I am quite aware of that. I need not go over certain of the details that were referred to by the Commission. I think there are only about two recommendations that we will reject. The first is in regard to the publication of instructions to pensions officers. We do not reject that recommendation because there would be anything that we might hesitate to publish on account of its character. We reject it simply because the work of public officers would be made difficult if the instructions to those officers were to be published. In some cases, the work of officers would be made almost impossible. Our objection is grounded on a question, of general administrative principle. The other recommendation is in regard to the retrospective effect which should be given a pension if admitted secondly, having been rejected in the first instance because age was not proven. We are trying, generally speaking, to carry out the recommendations of this Committee, with these exceptions—either in the form put forward by the Committee or in some modified form. In some cases, where the Committee suggested a regulation, we think the object could be effected simply by an administrative instruction. In general, we are trying to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.
Pensions officers have a great deal of freedom in regard to the estimation of means of applicants. They are expected to keep themselves in touch with the changes in prices. They have the power of consulting with their immediate superior, who is older and more experienced, and who is dealing with a number of pensions officers. I do not think it is possible to lay down any very rigid regulations that would guide them, because agricultural conditions differ so much in different districts. The quality of land, the productivity of land, the proximity of markets—all these things vary so much that it would be impossible to lay down any rigid regulations. The only thing that can be done is to instruct the pensions officers to be as careful as possible to make a just estimation, and to have their surveyors keep in touch with them and assist them in doing so. Nothing more occurs to me that could be done in regard to means. We cannot send out an instruction to officers that they are to estimate means at a lower figure than they have been estimating them at. We can send no other instruction to officers than to find out the facts as well as they possibly can, taking every care to be fair to the applicant. I do not see that we can do more than that. We cannot say, "Your estimates of means have been too high hitherto; you must estimate them lower in the future, and you must give more pensions." It would be wrong for the Government to say that too few or too many pensions are being given. We must take the law as we find it, and we must administer it as fairly as we possibly can and with reasonable sympathy. At the same time, we must not have the idea getting abroad amongst either the people or officials that public money may be splashed about.
In regard to proof of age there are also difficulties, but where reasonably definite affidavits are received I think they are generally accepted. In many cases I have personal knowledge of, reasonable affidavits have been accepted. There never was a time, except at the very beginning of the Act, when the word of a clergyman or of somebody like that, who believed the applicant was of age, was accepted. In the first year of the operation of the Act, that may have been the case, but it has not been the case since. It must be recognised that, in regard both to age and means, there are many people who will misrepresent the facts of the case in order to obtain pensions for themselves. We have in recent months been able to bring actions against people who had considerable sums in bank and who had obtained old age pensions. We took steps for the recovery of the pensions which had been paid.
To illustrate the need for being careful, I might mention a couple of cases that came to light in a certain part of the country quite recently. Two parish clerks had been, apparently, for a considerable number of years, in the habit of receiving bribes. They prepared false certificates, and these certificates, without investigation, were signed by clergymen, so that what the pensions officer got time after time was a certificate from a clergyman that the register showed the person to have been a particular age. As I say, these were false certificates, and in two adjoining parishes it was found that the Exchequer had been defrauded to the extent of £14,000, although every pension was given on the certificate of a clergyman, who, of course, did not take proper care to verify it. Another case in another part of the country is under investigation at present, where the same sort of thing has happened. That indicates that it is not all a one-sided business—that it is not altogether a matter of the pensions officer being strict and careful in demanding proofs and keeping poor people who ought to get the pension from getting it. The pensions officer has no such instructions; he will get no credit for doing anything of the sort. But he is expected, as far as he can, to see that everybody who is entitled to get a pension gets it, and that persons who are not entitled to get a pension do not get it.
I am quite willing to do everything possible to see that the people are dealt with not only with civility and consideration, but with reasonable sympathy, but we cannot really go further than that. Some of the matters that Deputies complained of are necessary under the law. As I understand the case referred to by Deputy O'Gorman, it was undoubtedly one for very great sympathy, but I do not see that the pensions officer could have done anything else than he did. Apparently the person was not qualified for a blind pension as the law stands at present, either on account of age or on account of blindness, in spite of her need. I do not think that we can let the idea get out that officers might close the other eye, and because a case is a hard case allow the pension to go through, although it was not legal. If such an idea were allowed to go out, I believe it would spread corruption through the public service, and that is a thing we have to beware of. While we might desire that the law should be altered— and I agree in regard to blindness that the law does require alteration—as long as the law stands the officers must have regard to its provisions, and cannot be allowed to step outside it for reasons of sympathy or because of the hardness of a case. In regard to means, the same sort of thing arises. Undoubtedly, if a person is maintained, whether those maintaining him are legally bound to do so or not, the value of his maintenance must be taken into account. That is how the law stands, and no pension officer can be blamed for carrying out the law.
