asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he is aware that on a question being raised by the investigation officer as to the amount of the old age pension received by Mr. John Duggan, Bohinagh, Rosscarbery, who has been in receipt of an old age pension since January, 1932, Mr. Duggan's pension has been considerably reduced; if so, if he will state the reason why the question was raised by the investigation officer and the reason why the pension was reduced; and if it is the present policy of his Department to have all cases of old age pensions granted since 1932 re-investigated.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Old Age Pensions.
It is the duty of an investigation officer, if information has come to his knowledge that an old age pensioner is in receipt of a pension at a higher rate than is justified by his or her means, to raise a question as to whether the pensioner is entitled to continue to receive a pension at that rate. The law provides for this being done.
Any such question comes before the local pension committee for consideration, and an appeal against the committee's decision on the question may be made to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, either by the investigation officer or the pensioner. In the case in question, the investigation officer appealed. It had come to his knowledge that at the time of the original claim to a pension the pensioner failed to disclose that he had a joint bank account. Upon consideration of the facts elicited as to the means of the pensioner the rate of pension allowed was at a lower rate than the rate the pensioner had previously been receiving.
As regards the latter part of the question, I would remind the Deputy that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is an appeal tribunal under the Old Age Pension Acts. The general administration of these Acts rests with the Revenue Commissioners. Investigation officers are officers of that Department.
This man Duggan had some money, but there was no inquiry by the investigation officer in 1932 as to his means or as to whether he had any money. The money amounted to only a small sum. The amount in the bank has risen since 1932, but in the meantime the investigation officer did not inquire into the case with a view to ascertaining whether the man was in receipt of a proper amount of pension.
The onus is on the claimant to disclose his full means.
I understand that it is the duty of the investigation officer to inquire as to the means of the claimant, who is not supposed to know what the regulations are.
I would remind the Deputy that, under Section 9 (1) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, any person who knowingly makes any false statement or false representation shall be liable to a penalty on summary conviction of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months with hard labour.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary this man was not induced to make a false statement because he was not asked if he had money.
He did not disclose his means.
That is not a false statement. Furthermore with regard to the latter part of the question, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, at the old age pension committee meeting at which this case came up, there were more cases of re-investigation of pensions than applications for pensions? Is it the policy of the Government to continue this practice of going back ten years?
The Deputy knows well that the Government have not adopted any such policy. He knows as well as I that this is not a case of any economic hardship whatever, but that the claimant had a joint account in 1932, when the pension was awarded, amounting to £400, which he failed to disclose. He is also aware, because he has been very fully informed by my Department on the matter, that the sum of £400 deposited in 1932 has increased to £594 in 1942, so that the economic hardship which existed in 1932 is certainly not as great in 1942.
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he is aware that Mrs. Bridget Tobin, of Cahirmore, Rosscarbery, who was in receipt of an old age pension of 2/- per week has, on a question raised by the investigation officer, been deprived of this amount; if so, if he will state the reason why the question was raised by the investigation officer, and why the pension was withdrawn.
I explained, in connection with the previous question of the Deputy, that it is the duty of an investigation officer to raise a question in relation to the pension of an old age pensioner if information has come to his knowledge that the pensioner is in receipt of a pension at a higher rate than is justified by his or her means. This procedure was followed in this case. An appeal was subsequently made to the Minister, and upon consideration of the evidence before him, it was decided that the person was not entitled to any pension.
This is a case, similar to that to which I have already referred, of a poor woman who has lived all her life in a labourer's cottage. Because her husband got an increase of 3/- per week, the investigation officer jumps on her and deprives her of her 2/- per week, although the cost of living has gone up considerably.
The means of the claimant have to be taken into consideration.
Deputies must get out of the habit of making statements instead of, or in the guise of, supplementary questions. It leads to the prolongation of question time. To elicit and not to impart information is the purpose of questions.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will not agree that where, as in this case, the husband of the applicant got an increase of 3/- or 4/- per week in wages, in fact, in present circumstances, the means of these people were not increased at all and the pension should not have been reduced?
The law provides that the means of the claimant must be taken into consideration. There is a cash income in this case amounting to £80, representing wages earned by the claimant. It is not a question of administration at all, and there is no means of giving a more liberal interpretation of the law than is represented by the decision in this case.
Because of the means test.
Because of the law.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the law in such cases must press severely on that type of applicant?
That is a different matter altogether.
Does he not agree that there is a very strong case for altering the law in cases of that kind?
That is a separate question.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider that investigation officers should have discretionary powers in cases of this sort and that they should work more on humanitarian lines than on the lines of the direct letter of the law?
They have no discretion at all.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether, since the beginning of the emergency, the basis upon which means are assessed has been changed in any way?
It has. Periodically, there is a revision in relation to the assessment of means, but more in relation to income from land, inasmuch as the value of farm produce changes from time to time, but so far as wages or cash income are concerned, it remains as the old age pension law sets out.
Is the point not that there is a revision so far as farm produce is concerned——
There is a revision of the value.
——which will go up and reduce the pension, but no revision so far as wages are concerned which do not represent the same value?
The pension officer has no alternative but to take cash income into consideration.