Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 13 Nov 1931

Vol. 40 No. 12

Private Deputies' Business. - Old Age Pensions.

Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That the Dáil disapproves of the action of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in refusing to allow Deputies to make representations in person to the Deciding Officer on behalf of old-age pension claimants whose cases are on appeal, whether at the instance of the Pension Officer or of the claimants themselves."
—Deputy Ward.

I submit that no case has been made in defence of the Minister's action in making the drastic regulation that is the subject of this motion. The silence of some of the Independent Deputies has been particularly noticeable during this debate. Perhaps it is that they are satisfied that Deputy Jasper Wolfe spoke for the whole of them and expressed their views sufficiently clearly to make it unnecessary for them to take any part in the discussion. I find it difficult to believe that Deputy Wolfe represented the views, for example, of Deputy O'Hanlon, who claims to be an Independent. A very considerable time ago this matter was under discussion, when it was raised on the Motion for the Adjournment by Deputy T. Murphy. On that occasion Deputy O'Hanlon took part in the debate. He certainly was very emphatic in his denunciation of the Minister's order and of the Minister for making it. In fact I think he was more emphatic in his language than anybody has been during the course of that debate. With your permission, sir, I should like to quote some of the remarks of Deputy O'Hanlon on that occasion. In Vol. 32, col. 2058 of the Official Reports of 4th December, 1929, Deputy O'Hanlon is reported as having stated:

I do say that a more outrageous idea than the one introduced by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, to shut out the representatives of the people from advocating the cases of the poorest type of their constituents, I have never heard in my life. This is not a question that should be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment. It is a question that must be dealt with in the light of the administration of local government in this House. In my experience of all the Ministries there is none that requires the attention of the elected representatives of the people so much as the Ministry of Local Government. The people's representatives need to keep their eye on that Ministry. That Ministry is at present drifting into a state when the term "local government" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as local government in this country and every day in this House we are learning the lesson that local government has ceased.

Later on he says:

I do not want to go into particular cases, but if anybody else belonging to one of the larger Parties in this House does, I hope that a motion will be put on the Paper when we sit here next February to consider the whole question of local government and the manner in which it is carried on. I do not see for the life of me why the Minister for Local Government and Public Health should bring in a barrier of this sort —a barrier shutting out the representatives of the poor people in the country from access to the officials administering the old age pensions.

I thought that when this motion was put down for discussion one of the strongest supporters we would have in this debate would be Deputy O'Hanlon. But the debate is now concluding. The motion has been on the Order Paper for a very considerable time and the debate has dragged on for a long time, but we have not heard a word from Deputy O'Hanlon. It would be rather interesting to know if Deputy O'Hanlon has changed the view that he expressed here in 1929.

Deputy Jasper Wolfe suggested that an experience he had in the Old-Age Pensions Department was sufficient to bring about such a change in the regulations as has been made. He told us how he sat in the Old-Age Pensions Department while the affairs of old-age pension claimants from all parts of the Free State were being discussed. I should like to know from Deputy Wolfe what on earth he was doing in the Old Age Pensions Department. It would be interesting if he would explain why he sat there while somebody else's private affairs were being discussed. Certainly, if many Deputies were guilty of the bad taste exhibited by Deputy Wolfe, on his own admission, when he told us that he sat in that Department and had not the good manners to leave when a Deputy appeared to discuss the private affairs of his constituents, that is a possible reason why the Minister may have found it necessary to curtail the freedom of Deputies in this respect. It was an aspect of it that had never dawned on me before. Although I have been a frequent visitor to that Department I was never present while any other Deputy was discussing the affairs of his constituents.

Under the present arrangements, so far as Deputies are concerned, it is much simpler for them and much easier to write into the Department and state that they are interested in a certain old-age pension case that is before the Minister on appeal. They will get an acknowledgment from the Department that the case is before the Minister on appeal, that their representations have been received on a certain date, and that the matter will receive attention. They can send on that letter to the claimant. It is a very impressive document and it probably will produce the necessary political results and save them the trouble of studying the claimant's case, of putting up the possible arguments that could be put up in favour of the claimant, and of bringing the advantages of their special knowledge of the condition of the claimant before the deciding officer. It is very simple for a Deputy, and I presume the simplicity of it will explain the number of votes that will be cast against this motion.

The Minister suggests that there is no necessity for representation in person to the deciding officer, and in fact the Minister for Finance suggests that even written representations are undesirable. In all probability the next step in the process will be that Deputies will not be allowed to make any representation whatever on behalf of the old-age pension claimants. The Minister asks us to believe that the fact that the old-age pensions sub-committee in the country investigated the claim and that the claimant is entitled to be present when the claim is being investigated is adequate protection for claimants in old-age cases. I think it is obvious to anyone who has come to the use of reason that very many of those people are physically unfit to be present when the sub-committee are considering their cases. Some of them are blind and are claimants for blind pensions. Many of those even physically fit are almost illiterate, and it is foolish to suggest that those old people could argue their legal rights before the sub-committees and review the legal interpretation that the old-age pensions officer puts upon the Act. While the pensions' officer may be present at the sub-committee he is under no obligation whatever to be present. In very many cases the pensions officer is not present, with the result that the claimant has no opportunity of knowing what case has been made by the pensions officer as to why he should not get a certain pension awarded by the sub-committee. If the claimant cannot find out the details of the case made against him it is certainly impossible for him to meet that case and to secure that justice shall be done. Formerly the files of evidence in the case and the pensions officer's report of the estimated means of the claimant were available when Deputies' representations were made in person. In that way a Deputy was able to find out, on behalf of the claimant, what was the case that was made behind the claimant's back. I suggest that unless these files of evidence are made available to somebody on behalf of the claimant, the claimant cannot meet the case made against him.

It is rather interesting to compare the treatment meted out by the Appeals Department in the matter of old age pensions with the treatment extended to the claimants for army pensions. In the case of army pensions the claimant can be present before the deciding officer. He can call officers to his assistance and Deputies to give evidence. He can call in any influential persons whom he can persuade to come before the deciding officer, and they can give evidence on his behalf, and there is not a word about the terrible evil effects that may result from contact between the deciding officer and these persons. Persons giving evidence on behalf of army officer claimants are guaranteed that however false their evidence may be, the light of day will never be let in upon it. If that is justified I hold that the course of action which shuts out Deputies from making representations on behalf of old age pension claimants certainly cannot be justified by the Executive Council.

It is rather interesting to run briefly over some of the views expressed by Deputies who took part in this debate. In that way we can get an idea of the mentality and the angle from which those Deputies who intend to vote against this motion approach the question. Deputy Bennett said the privilege was seldom of advantage to Deputies. Later on he admitted that he never achieved any success by personal representations. Apparently the only thing worrying Deputy Bennett in this matter was whether the privilege was of any advantage to him or not, or whether he personally secured any success. But the point of view from which we should approach this question is not what benefit it should be to Deputies, but what benefit representation in person by Deputies would be to the old age pension claimants. Again Deputy Bennett said the privilege was availed of by a good many Deputies, and not by others. Of course it was. It was availed of by Deputies who took a particular interest in this class of their constituents, and it was availed of largely by them. It was not availed of by Deputies who, when there was a lesser opposition in this House, got into a lackadaisical method of discharging their duties to their constituents. But the fact that Deputies who do take a deep interest in that privilege, availed of it to its fullest extent is not sufficient reason why that privilege should be withdrawn.

Deputy Barry Egan told us that it opened up avenues for abuse. It is all very well to say that it opened up avenues for abuse but no evidence was submitted by Deputy Barry Egan or anybody else to show that actual abuse took place. If abuse did take place, what conclusion does it drive us to? It drives us to the conclusion that the deciding officer, before whom representations in person were made, was not able to stand up against the personal contact with the people making the representations. It is a reflection upon the deciding officer which we think is unmerited. I may say, at this stage, that of all the departments I have had experience of since I came into the House, there is no Department of State where the officers discharge their duty more conscientiously than the Old Age Pensions Department, and, although I was in that Department very frequently, I never got anything there but the greatest courtesy and assistance in trying to investigate cases and get down to the truth. If there have been abuses, as Deputy Barry Egan asks us to believe, how is it that nobody became aware of these abuses from 1922 to 1929? It seems to me to be rather extraordinary that these abuses should have crept into the Department suddenly in 1929 like a bolt from the blue and that the Minister for Local Government issued this order.

Deputy Egan says that these old people have friends down the country. He suggests that the local curate and local shopkeepers can always give assistance to old age pensioners when claims are pending. Apparently Deputy Egan thinks that anyone and everyone can make representations on behalf of old age pensioners, except the people whose duty it is to do so, and who are elected to defend the rights of these old people as well as the rights of their other constituents. Deputy Egan says he could imagine the difficulties of getting information fifty or sixty miles away from the claimant's residence. Those who are opposed to this motion are not concerned at all about the old age pensioners' claims, or concerned to see whether they get justice in the appeals to the Department or not. They are concerned with the difficulties personal representations would place in their way, and the possible results of these representations. The Minister for Local Government in the course of his speech the other day stated that Deputies were not prevented from making statements, that they could dictate any statement to an officer supplied for the purposes. Of course that is perfectly true. Deputies are not prevented from going to the Department and making a statement, but what on earth is the use of going to the Department to make a statement to a junior officer who knows nothing whatever about the Old Age Pensions Act, knows nothing whatever about the case under discussion, who has not the file of evidence available, and who cannot tell the person making the representation of the case that has been made against the sub-committee's award?

The Minister suggests that the sub-committee is the pivotal point, that everything turns upon that, and that the claimant must look to the sub-committee to make all the representations that are to be made. But the Minister must be aware that the sub-committee very often makes a mistake and does not give a claimant all that he is entitled to. I think claimants very often appeal against the decisions of the sub-committee, as well as against the decisions of the pensions officers. Sub-committees are under no obligation whatever to take any particular protective steps in favour of the claim, and when they make a mistake it is up to the claimant to find someone who will even fight the sub-committee on his or her behalf. The Minister admitted during the course of the discussion that the pension officer gets instructions as to the value he is to put on the various items, such as crops, stock etc. The value that the pension officer puts on the various items that constitute a claimant's income is never disclosed either to the claimant or to the sub-committee. When the pension officer appears before the sub-committee his estimate of the income of the claimant is a certain round figure, but what goes to constitute that round figure is not disclosed. Obviously there is room for a tremendous amount of error there. If the pensions officer has instructions to put a certain value on a cow, an acre of potatoes or other crops, these instructions cannot have universal application. In many parts of the northern end of County Monaghan, if pension officers applied the instructions supplied to them for the purpose of estimating a claimant's means, and put the same value on half an acre of potatoes in that end of the county as on a half acre of dry land in another part it would be an injustice, because the potatoes put down in the northern end of the county never came up. In the same way if he said that a cow has a certain value, surely that could not have universal application. A cow dying of old age could not have the same annual value as a well bred cow in the prime of life. All these things go to show that unless the case that has been made by the pension officer against an old age pension claim can be seen and examined in detail by someone who can defend the claim, justice cannot be done.

The Minister says that it is unfair to the deciding officers to have personal representations. That suggestion must carry with it the further suggestion that these officers would be influenced by the personal contact. There is no obligation on the deciding officer to decide the case there and then. If any Deputy goes to the Old Age Pensions Department and discusses an old-age pension appeal, the deciding officer can produce the file, can discuss the claim and let the Deputy see the case made against it, but he need not decide the case at all. He can make a mental or written note of the representations that are being made by the Deputy, but he can take his own time to verify them. He could send it down to the pension officer again, to see if the officer agrees with the representations, and in that way he can take adequate precautions to ensure that a Deputy in no way exaggerated the case. The majority here may of their own free will and with their eyes open deliberately vote against this motion. They may deliberately deprive themselves of the right to make personal representations on behalf of the old-age pension claimants but, if they do that, it is a matter for themselves, and, at least, they will do it with their eyes open.

I desire to direct the attention of the House to a statement made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in regard to an old-age pension claim raised by me in the House on the 22nd October last. On that date I asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to state why he refused sanction to payment of an old-age pension to Mrs. Annie McGranaghan, of Tober, Ballinadrait, County Donegal. The Minister in his reply stated: "This claim was disallowed on appeal on 23rd September, 1931, on the ground that I was not satisfied that the applicant had attained the statutory age." I put a supplementary question to the Minister as follows:

"Is the Minister aware that this applicant is unable to procure her birth certificate owing to the fact that no birth certificates were kept there at that particular time? Furthermore, I submitted to the Minister's Department her marriage certificate. Unfortunately no date was shown on it, but I submitted two affidavits by two old-age pensioners which furnished conclusive proof that the applicant had reached the required age. In view of that, I should like to know what further evidence the Minister requires to enable this woman to obtain the pension to which she is entitled?"

The Minister replied: "I do not think that the Deputy is correct in saying that the marriage certificate contained no evidence of age."

I pointed out to the Minister: "I have the marriage certificate here, and I was quite correct in stating what I did."

The Minister replied: "My information is to the contrary."

In view of that unsatisfactory reply which the Minister gave I raised the matter on the adjournment that night. The Minister, for some reason known only to himself, refused to stop in the House during the discussion.

I explained to the Deputy that I was not going to stop to discuss the details of an old age pension case here.

On the night of the 4th November the Minister in the course of a discussion on the old age pensions stated:

I decline to discuss questions of old age pensions here because this is not a competent place to discuss them. We have a sample of the lengths to which Deputies will go in the case of Deputy Cassidy the other night, who got up and abused some of us for our attitude towards old age pensions. He cited a case in which the question at issue was one of age. He made the emphatic statement that no certificate of birth being available and the only certificate being the marriage certificate, the marriage certificate made no reference to the age of the person in question, whereas in fact the marriage certificate does state the age of the person in question, and does show the person to be considerably younger than 70 years of age. He was aware of that, because all the local people connected with the case, together with the sub-committee, were aware of that.

I desire here and now emphatically to contradict the statement made by the Minister. I assert without fear of contradiction that the marriage certificate to which I alluded contained absolutely no evidence of age. I have the marriage certificate here. I will read it.

It does not look like a marriage certificate.

I am prepared to submit this to any Deputy in the House— to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle—to judge it. This is the marriage certificate:

"Marriage Certificate.

Parish of Donaghmore, Co. Donegal.

Date of Marriage, May 16th, 1883."

This certificate contains the names of the persons married, together with the names of two witnesses. At the bottom of the marriage certificate it is also stated: "I, the undersigned, certify the above to be a true and authentic extract from the marriage register kept in the above parish. This 18th day of February, 1930. Signed, Rev. Patrick Devlin, P.P." In addition to that, I have here a note stamped with the official seal of the parish which reads as follows:—"Register of Marriages, Cross-roads Catholic Church, Parish of Donaghmore, County Donegal." It states: "Patrick McGranaghan and Annie Gallagher were married on 16th May, 1883." There is no mention of the age of either of them. "Signed, Rev. C. Byrne, C.C., Killygordon, County Donegal. Dated August 30th, 1931." These certificates were in the possession of the Department.

The Deputy cannot make a speech.

The Minister stated——

The Deputy has been given ample opportunity to make an explanation. He cannot make a speech.

I do not want to make a speech. I will quote from a letter.

What is the letter about?

It is not a marriage certificate that the Deputy has quoted from. He is quoting from the parish register.

On 9th September, 1931, the Local Government Department wrote me a letter, signed by the Secretary to the Department. The reference number is D/484. In the course of that letter he states: "The marriage certificate forwarded by you is returned herewith." In that the Secretary to the Department has admitted that it is a marriage certificate.

The Deputy cannot make a speech.

I submit that the Minister has deliberately stated that I——

Deputy Cassidy, please sit down.

The Minister said that I was aware——

The Deputy must sit down. The Deputy is abusing the privileges of the House. He got an opportunity of making an explanation.

May I reply to the point raised?

On a point of explanation?

Yes. The marriage certificate recorded in the Registrar-General's Office shows that the marriage was solemnised at Donaghmore between Patrick McGranaghan, aged 27 and Annie Gallagher, age 19 on 25th May, 1883 and a certificate to that effect was signed by the Rev. D. Doherty, C.C. with the marks of Patrick McGranaghan and Annie Gallagher. This shows that in reporting the marriage in the proper form at that particular time the priest who solemnised the marriage reported that Annie Gallagher was 19 years of age on the 25th May, 1883. The information that that age was recorded was before the sub-committee which dealt with the claim on 16th September, 1930.

The Minister cannot say where that age was got from.

From the priest who solemnised the marriage in May, 1883. He sent all the necessary particulars to the Registrar-General's Office for registration here.

Is the Minister aware that in the letter of the Reverend C. Byrne, C. C.——

The Deputy must allow the Minister to make his explanation.

It was also before the sub-committee on 7th July, 1931, and also some of the statements that were sent into the Office attempting to controvert the statement that the person was 19 years of age. Deputies want us now to go into the Registrar-General's Office and change the ages that are down on certificates.

Does the Minister disbelieve the statements that I have read? Is the Minister further aware that Strabane No. 2 Pension Sub-committee on the evidence before them agreed to give this woman 10/- a week?

Although they knew she will not be 70 years of age until May, 1933.

Mr. O'Connell

You should not charge Deputy Cassidy with misleading the House.

Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 60.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, William Archer.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Motion declared lost.
Top
Share