.30?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The Minister has not said whether he is accepting the motion or not.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am not accepting the motion. If there is a desire for review of the system, I am prepared to have a Commission set up to go into the whole matter and make recommendations.

Mr. McKENNA

I think the Minister has met me very fairly, and I do not wish to divide the House. I would like to know if the Commission he proposes to set up would review the system at present in vogue and try and hammer out a more satisfactory scheme.

Mr. BLYTHE

That is the idea, if it can be done.

Mr. BAXTER

Do we understand from that that the administration of the present system would be also under review by this Commission?

Mr. BLYTHE

Not administration. There has been no case made in regard to administration.

Mr. A. BYRNE

Might I point out to the Minister that where a son or daughter brings into the home a father or mother, or a father-in-law or a mother-in-law, and gives a bed in a small back room, that that is assessed now as means to the extent of 3/-. Where the pensioner would get 9/- he only gets 6/- because a relative voluntarily assists him in this way.

Mr. BLYTHE

That is not true, but I would not answer Deputy Byrne.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Does the Minister consider that one medical inspector is sufficient to deal with all appeals which come in under the Blind Pensions Act.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We will have to take up this matter again on Friday.

Debate adjourned.