Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Mar 1924

Vol. 6 No. 27

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL, 1924.—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).

I beg to move the following new Section:— Before Section 6 to insert a new Section as follows:—

In calculating the annual value of the means of a person for the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Acts, in any case in which the Pension Authorities are satisfied that the person is paying a rent exceeding three shillings weekly for dwelling accommodation, that such accommodation is not better or more ample than is reasonably suited to the person's needs, and that such rent is not, having regard to the opportunities of securing housing accommodation in the district, unnecessarily high, a deduction shall be made of a sum equal to fifty-two times the amount by which the rent so paid exceeds three shillings weekly.

This amendment would affect certain old people who cannot get suitable housing accommodation except at comparatively excessive rates. There are cases, undoubtedly, of old people who live in Dublin and other cities, and in some provincial towns also, who have to pay sums of 4/-, 5/- and 6/- a week for suitable rooms or lodgings, and this makes the pension very much less valuable than it otherwise would be. The object of the new Section is to assume that the sum of 3/- would be a reasonable rent for old age pensioners to pay, and if they are compelled through the shortage of housing accommodation to pay a higher sum than 3/-, the excess sum over 3/- should be deducted when calculating the means for the purposes of pension. The proposal does not mean that the old age pensioner shall be able to choose quarters which would be better than is suited to his particular case and that he should then be free to have an excess over 3/- deducted, because it leaves to the discretion of the Pension Officer in the case to say whether he is satisfied that the person is paying a rent exceeding 3/- weekly, and when such accommodation is not better or more ample than is reasonably suited to the person's needs, and that such rent is not, having regard to the opportunities of securing housing accommodation in the district, unnecessarily high." In other words, it leaves it to the Pension Officer to say that, in all the circumstances, this particular old age pensioner was not able to get suitable rooms unless he paid this extra sum. I think that, under the circumstances, it is reasonable that this deduction should be allowed to meet the special circumstances of these old age pensioners who suffer through the scarcity of housing accommodation. Therefore, I move this new Sub-section.

This is another amendment designed to give certain benefits and additional advantages to the old age pensioner who has means, and will not benefit the old age pensioner who has no means. I think there is no case for it. It would lead again to abuse, to charging rent where no rent is charged now, and to manoeuvres of that sort which it is not desirable to introduce. And in any case it is one of the amendments designed to increase the comparative advantages of the pensioner who has means over the one who has no means.

Does the Minister want to persuade the House that if a person is in receipt of an assistance from his or her friends that that assistance is not to be valued? When he speaks of this amendment being applicable only to those who have means, does he mean to inform the House he has no intention of assessing the assistance which son or daughter provides for a father or mother as means, provided they are only given as gifts and that there is no formal contractual obligation? The Minister is speaking in regard to this matter in a way which I cannot quite connect up with the method which is being adopted of assessing value of the maintenance which people give to their aged parents.

I have considered this amendment carefully, and it seems to have a good deal in it and to be a reasonable claim. It is an attempt, I think, to relieve a certain class of pensioners suffering from an accidental disability, owing to the part of the country in which they are living. I do not see that it benefits the richer or better off pensioners rather than the poorer. It is an attempt to put the pensioners more or less on an equality as regards the benefit they should derive under this Act. I certainly, unless I find some better reasons than the Minister has given, will support this amendment.

I think there is a little more in the amendment than the Minister realises, and that it deserves a little fuller consideration than he has given it. It seems to me to be a practical attempt to take into consideration the circumstances of those old age pensioners who are living in places where the cost of living is high. Nobody can dispute that an old age pensioner living in a village in the West of Ireland, with a rent of perhaps only a shilling a week, and where turf can be got comparatively cheaply, is much better off than an old age pensioner living in Dublin, where rents are high, and where coal has to be bought. The acceptance of the principle embodied in the amendment, possibly in some altered form, would, in my opinion, be to the Minister's benefit and to the benefit of the Treasury, and at the same time it would help to meet such hard cases as I have mentioned. I have supported the Minister in his reduction, but I want to make that reduction as little crushing as possible to those who happen to be living in places where their expenses are high. I think the amendment is a step towards meeting cases of that kind, and of making things easier for people who have to pay high rent. With high rent there goes high expenses. Therefore, I propose to support the amendment, if Deputy O'Connell presses it to a division.

The principle of a flat pension is really fundamental to the whole administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. We have not varying pensions for different districts, and I do not see how a national scheme could be worked with varying rates of pensions for different districts. We simply have to work on a flat rate basis, and I do not see how we could depart from that without causing endless trouble and causing additional discontent and agitation, and without also being involved in a great increase of expense. As regards the placing of the old age pensioners on an equality the amendment does not do that. This will be a benefit only to those who have private means of 7s. a week apart from their pension. It will do nothing at all for the old age pensioner, whether in Dublin or Connemara, who is trying to live on his old age pension only.

Will the Minister say what he is referring to when he speaks of "private means"? Does he say that the intention in the future is, that no assessment will be made on the pensioner of the value of the maintenance to such pensioner which is granted by the son or daughter to that pensioner?

It is not proposed to make any changes in that respect in the law. Whatever benefits or privileges are enjoyed by the pensioner will be taken into account in the future as heretofore.

Will the Minister say whether it is a fact or not that the privileges that I have mentioned are, as a matter of fact, assessed and valued and will in future, as in the past, be counted as income?

If a son or a daughter maintains a pensioner it is a privilege or benefit enjoyed.

That is the point. We have it clear now.

It has always been clear.

Yes, in the law, but it is a fact that there has been a great deal of leniency in the administration of the law. If I keep my father or mother, or if any Deputy in the Dáil who has a father or mother pensionable does so, and we say that "for the purpose of obtaining a pension we are not going to keep you, we are going to put you out on the roadside," then they can go and claim the pension and will be entitled to it. But if we say "No. Hard as it may be, and difficult as it may be, for us to keep the old man or woman, we are not going to put them out on the roadside or send them to the workhouse," and if we do stint ourselves to provide maintenance for such persons that maintenance is to be valued at anything over 7s. a week. The amount of the pension will thereby be reduced, and the instructions that have been given to the Minister's officers are that the administration in this respect shall be tightened up and there is to be a general re-valuation of this privilege. What does that mean? It means that there is going to be a very considerable penalty imposed upon pensioners or upon the people who are keeping their parents. The suggestion here is that in the valuation of that privilege which is called shelter, that an allowance should be made in cases where they are living in cities, where rents are high and where one room may be worth more than 3s. a week. Surely that is the very smallest thing that could be asked. The last amendment meant the same thing, but it meant that the 3s. a week should not be charged at all, that the shelter of the pensioner which is the privilege of living in the son's house or living in the daughter's house, shall not be charged up to the rate of 3s. a week. The Dáil decided against that amendment. Now, we are asking for a much less generous consideration; we are asking now that the Dáil should say that the 3s. a week should be the maximum, and that anything which is necessarily paid, because of the shortage of housing accommodation, should be excluded from the calculation of means. Privileges that are granted to pensioners! Privileges, forsooth! The maintenance which the father or the mother receives from the son or daughter is to be valued. If the rent of the house in which the family lives is high, we are asking that anything over 3s. a week, which may be assessed, is the value of that privilege called shelter and shall not be counted.

That is the slightest possible relaxation of the Minister's attitude that could be asked, and I ask the Dáil to support it.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 30.

Tá.

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • John Conlan.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Darrell Figgis.
  • David Hall.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
  • Nicholas Wall.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.

Níl.

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Henry Coyle.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Ui
  • Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Henry J. Finlay.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Seán P. Mac Giobúin.
  • Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus N. O Dóláin.
  • Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 6.
(1) If and whenever any person, within five years before or at any time after he becomes entitled to receive an old age pension and either before or after the passing of this Act, assigns any property or income, such property or income shall be taken into account in calculating for the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Act, or Section 1 of the Act of 1920, the means of that person, unless it shall appear that the assignment was a conveyance or transfer by operation of law or was a conveyance or transfer on a bona fide sale for valuable consideration in money or money's worth amounting to not less than four-fifths of the value of the property or income, or the estate or interest therein, which was the subject of the sale.
(2) The yearly value of any property or income which is by virtue of this Section to be taken into account in calculating the means of any person shall be calculated in the like manner as the yearly value of property or income of a similar nature in the actual possession of or actual receipt by such person is required to be calculated, save that such value shall be calculated as of the date on which such person assigned such property or income.
(3) Where any person, by means of an assignment to which this Section applies, assigns any property or income for valuable consideration in money or money's worth amounting to less than four-fifths of the value of the property or income, or the estate or interest therein, which is the subject of the transaction, such valuable consideration, if or so far as it is in the possession of the person at the time he becomes entitled to receive an old age pension, shall not be taken into account in calculating the means of that person for the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Acts or Section 1 of the Act of 1920.
(4) Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act of 1908 shall not apply to any assignment to which this section applies.
(5) This Section shall not apply to the calculation of the means of any person who became, before the passing of this Act, entitled to receive an old age pension.
(6) In this Section the word "assign" includes any form of conveyance, transfer, or other transaction by which a person parts with the ownership or possession of any property or disentitles himself to receive any income, and the word "assignment" and other cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

I move amendment 20:—

"In Sub-section (1), line 56, page 3, to delete the word `five' and to substitute the word `three.' "

Section 6 is designed to prevent persons qualifying themselves for the pension by making over their property to their children or others. There is a similar provision for death duties, which are levied on gifts made prior to death, but in the case of death duties the period is three years not five. The amendment brings the Section into line with the practice in regard to death duties. A similar point to the one I am making now, was made by the Minister for Finance in opposing Deputy Johnson's amendment to Section 1. I hope the Minister will be consistent and accept this amendment. Some modification is called for, because the Bill, as it stands, will affect assignments made back to 1919. The Bill with the amendment will affect assignments only after 1921.

I would like to support Deputy Colohan in this amendment. I do not know if the Minister is conversant with the state of affairs that exists in country districts with regard to the disposal of property, or the passing over of property, before reaching the limit for the old age pension. It is a fact that in those districts owners of small farms very often keep the farms on their hands and maintain their children as unpaid workers for a great number of years. Therefore, when the old persons get close to the age on which they are due to receive the old age pension, it is not unreasonable that they should have the right to make over the property to those children who have been working for them as unpaid labourers for a great number of years. As a matter of fact, if they are not allowed to do so, what actually would happen is that the old person would have to retain the little property and maintain the children instead of the children obtaining the property and maintaining the old people, until they reach the age limit. On that account I would ask the Minister seriously to consider this amendment, and if possible to accept it.

I would be prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

On behalf of Deputy Sears, I move amendment 21:—

In line 7, page 4 to add at the end of sub-section (1) the words: "or that the property comprised in the assignment consists only of a farm of land the poor law valuation whereof (including the buildings thereon) does not exceed £10, together with or without the stock and chattels thereon.

I hope the Minister will accept this amendment also. Ten pounds valuation is an uneconomic valuation. I think the Minister will concede that it has been accepted by every Government that has had anything to do with lands heretofore in Ireland. It is generally admitted that it would not be fair to ask the holder of such a farm to contribute to the support of a person entitled to the old age pension. The income of those farmers is a very small one, and it would be really an injustice to ask the holder of a farm to contribute to the support of an old age pensioner. As a matter of fact, it ought to be the other way about. It is in order to prevent a very evident injustice that this amendment is suggested.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I strongly support the amendment. Speaking on the Second Reading, I called attention to this matter, and I held then, and I hold now, that the occupiers of these small uneconomic holdings are certainly in no better position than—and it is doubtful if they are in as good a position as— the ordinary labourer. I think it would be most unfair if these little holdings which pass on to the son, should continue to be counted as property for the old man who has reached the age of seventy. As Deputy Heffernan pointed out, speaking on the last amendment, the children on these little holdings give unpaid service for a number of years. In view of the circumstances of the country, the number of these small holdings, and the social problem which is involved—for there is a social problem involved—there is a strong case for the acceptance of this amendment.

I would like to support this amendment also. Practically the same arguments which I used in support of the last amendment will apply to this. I do not know if those arguments had any influence on the Minister when he considered the acceptance of the last amendment, but, as Deputy O'Connell says, there is a social problem involved in this matter and it is only right that the Minister should consider the social problem. I think the problem is very obvious. It is a case of the probability of the children of these small holders getting married. This clause might have the effect of preventing these children from acquiring the little holdings in time and thereby getting married if they wish to do so. I strongly support this amendment.

I am prepared to accept the amendment. The particular type of abuse that the clause as a whole was designed to meet is only a serious abuse when holdings of a substantial size and value are involved. I therefore accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:—

"To add at the end of sub-section (1), page 4, line 7, the words "or was a conveyance or transfer of an agricultural holding or part thereof made by the owner or tenant thereof to his son or grandson who has attained the full age of thirty years provided that the local Pension Committee is of opinion that said last-mentioned conveyance or transfer was made bona fide by way of family settlement or as an advancement to and by way of provision for life of said son or grandson.”

I hope the Minister will accept this amendment also. I might remind him that the object of the Old Age Pensions Act was not to grant a pension to a person merely because he had attained the age of seventy years. It was not exactly for that the Old Age Pension was granted but because the claimant had lived a long and strenuous life and had given of his or her best to the country. Along the seaboard—along the West Coast of Ireland—there are a great number of very small holders having five or six in their families. The majority of those have to emigrate and one generally remains at home to keep things going.

He not only keeps things going, but during his whole time up to the 30 years of age that this is supposed to apply to, he has been working not only for his father and mother, but for the brothers and sisters to help to pay their way, as the general rule is, to America. The transfer is a transfer in good faith. It is in order to allow the son to get married, and, therefore, to do his duty to his country, that the transfer has been made. There has been full value for the consideration. It is not exactly fair that the old man should be mulcted at the end of his days, or that the Minister should aid in compulsorily migrating the other man, because the old man must either keep his farm or get the pension. For that reason I would ask the Minister to agree to this amendment.

I would like to support this amendment, and to say that in my own judgment—and I have some local knowledge of a certain part of the West—in regard to the circumstances of these cases that the amendment is intended to relieve, it is almost too high, and if the date could be fixed at a period earlier than 30 years, the purpose that Deputy McBride has in mind could be better achieved. What the Minister has said in speaking on amendment 21 would apply equally in regard to this, that the abuses that the section is intended to prevent will not apply in the areas that the amendment will benefit. The one flaw in the amendment seems to me the full age of 30 years. I think, at least in that part of the country that I know, the West of Mayo, which would be known also to Deputy McBride, if the son has not a prospect of coming in to take up the little holding, which because it is so uneconomic, cannot be called a holding at all, that son, long before the age of 30, would be off to America. That is the only flaw I see in it. I would like to see that age brought down to 25 years, or, at least, to 28 years. However, so much as is in the amendment is to the good, and I would urge the Minister to consider whether the age of 30 might not be made even lower still.

I could not accept the amendment as it stands, because it would exempt from the provisions of the section holdings which ought not be exempted from it. I would undertake to consider, between this and the Report Stage, whether anything could be devised to meet the purpose of the amendment without completely destroying the section. I think if this amendment were to be adopted, it would be just as well to eliminate the section. I will undertake to consider, between this and the Report Stage, whether any form could be devised that would, in a substantial way, meet the Deputy's purpose without actually nullifying the clause. I do not know whether the Deputy would be inclined to let the matter stand over until the next stage.

With that assurance I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move:—

To add at the end of the sub section (2) the words: "or as of the date upon which the calculation is made by the pension officer, whichever value is the less."

The idea of the amendment is to remove the hardship that exists in the section as it stands in connection with the age of giving up farms. The point I wish to make in connection with the matter is, if a farm were assigned in 1920, a very much higher value would be given if the section as it stands were passed than would be paid if the assignment was made at a later date. The purpose of the amendment is to put in a safeguard by providing alternative dates. That is to say, where the date of the assignment, or the date, by the calculation by the pension officer, gives the lower value, the lower value should be calculated. I think the amendment is a reasonable one and speaks for itself. There is little need to stress it. I ask the Minister to accept it, and I ask the Dáil to support it.

I think it is very important to the farmers, particularly those who can speak for congested districts, that this amendment should be accepted and passed by the Dáil. I say passed by the Dáil, whether it is accepted by the Minister or not. "The yearly value of any property to be taken into account by virtue of the section in calculating the means of any person shall be calculated in like manner as the yearly value of property or income of a similar nature in the actual possession of or actual receipt by such person is required to be calculated." The Minister has told us how it is calculated in another connection. He told us that the value of the house would be calculated according to the current value, and the income derivable would be taken into account; but now, following up that portion of the sub-section which I have read, it comes to this—"save that such value shall be calculated as of the date on which such person assigned such property or income." If the assignment took place when everybody thought that the millenium with regard to prices of agricultural products had arrived, the value would be high, whereas if calculated to-day, the value would be very much lower. It is reasonable. I think, to say that the value of the property assigned must have some regard to the income which is to be derived from it, especially when it is taken into account that you are going to reckon the income as being 10 per cent. of the value. If the value as in 1920 is taken as a basis of calculation, and you have 10 per cent. of that value, and compare that with the five per cent. of present day values, which would be the position if this section were not passed into law, I think it will be seen that there is something acting very much against the pensioner. I would like the Minister to express his views upon this before asking the Dáil to decide not to accept the amendment.

I am sure that we, on the Farmers' Benches, are greatly obliged to Deputy Murphy and Deputy Johnson for having inserted this amendment on the Paper. I can see now—I am sorry I did not see it before—that this amendment is one which would have a great effect on the small farming community, and I think it is very reasonable to ask the Minister to accept it. It would be quite unreasonable to calculate the value of land assigned five years ago, taking into consideration the extremely high values which then prevailed in regard to land as compared with the present day low values, and taking into consideration also the fact that under this Bill the means are to be taken as one-tenth, which, I maintain, is altogether excessive. I think it is very reasonable to ask the Minister to accept the amendment, and I strongly support the Labour deputies in putting it forward.

I think that Deputy Murphy's argument is robbed of some of its point by the fact that a previous amendment has been accepted making the period three years instead of five, so that we would not go back to the prices of 1919, but at most to the prices of 1921. However, I see there is a great deal to be said in favour of the Deputy's point of view. If we were dealing only with agricultural holdings I would have no hesitation in accepting it, but we might, for instance, be dealing with house property, and losses might have to be disallowed for houses going into dilapidation and disrepair. There is another point about the amendment I would like to refer to. I would not like to take the date at which the calculation is made by the Pension Officer. On the whole, however, I am inclined to accept the amendment as it stands. I will put forward a further amendment if I think it is necessary.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) It shall be a statutory condition for—
(a) the receipt by any person before the second appointed day of an old age pension which shall commence to accrue on or after the first appointed day, and
(b) the receipt by any person on or after the second appointed day of any old age pension,
that the person must satisfy the pension authorities that his means as calculated under the Old Age Pensions Acts do not exceed thirty-nine pounds five shillings.
(2) Paragraph (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1908, as amended by sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1919, shall cease to have effect in respect of any old age pension to which this Section for the time being applies.

I move:—

Before Section 7 to insert a new Section as follows:—

In the application of Section 1 of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, to any person, the words "so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential," shall be construed with reference to the opportunities of that person for obtaining work suited to his training and ability, and if such opportunities are not reasonably available the person shall be deemed to have satisfied the condition prescribed by the Section, notwithstanding that he may not be absolutely deprived of sight.

This amendment deals rather with the definition of blindness. Section 1 of the Blind Persons Act says that the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act shall be applicable in the case of blind persons when they have arrived at the age of fifty years instead of seventy. There has been some difficulty in regard to the administration of the Blind Persons Act in this country in respect of blindness. In effect, the Act has been applied as though the person must be absolutely stone blind. That was not the intention of the Act when it was going through the British House of Commons; it was not the intention of the framers or those who supported and promoted it, and that will be seen from the reports of the discussions. It was not the intention of the Commission of Inquiry, on the Report of which the Bill was passed, and it is not the way the Act is being administered in Great Britain.

The opportunities for work have to be taken into account. The person who has been trained to a certain kind of work, though not absolutely blind, might be relieved in some way if residing in a town where opportunities for that kind of work were provided. But if no opportunities have been provided for that kind of work, then the person is in the position of stone blindness in so far as income is concerned, and unfortunately the provisions of that Act have not been applied in Ireland, though legally they should have been. Consequently, the opportunities for earning livelihoods by blind persons through training are not available. The amendment would ask that the definition shall be construed with reference to the opportunities of the person for obtaining work suited to his training and ability. Surely, when the Act provides for certain things it has a right to assume that the opportunities are available?

When we have refused or neglected to provide the opportunities we ought not to evade the responsibility which that neglect involves. The principle concerned, we have already argued, is not very great. There has been harshness in administration in respect of the blind and their applications for pensions. This amendment would make it more difficult to be as harsh as the administration has been, because it would more clearly define what has been intended by the Blind Persons Act, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.

Deputy Johnson, in moving this amendment, I think, referred to the fact that it is more directed towards the Blind Persons Act than to this particular Act. In other words, it is the administration of the Blind Persons Act that is affected by this amendment. One would wish that this could be dealt with by administration, or in a manner other than by bringing in what seems to me to be a dangerous amendment, that the administration of the Act as it stands would do away with any grievance such as Deputy Johnson outlined. According to the amendment, as it stands here, it seems to me it would create a very great amount of difficulty, because there is no definition of what Deputy Johnson means by a person not totally blind. That may be stretched to a very considerable extent, so that a person with a very fair use of their sight might get benefit. I do not say that Deputy Johnson means that, but we all know that over here we have a particular aptitude for searching out any little weakness in an Act of Parliament and taking the benefit of it to ourselves. The acceptance of this amendment might lead to a very large increase in the scope of persons affected by the Old Age Pensions Act. I think what Deputy Johnson wants, might, without this amendment be achieved in connection with the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. None of us feel that the right of throwing out the claims in the case of blind persons should be too closely exercised. There are various, and very different kinds of blind people. There are people born blind, people who become accidentally blind, and people blind from infirmities. In the case of persons born blind, I certainly would like to see the State—if there was need for it—trying to make those people self-supporting. Of course if blindness comes on later in life, it becomes more difficult to deal with it in that way. It seems to me that the whole range of Old Age Pensions would be very much affected by the amendment as it stands at present in Deputy Johnson's name.

I think it has to be borne in mind that, short as the time the Blind Persons Act has been in operation, there has been a great deal of abuse in connection with it. I told the Dáil some time ago that, I think, in the Counties of Kerry and Mayo there was one person in every 430 or so of the population getting the Blind Pension. That is to say there were that many people over 50 years of age having means of less than £26 10s. a year, and supposed to be so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential. In other counties, I mentioned in particular the Co. Monaghan, there was only one person in every 4,000 getting this pension. Certain steps have to be taken to deal with that abuse. A Medical Inspector, who has special knowledge in matters of eyesight, has been sent around to examine pensioners and applicants and the matter is being remedied, but I have no doubt at all that if we were to widen the Act in the way that Deputy Johnson would suggest that such abuses would be very likely indeed to grow up, and it would be in fact almost impossible to check or prevent them. We would then have one person of a particular occupation deemed to be blind and another person whose eyesight was worse deemed to be not blind. We would have a person in the County Mayo deemed to be blind, and a person in Dublin whose eyesight was much worse deemed to be not blind. We would have all sorts of difficulties like that, and you would have nothing but discontent and dissatisfaction arising from that. I would be surprised to learn that the Act is so administered that a person has to be stone blind before receiving the pension. I certainly think that should not be so, and I would be prepared to undertake and see that the law, as it exists, was not so rigidly adhered to and that all that should be required to qualify persons for a blind pension would be that they should be so blind as to be unable to perform work for which eyesight is essential. I think it is reasonable, in all the circumstances, that people should be required to make an effort and to adapt themselves to take up some sort of work to which they have not been accustomed in order to assist in earning their support.

The answer to the Minister's main objection is contained in the next proposal, Amendment 25, which authorises the Minister to appoint a competent practitioner skilled in eye diseases and tests of that kind. If it is a fact that cases have been passed for pension where the blindness was not of such a defective nature as to warrant a pension under the Blind Persons Act, it was probably the fault of the local practitioners through their sympathies. If that is the fault, which I do not admit for a moment, or if it is a fact rather that people have obtained pensions who are not entitled to them under the Blind Persons Act, the next amendment gives the central authority the right specifically which it already has, but has not exercised, except in these few instances to which the Minister refers as to appointing a real authority on eyesight. That is the answer, I think, to the only objection of validity which the Minister has made. If it is a fact that ten times the number of people are obtaining pensions under the Blind Persons Act per thousand in Kerry than in Monaghan, then that either means that the people in Kerry are ten times more immoral or that there has been ten times more stringency imposed in Monaghan, or that the people in Monaghan are so prosperous as to be able to return a Minister for Finance to the Dáil and to remove them out of the region of the Old Age Pensions law. I do not know whether the Minister wants to suggest that Kerry is particularly immoral in this matter.

I imagine that the facts are that the blind persons were not accepted in America. There may have been too much leniency, and there may have been a desire to rob the British Treasury. The chickens are coming home to roost now. When people were encouraged to do these things in the past they were smiled at and lauded, and we ought to be prepared to pay for it, not they. I am sorry the Minister has not given any encouragement for the acceptance of this amendment, but it is important, and the blind people have pleaded and urged that better provision should be made for them in this country. They have urged and pleaded that the second part of the Blind Persons Act should have been put into operation, but it has not been put into operation, and this proposed new Section will at least prevent a too harsh administration of the Act, and will, as I submit, lead to the application and the intentions of the original Bill regarding the state of blindness. I assert on the authority of those who have been closely associated with this matter that stone blindness is, in fact, being the test that is used, whereas the whole tenour of the Act and of the report of the commission on which the Act was based, defined blindness in various terms, and showed that the fitness for earning a livelihood ought to be taken into account. That is not being done at present, and I would ask the Dáil to accept this amendment.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 39.

Tá.

  • Seán Buitléir.
  • John J. Cole.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • John Conlan.

Níl.

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Henry Coyle.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Uí Dhris-
  • ceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac'a Bhrighde.
  • Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Seán Mac Garaidh.
  • Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
  • Eoin Mac Neill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Próinsias O Cathail.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus N. O Dóláin.
  • Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • William Hewat.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Seán P. Mac Giobúin.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
Amendment declared lost.

I beg to move:—

Before Section 7 to insert a new Section as follows:—

Before determining any question as to whether a person is qualified by reason of blindness to receive an old age pension under Section 1 of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, the central pension authority may require the person to submit himself, at some place within the county in which he resides for examination by a registered medical practitioner possessing competent knowledge of diseases of the eye and appointed for the purpose by the local pension committee with the approval of the central pension authority.

The Dáil has not yet agreed to insist upon a provision of the Blind Persons Act being administered in such a way as to make it more lenient for the blind person, but I want to urge upon the Minister for Local Government, who is not present, and who might well be present, to consider in the framing of laws which he will have the administration of, the necessity for reviewing the method of applying this Blind Persons Act. The object of the amendment is to allow the Minister to require that the person should submit himself to examination by a registered medical practitioner possessing a competent knowledge of diseases of the eye, and appointed for the purpose. If such a person is appointed it will be within the power of the administrative authority to have the person examined by such competent specialist. That would remove the possibility of the charge which the Minister made as to the ease with which persons had been able to obtain pensions under this Act. I will call the Minister's attention to a resolution passed by the Kilkenny County Council, which I am sure the various members for that constituency have had a part in. If they have not actually been participants in the promotion of the resolution, I am sure they have assented to it. It deals with this measure, and particularly with the administration of the Blind Persons Act. The resolution was passed on the 25th February, Senator de Loughry being in the Chair, in the temporary absence of Deputy Gibbons, who, I am sure, also assents to it, and will not oppose the County Council, of which he is Vice-Chairman. After dealing with two other portions of the Bill, which I will not refer to, the resolution comes to No. 3:—"The Blind Persons Act to be administered more broadly, there being for the past two years extreme difficulty for anyone not stone-blind to get a pension." I have only had that put into my hand since I spoke on the last amendment, but it confirms the information I have had from other places that, as a matter of fact, for the last two years there has been a very strict administration of the Blind Persons Act, and that in fact none but stone-blind persons have been able to obtain a pension. I am moving this amendment because I want to press upon the Ministry that they should revert at least to the position prior to 1922 in regard to this position of the Act. Through the acceptance of this amendment the Ministry are protected against malingering, or against any possibility that the person applying for the pension is deceiving the authorities in regard to his blindness. I believe that there will be some day, at any rate, a more generous interpretation of this Act by the Minister responsible, and I want to give powers specifically to the more generous interpreters of the Act even in future.

I would like it to be understood that this new Section will enable the Minister to safeguard himself against malingering, which he alleges as having been common, and the cause of the extreme stringency in the administration of the Blind Persons' Act. I am anxious that the administration should be such as to allow persons who are blind, but not stone-blind—yet incapable of earning a livelihood because of the absence of sight—to obtain a pension, and that there should be no interpretation of the law which assumes that only stone-blindness is referred to. The acceptance of the amendment will protect the Minister against malingering.

Steps have been taken to have cases of malingering or pretended blindness dealt with. A Medical Inspector of the Local Government Department is, for the present at any rate, giving his time entirely to dealing with blind pensioners and applicants for blind pensions. It is felt that that Inspector will be able to deal with new cases. Where an applicant's claim is disputed he can appeal to the Local Government Department, and before the appeal is decided he will be seen by this particular Inspector.

Is he a specialist?

He is. He has had special training. If it were found that the use of one Inspector was causing delay in any particular area it would be possible for the Local Government Department to obtain some special man locally resident in the area—and I certainly would raise no objection from the financial point of view—to act. I think the matter has really been met sufficiently for some months past.

Amendment put and declared lost.

On behalf of Deputy Hall, I formally move the following amendment:—

In sub-section (1), line 44, to delete the words "thirty-nine pounds five shillings" and to substitute therefor the words "forty-two pounds."

I do not see any reason for accepting this amendment. It would only add a certain number of 1s. pensioners.

I think this amendment is preliminary to one coming on later in reference to the first Schedule. It will add, of course, to the number of 1s. pensioners, but it is desirable that there should be an amendment of the Schedule so that the administration of the Act shall not be quite so harsh. If it is not amended now it will have to be amended on the Report Stage, assuming that we are able to persuade the Dáil that the amendment on the first Schedule is desirable. I would suggest to Deputy Morrissey that he should withdraw the amendment with a view to resuming it on the Report Stage.

I have been told that Deputy Johnson, in my absence, mentioned my name in respect of some matter arising out of this discussion. I understand that he presumed that I was in favour of a certain resolution. I may say that I have not been well recently and have not attended meetings of that body, and I cannot accept responsibility for things which I know nothing at all about.

That arose on the last amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

I move to report progress.

On that motion, I will satisfy Deputy Gibbons. It was not in order for me to reply to him when the question was asked. It would be in order to reply to him now, but, as he is not here, it is useless for me to speak to the air.

Agreed to report progress.

Barr
Roinn