In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 7—Old Age Pensions. – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Wednesday, 19 Feb 1930

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 7—Old Age Pensions.

Mr. Lynch

I move:

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar £14,800 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na blíana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun íoc Pinseanna Sean-Aoise fé Achtanna na bPinsean Sean-Aoise, 1908 go 1924, chun Costaisí Riaracháin áirithe a bhaineann leo san, agus chun pinseanna fén Blind Persons Act, 1920.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £14,800 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the payment of Old Age Pensions under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920.

Mr. Blythe

This Supplementary Estimate is necessary, because the trend of numbers in respect of old age pensioners has changed from what it was in the early days after the setting up of the Saorstát. Apart from any question of administration, there was a decline in the number of persons entitled to Old Age Pensions for a period. That reduction reflected the sharp decline in the population 70 years previously. Recently —and this is perhaps due to better health conditions in the country and to better hygienic conditions—the tendency has been rather to increase. The Estimate last year did not allow for certain increases. In fact, that Estimate was based on the opinion that there might be, again, some small decline. There was a slight increase in the number of old age pensioners. There was also a small increase in the average amount paid to the individual old age pensioners. There was an increase also in the expenses of the Old Age Pension Committees, and that was due to the fact that claims and questions that arose and had to be dealt with by the Pension Committees and the Sub-Pension Committees after the Act of 1928 still continued to a degree much in excess of what had been actually contemplated. It will be still as big as it was in the year 1928-29 as far as it is possible to judge it at the moment.

Mr. Carney

If it is allowable on this Vote to mention pensions officers, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister the numberless complaints that have been made all over the country about the attitude of pensions officers towards claims that have been allowed by the Old Age Pension Committees and Sub-Committees. I have had several cases and so. I presume have other Deputies—from what they have said here in the House. It was quite obvious that the people concerned who were claiming the pensions, were entitled to pensions on the grounds of age. There was no objection as far as I could learn in these particular cases on the grounds of means.

I remember one case in Glencolumbeille of a pension claim that had been allowed by the Pension Committee after an affidavit as to age in the case had been signed by three or four responsible people, who in the ordinary course of events would be taken as people of good faith and people who in the ordinary course of events would not sign anything which was untrue. These responsible people had sworn that the claimant concerned was of the statutory age. The claim had been allowed by the Pensions Committee, but it was repeatedly turned down on the advice, I understand, of the pensions officer. In this particular case in Glencolumbcille, I was in the house and saw the claimant. It would have been quite obvious to anybody, to even a blind man, if he had only felt her face with his hand, that the person was over 70 years of age. It was perfectly obvious to me and would have been obvious to the pensions officer if he had seen the claimant. But that case, though I myself put it before the Minister again, was turned down again. I would like to say to the Minister that if the pensions officer, in the face of the Pensions Committee, is going to turn down what is perfectly obviously a just claim the Minister will have to do something to remedy that. I, therefore, thought it proper on this Vote to put this before the Minister. I have listened here, and I have said very little in this House on this matter. I have listened to complaint after complaint against the pensions officers. It is perfectly obvious to me that the pensions officers are more than exceeding their duties in this regard.

Mr. Carey

The only complaint I have to make, as far as the Old Age Pensions Department is concerned, is the delay in the granting of pensions to claimants who are entitled to them. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to that matter. Officers who go around to estimate the assets of cottiers go too far. They count the number of apple trees in the plot and they put an estimate on the average weight of apples produced on each tree. They count the number of fowl, and all that sort of thing. I imagine myself that this mode of procedure in determining the assets of an applicant is a great hardship.

I believe that if the inquiries were more restricted it would be more equitable, and that if the officers were to confine themselves to ascertaining the amount of money coming into any particular house their assessment of the income of the applicant would be more satisfactory than going around counting the hens and counting the apples on the trees in the orchard. That method is very unfair to the applicant. I say from the Government Benches here that that is a very unfair way of determining the amount of the pension which the claimant is entitled to receive.

Mr. E. Doyle

I would like to support the Deputy who has spoken on this matter of the old age pensions. In fact, it is only waste of time on the part of the pension committees to sit listening to pension claims; for when the pensions officer comes along he turns down, month after month, the claims that they have passed. Some change should be made in the method by which the pensions officers assess the income of the claimant. A poor person who is an applicant for a pension is sometimes living in a labourer's cottage with a relative, and surely it is absurd for the pensions officer to come along and talk of that as income. The pensions officer never goes into the house at all. For instance, I have one case of a sister who was living with her brother in a labourer's cottage. The brother has nine or ten children, and the pensions officer assesses that applicant with "income" because she has been given shelter in her brother's house. Some alteration is overdue in that matter, and I suggest to the Minister that some consideration should be given to those claimants.

Mr. Smith

I think there really was some explanation required as to why the Government found it necessary to have a supplementary estimate for old age pensions. In the country we have been asked what was happening to the Local Government Department, because it was almost impossible to get through to it. Members of sub-committees who have been working in connection with pensions for years were surprised. I am glad that the Minister has now given us the reason, and we will be able to tell our constituents that it was because it was necessary to move for a supplementary estimate that the strings were tightened.

Mr. Law

I have not very much complaint to make about the manner in which the incomes of people are estimated. I think, however, there is ground for complaint sometimes as to the long delay that takes place in the investigation of cases. A difficulty arises in out-of-the way places. The law requires that before a pension can be given the applicant must have definite proof of age. In many out-of-the-way places positive proof is practically unobtainable. That is a matter of common knowledge. In many places, when these people were born, there was no State registration of births. Parish registers have not been well kept, and where they were well kept they have, for one reason or another, perished. People were not great writers at that time, and the result is that documentary evidence of age does not exist. That difficulty the Local Government Department tried to meet very reasonably and fairly on the whole by accepting whatever other evidence could be produced. The trouble is that, with the exception of a general belief based upon knowledge of the individual, there is really no proof available at all. There is no documentary proof of any kind, neither vaccination, marriage, birth certificates nor any other documentary proof whatever, and, therefore, if the Local Government Department kept within the strict letter of the law, as far as I can see those pensions could never be granted.

What happens is that after a great deal of trouble and a refusal of the claim for want of proof on one or two or three occasions, in the long run some further investigation takes place on the spot. An inspector, perhaps, sees the old person and satisfies himself that in all reasonable probability, as no proof is there, the person has attained the age of 70, and ultimately a pension is granted. I think that which is the exceptional procedure and which is reached after a very long delay might become a little more the regular practice. As soon as it becomes evident that in a particular case the local committee is convinced that the person is of the required statutory age, and since it is evident that documentary proof is not forthcoming, then what is now merely the exception might be made the regular practice; that is, that instructions should be issued to an inspector to see the claimant. If that were done I do not believe that it would result in any more pensions being granted, because, perhaps, in many cases the inspector could not satisfy himself that the person had attained the age. It would result in this, that in cases where it is quite clear that the person is the age, the heartbreaking delays that at present take place would not occur, and it would save a great deal of friction.

Mr. Shaw

I recognise there has been a considerable improvement in the administration of old age pensions. Something, however, ought to be done in connection with chronic cases. I refer to the cases of people who cannot obtain their baptismal certificates and who are unable to give proof of age. There is not a shadow of doubt about it, a great many of them are over 70 years. They are not getting the pension and there is no prospect that they will get a pension. Other Deputies, I am sure, have had complaints of this nature. We all recognise that those people are entitled to pensions and that they are over seventy, but they are knocked out by not being able to give proof. It is a very grave hardship. They are told that they must go to wherever they were born or to the school where they were educated. A great many of them are illiterate or are physically unable to go. I have a suggestion to make which, if adopted, would meet the case. That suggestion is that those persons ought to be able to take their cases before a District Justice. They can produce evidence in the court showing that they are the required age. Many of these people are physically unable to travel perhaps fifty miles to where they were born. If they were permitted to make a case before the District Justice I believe that the persons now unable to get pensions would be permitted to receive them. The number is limited, and in a great many cases it is not the money that matters so much as the hardship of knowing they are over seventy and they are deprived of getting a pension because they are unable, not through any fault of their own, but because records were not kept, to give documentary proof of their ages.

I put a suggestion to the Minister now that I think would meet the case, and that suggestion is that the applicant should be permitted to go before a District Justice, make his or her case as to age, and then, having made their case before the District Justice, they should be granted a pension. Persons very often much younger are getting pensions.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not want to say much as to the investigations that take place with regard to the means by which the pensions officers assess income, because I know that in this matter the tax-payers' interests must be safeguarded. I can, however, from personal knowledge say that there is too much delay in the making of these investigations. I think the Minister ought bear in mind that the applicants who are entitled to these pensions are usually in very poor circumstances. That period is a very anxious one for them. If anything could be done to expedite the inquiries of pensions officers, particularly in cases of appeals from the decision of pensions committees, I think for humanity's sake it should be done.

Mr. Connolly

With regard to old age pensions generally we find, for the past few years, that in most cases the position with regard to them has been very satisfactory. There is one matter I want to bring to the Minister's attention. In many cases where people are unable to procure birth certificates what they invariably do is to give the date on their marriage certificate. I am afraid that in many cases the ages that ladies give when they are getting married are not quite convincing. Therefore, I think that when an applicant for a pension gives as evidence in regard to age her marriage certificate that the pensions officer should not pay the strictest regard to it. I came across some cases recently where applicants gave the date of their marriage as proof that they were a certain age at that time. The age they were supposed to be at the time they got married simply put them out of court altogether and very few of them got the pension. In cases where affidavits have been submitted to the pensions officer and the pensions committee, in nine cases out of ten the pension has been awarded. In conclusion I would ask that in future the pensions officer should not pay too much regard to marriage certificates as evidence of an applicant's age.

Mr. Fahy

I desire to support the plea made by Deputy Connolly that the age entered on the marriage certificate, a woman's age particularly, should not be taken as a guide by the pensions officer. Deputies from the country, in particular, are aware that the ages stated on these marriage certificates are very far from being reliable. Very often they would be five or six years out to the disadvantage of the people looking for a pension. I would like the Minister to take that matter into consideration when issuing instructions—I believe such instructions are issued—to the old age pensions officers.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

I desire to make a few remarks regarding the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts. I notice in the Estimate that there is an amount of money set aside for the work of pensions committees. I do not know whether what I am going to suggest will be regarded as undemocratic, but when one considers the way the matter works out in practice, I suggest the Minister should tell us what are the functions of the pensions committee. In practice what happens is this: a person puts in an application for an old age pension. The application is sent to the pensions officer who makes the necessary investigations as to whether the statutory conditions are fulfilled in the matter of means and age. After a time the application comes before the pensions committee. The committee investigates the matter as far as they are capable of doing so. They either award a pension or refuse it. If the pensions officer thinks that the applicant should not have been granted a pension, he appeals to the Minister for Local Government. The Minister then deals with the matter, and decides it one way or another. The position is that it is not the pensions committee but the pensions officer that decides whether there will be an appeal to the Minister for Local Government or not. If the pensions committee decide that an applicant is entitled to a pension and the pensions officer holds a contrary view, there is then an appeal to the Minister for Local Government who makes the final decision. But if the pensions officer agrees with the pensions committee, the pension is granted forthwith.

That brings me to the position that I would like to know what exactly are the functions of the old age pensions committees. Have they any powers at all, or is it one of their functions, when they do recommend an applicant for a pension, to prepare a case and state the grounds on which they came to their decision and forward it to the Department of Local Government? At the present time, as far as I can see, they have no powers whatever. They simply assemble to investigate cases, but it is the pensions officer who decides either to approve of the application or to appeal. I would like to know from the Minister what exactly are the powers and functions of these pensions committees.

Mr. Blythe

When we hear various complaints about details in regard to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts it is well, I think, not to forget that the Acts are being administered in the most liberal spirit possible. If the Acts were strictly administered, or if there was any failure to give pensioners almost uniformly the benefit of the doubt, the old age pensions bill would probably be anywhere from fifty to one hundred thousand a year less than it is. It is almost impossible, in dealing with so many cases, and cases, too, where there is not the clearest evidence, to avoid a certain amount of dissatisfaction from time to time. On the whole, I think there are certainly no grounds at all for complaining about the way in which the various officers concerned with the administration of these Acts do their duty. A pensions officer, if he is not satisfied with the decision of the pensions committee, must appeal to the Department of Local Government. It is not at all easy to tell a person's age by his or her appearance. If we were to rely on a system of that kind, some people who are well over 70 would fail to get the pension, while perhaps some who are under that age would get it. As a matter of fact, appearance in a small number of cases does decide the matter. There are cases in which no evidence that is of any value at all can be obtained. As a last resort, an inspector visits the applicant, talks to him or her, and comes to some conclusion partly from appearance and partly from anything that he can gather in the way of conversation. That happens in a small minority of cases which cannot be decided in any other way, but it is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with them.

It is perfectly well recognised that many people cannot obtain birth certificates or other documentary evidence. In cases where they cannot do that, affidavits which are fairly precise are accepted in lieu of them. Hundreds and, perhaps, thousands of pensions are granted to people who cannot produce a birth certificate or evidence of a similar nature, but the affidavits of neighbours or school-fellows or people who have the means of knowing that an applicant is actually 70 years or over, would, in certain cases, be accepted. I do not think that it would be a good thing that applicants should go before a district justice, because if it became a court matter it would be the duty of the pensions officer to fight the case in the way that he would fight any other case. I think that would only lead to expense being thrown on the applicant, and perhaps to a less number of pensions being actually granted. I think that the district justice would have to regard these cases as he would regard every other case, and would have to look for strict legal proof. I do not think a district justice could decide a case by an applicant's teeth or absence of teeth, or anything of that nature. The question of allowing an appeal to the district justice was considered, and the general opinion was that it would not be to the advantage of the applicant, and that it would not lead to expedition or a more satisfactory working of the Act. We feel that the Old Age Pensions Acts cannot really be run at all on the basis of strict legal proof, and that there has to be a certain laxity, a certain exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant. If you are going to give exercise of discretion you want to get uniformity all over the country, and that is why you must have an appeal officer like the officer in the Department of Local Government who deals with all the country, and as far as possible uniformly with the cases. If a district justice dealt with them not as he would deal with ordinary matters and according to strict rules of evidence, you would have the most extraordinary differences between the district justices according to differences of temperament. Pensions officers look at things differently. There are differences of outlook. One man is inclined to be stricter than another. The thing is levelled up as far as practicable by the fact that appeals go to one central authority which deals with them.

On the question of a man's means, there have been many conferences between the officers of the Department of Agriculture and the pensions officers. Every possible attempt has been made to insure that the pensions officer's estimate of the value of lands or turbary, or anything like that, is on a basis that is real and that gives the true means. Once or twice as a result of complaints or representations to the Minister other conferences were held between the representatives of the Revenue Commissioners and the representatives of the Department of Agriculture in order to see that the outlook of the officers in that matter, and their system of estimation, was right and in accordance with the facts. I do not know whether anything remains that can be done to expedite the determination of these cases. The matter has received consideration many times. It has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the House, and many questions have been asked about it. It is not one of those things that might go on for a great number of years without being looked into. The question of the administration of old age pensions has been the subject of conferences between the Ministers and heads of Departments on many occasions.

There is a great deal of force in what Deputy Fahy and Deputy Connolly said about the unreliability of the ages shown on the marriage certificates. I do not know to what extent the appeal officer would regard such evidence as final. I think he must be aware that it is unreliable, and that it should not be used to set aside entirely in all cases other evidence that might come forward. Of course, Deputies should bear in mind, as I suppose they are aware, that there are a great many applications for old age pensions by people who know well they are not seventy years of age, and who try to bring forward evidence of one sort or another in order to get a pension, and they get through sometimes. A few years ago in a couple of parishes in the West as a result of the carelessness of the clergy false certificates were issued by parish clerks, and signed by the clergymen. I think about £15,000 was paid out to people who were not entitled to it before the fraud was discovered. We had a great number of people who were under age coming in and making applications once the news was spread quietly around that it could be done.

While there is no wholesale attempt to get pensions for people who are not entitled to them, still there are many applications coming forward from people who are near the age and who think they will have a shot at it. It is necessary for anyone dealing with the matter to remember that there are two sides to the case. While giving every latitude to the claimant for a pension, and accepting any evidence that seems good you must have some measure of doubt. There must be some investigation, and the pensions officers must occasionally put up a very definite opposition to a claim. Deputy Hogan asked what are the duties of the pensions committee. The pensions committee is a court of first instance. It gives its decision. The pensioner may appeal, or the pensions officer may appeal. If the pensions committees were doing their duty in anything like a perfect manner perhaps there might be almost as many appeals by pensioners as by officers, but the unfortunate fact is that in a great many instances pensions committees do not do their duty in any sort of thorough way. Some years ago we had before us the question of abolishing pensions committees, and we did not abolish them because there were a few committees which did their duty well and took up a judicial attitude. If there was not sufficient evidence they were quite prepared to decide against an applicant, but the majority of the pensions committees are too much on the side of the applicants. They are not judicial. I do not say that there are any of them that never turn down an application. I do not believe there are any so much on the sides of the applicants as that, but the weakness of the committees is that they are not sufficiently judicial. If they were more judicial probably there would be a greater inclination on the part of the officer to accept their decision, even if he did not agree with it, and there would be a greater tendency on the part of the deciding officer in the Department of Local Government to agree with the decisions of the committees than at present.

When looking into the matter two or three years ago I was informed that certain committees which had a good reputation had more weight with the deciding officer in doubtful cases. He took into consideration that these committees had a good reputation for doing their work well and judicially, and he was influenced by that fact. I think if pensions committees think themselves badly treated, to put it no stronger, it is partly the fault of the committees, but a court of first instance cannot object if it is occasionally reversed. There are 115,000 pensioners. A large number of claims are made every year, and a large number admitted. There is bound to be some dissatisfaction and some delay, but I say as emphatically as I can that the Act is administered in a very liberal spirit. If it was administered on a court basis, and people had to go before a District Justice who would look for full evidence, there would not be anything like 115,000 people receiving pensions. Possibly the system adopted occasionally lets in people who are not entitled, but we are dealing with poor people who are in great need of pensions and it is permissible that there should be this easy administration by which occasionally people who are not entitled are admitted.

Mr. MacEntee

May I ask what are the windfalls that have accrued under sub-head C? Several have accrued since the original estimate was framed. Could the Minister give the Dáil any indication of what those were?

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

As to pensions committees, I am a member of a pensions committee and attend as often as I can and see the routine work carried on. There can be an appeal by the applicant and an appeal by the pensions officer. In the matter of appeals, I do not know what is the power of the Minister or of any Minister, but I think it should be the duty of the officers and officials of the pensions committees to state to the Department on what grounds they base either their appeal or the grant of the pension. I should like to make them useful to the applicant, just as well as to the Department. I know that many applicants for pensions could not state a case to save their lives. They come before the committee and the case is dragged out of them inch by inch. I suggest that it ought to be the duty of the pensions committees to state why they grant the pension as against the pensions officer; why he refuses to give it, or vice versa, where they refuse and where there is an appeal against the decision. I think there ought to be some function like that which would make them a useful body. At present I must candidly say that I cannot see that they are doing very much useful work, either for the Department or for the applicants.

Mr. Cassidy

The Minister mentioned that he did not know whether it was in his power to take any steps which would eliminate the very serious delays which take place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy aware that the Minister had concluded the debate?

Mr. Cassidy

I understood we were in Committee and I did not know that the Minister was concluding. Might I point out that some years ago an Old Age Pensions Committee of Inquiry was set up and made certain recommendations which, up to the present, have not been carried out. One of the recommendations was that leaflets should be distributed through the Post Office authorities to applicants for pensions, because there are a large number of points upon which applicants are not very clear. That has not been done up to the present, with the result that many applicants are in ignorance as to the means by which they should go about making application. There is no gainsaying the fact that considerable and unnecessary delays take place both in regard to old age pensions and blind persons pensions. This Committee of Inquiry stated that in 99 cases out of 100 where applications for blind pensions were granted by sub-committees the pensions officer appealed against the decision.

When a pensions officer appeals against a decision, the Department of Local Government insists upon sending a medical inspector to examine the applicant's eyesight. In a large number of cases in Donegal, I am aware that where this procedure was adopted, from six to nine months elapsed before the medical officer was sent from Dublin to Donegal to inspect the person's eyesight. In some cases, after the inspection had taken place and it was found that the applicant was entitled to a pension, instead of the pension being made retrospective, it was only paid as from the date of the medical inspector's visit. I hold that that is most unfair to the applicant. When delays such as that take place the applicant should not be made to suffer. I have in mind one particular case where an application was made last September to the Pensions Committee for a blind person's pension. The pension was granted by the committee, but the pensions officer appealed against the decision. I understand that it is the intention of the Local Government Department to send an inspector to examine the applicant's eyesight, but, notwithstanding the fact that six months have since elapsed, the medical inspector has not yet been sent, with the result that the applicant is naturally suffering much hardship owing to the unnecessary and prolonged delay on the part of the medical inspector.

The Minister for Finance stated that pension committees are very often too much on the side of the applicant and are not sufficiently judicial. I might retort, as far as the appeals branch of the Department is concerned, that they are too often on the side of the pensions officer and against the applicant. I understand that in Dublin, and probably in Louth, Limerick and Cork, much difficulty is not experienced, by applicants for pensions in regard to birth certificates, but in some rural areas no record of births was kept seventy years ago, and in many cases baptismal certificates are not available. In such cases, when the applicant gets one or two affidavits certifying that he is of the stipulated age, the Local Government Department turn down his affidavit and do not grant the pension.

Some time ago the Minister for Finance brought out a sort of Mussolini rule to the effect that Deputies were not to be allowed to go to the Department and interview the appeals officer. That is most unfair, because in many cases we find that these affidavits are turned down for some reason of which the applicant or the Pensions Committee know nothing. Consequently I think that this rule should be revoked, and, in fairness to the applicants, the Deputies should be allowed to make inquiries in regard to cases on behalf of constituents and, if necessary, to submit further evidence. I hope that the Department of Local Government, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, will see to it, as far as the blind pension cases are concerned, that this prolonged and unnecessary delay will not be allowed to continue any further, and if they find that it takes nine months to send a medical inspector from Dublin to Donegal to inspect a person's eyesight, they should rely upon the medical certificate furnished by the local doctor.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of secret instructions issued to pensions officers by the Revenue Commissioners. In reply to a question of mine a few days ago the Minister for Finance stated that no secret instructions were issued, that the instructions dealt only with the administration of the Act. I might mention that when the Committee of Inquiry inquired into this matter they asked that the secret instructions should be disclosed to them. The Revenue Commissioners, through the Finance Department, were not prepared to disclose them, with the result that this committee, which was set up by this House, stated that they were dissatisfied with the attitude taken up by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance. They asked why, if the instructions referred to as secret instructions have only reference to matters connected with the administration of the Act, there should be so much secrecy in regard to them. I suggest that the time has come when all this secret society business should be done away with and that the Act should be administered openly; that the applicants should get a fair crack of the whip when they are not able to get birth certificates. In addition to that, I think the Minister should also make some arrangement to obviate these delays which are taking place in connection with applications for blind pensions.

Mr. Gorey

I am very sorry that the Minister for Finance has left, because some of his remarks call for explanation. He said in effect that the fact that some of the old age pensioners' cases were passed by the old age pension committees was prejudicial to the applicants. I think it would be better to do away with the pensions committees altogether if the local officer took such a hostile view prejudicial to the cases of the applicants because of that fact. I happen to know a case where an elder brother produced the certificate and has been in receipt of an old age pension. The next brother, a year younger, was not able to produce a certificate and his application was turned down, while a sister who was younger than the second brother got the pension, and the inspector would not accept any affidavit that this man was older than the sister. I wonder was this the result of having his case passed by the Pensions Committee? When I hear talk of liberality I do not accept it. There is no liberality, as far as I know. I have not heard of any, and I should like to hear of a case in which liberality has been shown. I am prepared to stand over one case that I know of, the case of a man named Burke. The applicants for pensions would evidently be better off if there was no pension committee at all and if they had to apply to the officer direct.

Mr. Corry

I also think that the position in which the Pensions Committee is placed is unfair to them. I happen to be a member of one of these committees, and I know they waste their own time as far as getting anything for it. I quite agree with the Minister in his statement that the fact of an applicant being passed by the Pensions Committee is prejudicial to him. I know very well that in Cork applications for pensions are fought out to the bitter end by inspectors sent down by the Minister, and the excuse given for refusing pensions is, in nine cases out of ten, frivolous objections that would not be sustained anywhere except in the Minister's Department. I think the twists and little irregularities that have been taken hold of by the Pensions Department to deprive the old people of pensions are no credit to the Department of the Minister. I do not wish to go any further into the matter, but in view of the statement of the Minister for Finance the sooner the pensions committees resign the better, leaving the whole thing to the Minister. Let him finish them up himself. I think there is no other cure for the conditions that prevail.

Mr. Law

On a point of order, I wish to raise a question. This debate proceeded for some little time and then the Minister, as I understood, was called upon by the Chair to reply. He did reply, and the Chair allowed one or two questions to be put to the Minister, but since then we have been re-conducting the debate. I ask you, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, to tell us is there a new precedent being established or is some change being made in our procedure in debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no new precedent being created, I can assure the Deputy. We are in Committee. But as the matter has been raised, when a debate has been initiated and conducted, even in Committee, and when the occupant of the Chair sees there is no other speaker and calls upon the Minister to conclude, I think it is undesirable that the debate should be re-opened after the Minister has made what he believes to be his concluding speech.

Mr. Lemass

Deputies may have refrained from speaking to give an opportunity to the Minister to deal with some particular points raised, and the Chair should not necessarily call on the Minister to conclude until it is obvious that he is to conclude.

Professor O'Sullivan

Most of the Deputies opposite were not in the House at the time.

Mr. Lemass

I was talking about a general principle.

Mr. Anthony

I only want some information as to the future conduct of these matters of old age pensions. The procedure, so far as I am aware, in Cork is this. An applicant makes a claim before the local claims committee, and the claim is admitted or rejected. A form is given to the claimant, and subsequently if the claim is turned down in Dublin, as it usually is, the applicant is asked to furnish particulars in the form of affidavit or declaration before a magistrate or a peace commissioner. I consider all this is absolutely futile in view of the fact that I have at least half a dozen cases in Cork in which substantial proofs could be given of age and statutory declarations have been made, and yet they have been refused. I seriously suggest to the Minister to scrap all these committees and also to get rid of the statutory declarations because, apparently, they have no effect in Dublin. There have been very great and grave cases of hardship due to the fact that a number of poor people were unable to secure their certificates because in many cases the records were not kept in the parishes in which they were born. That seems to carry no weight with the Department in Dublin. I could produce cases in which persons who are themselves now in receipt of old age pensions have made affidavits that applicants are over 70 years of age, yet they cannot get the pensions.

Another point I want information on is this. Has the Minister any intention of accepting an age other than 23 as the marriageable age accepted for old age pensions where the birth certificates are not obtainable? We know there are many cases in which the women were over 23 and up to 30 before they entered into the married state. These people would be over 80 before they would be entitled to a pension under the present rules, where 23 years is the age recognised for the purposes of old age pensions on the part of applicants who have no other evidence to submit. I have already pointed out the difficulty that exists in many towns and villages in Cork where there were no records kept in the parish churches in those days.

Perhaps I can explain exactly what happened. The Minister was not called upon to speak until it was obvious that no other member in the House wished to speak. Every Deputy in the Chamber got a full opportunity to make his speech; the Minister was then called upon to conclude the debate. No objection was taken to that and the Minister replied to the points that were made. Deputy Hogan, when the Minister had sat down, elaborated the point which he had made in his previous speech. I think the Minister made some reference to it, but I am not quite so sure about that. Deputy Cassidy then rose to speak and I asked him if he were aware that the Minister had been called upon to conclude the debate and had done so. He said he was not aware of that and he pointed out that we were in Committee on Finance. That is quite true and under the Standing Orders the Deputy may speak more than once. I allowed Deputy Cassidy and every other Deputy who followed him to make speeches. If the Minister does not choose to remain in the House to reply to points made I have no power to make him.

Mr. Davin

I accept everything you stated, but is it not in accordance with the practice in this House that after the Debate has been concluded the Minister sits in the House and answers questions which can be properly raised at the conclusion of the debate?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is so, but there were not any questions asked. There were certain statements made and amplification of certain statements made but, with the exception of Deputy Hogan's statement which I think he put in the form of a question, I did not hear any other questions asked. I think members of the House must realise that there must be some finality.

Mr. Hogan

Will you accept the motion that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration on account of the absence of the Minister? We surely must have the matter considered somehow.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Mr. MacEntee

The question has arisen as to whether a Deputy in the House is entitled to ask leave to report progress in order to call the attention of the House to the fact that a Minister has refused to attend during the discussion of an Estimate which he has introduced. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle refused to accept that Motion. I submit under Standing Order 63 he is bound to accept it.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has refused to accept such a motion, then that matter is surely decided, is it not?

Mr. MacEntee

I submit not, because he can only refuse on certain stated grounds.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy asking me to accept a motion to report progress?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. The Standing Order reads:

"The Committee of the whole Dáil may from time to time direct the Chairman to report a Resolution or Resolutions, or to make a special report to the Dáil. A Motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again may also be made: Provided that the Chairman may refuse to accept any such Motion which he deems to be dilatory or obstructive."

I submit it is not in order to refuse a Motion unless it can be shown that it is dilatory or obstructive. I think the question of having present a Minister who is responsible for an Estimate is neither dilatory nor obstructive.

The circumstance that no member of the Executive Council was present on the front bench, might, conceivably, be deemed by the Chair a sufficient reason for acceding to a claim to move to report progress, but the absence of a particular Minister in charge at the particular moment is not a sufficient reason. I think it is not contemplated that the absence of a Minister in charge of the motion before the House, or the Bill before the House, should be sufficient grounds, particularly in this case, where it appears the Minister thought he had concluded the debate.

Mr. Davin

Does that mean that a Minister in future will refuse to answer questions when he has concluded?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no function to say whether Ministers will or will not take a particular line of action. From the point of view of the Chair, what would appear to be necessary is the presence of a Minister on the front bench, not necessarily the particular Minister in charge, during the whole period of the debate. I see Deputy Davin's point, but it is not for the Chair to decide whether or not a particular Minister should be present. Deputy Davin is right in saying that a certain practice has been followed. He can elicit, by questions to the Ministers, whether or not that practice is to be departed from. From the point of view of the Chair the absence of the particular Minister in charge is not a sufficient reason.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

When the Minister has made a speech does it not seem an act of discourtesy for him to go away without dealing with matters arising out of his speech? Are we to understand that because a Minister not concerned with a particular department takes notes we are to accept his statement of proceedings concerning another department? Are we to understand, for instance, that the Minister for Education will tell us all about old age pensions instead of the Minister for Finance?

Minister for Defence (Mr. Fitzgerald)

Surely it was almost a tradition here that when a Minister introduced a Bill, an estimate, or whatever it might be, and it was discussed in the House, and he was called upon to conclude that that really did conclude it. In this case I think Deputies who were not in the House prior to his being called upon to conclude came into the House and recommenced the debate. That is what really happened. If the Minister is bound not only to sit here and conclude, but to sit here when anybody and everybody chose to re-open a debate, surely it is asking more than courtesy and is a departure from practice.

Mr. Derrig

May I point out that the business had not concluded; the Chair had not proceeded to the next business, and I take it that until the next business is announced the question of old age pensions is under consideration. I agree with Deputy Hogan that if Ministers are going to be allowed to leave the House after they have made a speech, and another Deputy in the position of Deputy Cassidy who has not already spoken, as happened in this case, gets up and makes his remarks, Deputy Cassidy would legitimately be entitled to consider that he was being ignored unless it can be shown that the Minister intended to come back. If it can be shown that the Minister leaves the House for some particular reason and intends to come back, then it is all right, but in this case it seems to be the opinion of many Deputies that the Minister deliberately intended to ignore Deputy Cassidy. There were other speakers as well as Deputy Cassidy, and it is quite obvious at this stage that the Minister for Finance has no intention of replying. The Minister for Finance stated his position, other Deputies stated theirs, and they were obviously waiting for a reply. I think the Minister has not treated the House as he should have treated it, and that you, a Chinn Comhairle, ought to accept Deputy MacEntee's motion.

Mr. Cassidy

On a point of personal explanation. I might say that when I rose to speak in regard to the question of old age pensions, I did not know that the Minister had made a concluding speech.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Deputy was not here.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not accepting the motion to report progress. There is a convention that a Minister concludes a motion he has moved, even in Committee. That has been mentioned over and over again. It seems to be the only method of bringing a debate to a conclusion. If the Minister for Finance was under the impression that he had concluded the debate nothing remains but that the question be put. I propose to put the question now.

Mr. Davin

I submit that it is quite fair to expect a reply from the Minister. After all, Deputies in this debate have not talked on the lines of obstruction. No Deputy, as far as I know, has any desire to cause obstruction in this particular debate, or in any other debate that I know of. When a Minister has concluded, Deputies may want to ask questions for the purpose of having made clear points raised by the Minister, and it is a gross discourtesy on the part of the Minister to leave the House without answering such questions put without any desire of creating obstruction.

Mr. Anthony

I agree with you, a Chinn Comhairle, that there must be something like finality in these matters. But I think it has been the custom, as far as my observations go, for Ministers, even when they conclude their speeches, to wait until the next business is announced. Apart from the question of courtesy, which I think should enter into our debates, the Minister might have remained until the questions which were asked had been answered. I agree that we must have some sort of finality, but as I have already pointed out, the custom has been that the Minister waits until the next business has been announced.

Mr. Lemass

Would it be possible to adjourn the discussion on this particular estimate without reporting progress?

Vote put and declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Feb 1930

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 7—Old Age Pensions.

Mr. Hogan

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 1930