Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 22

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 7—OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,737,100 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun íoc Pinseana Sean-Aoise fé Achtanna na bPinsean Sean-Aoise, 1908 go 1924, chun Costaisí Riaracháin áirithe a bhaineann leo san, agus chun Pinseana fén Blind Persons Act, 1920.

7.—That a sum not exceeding £1,737,100 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, 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.

As Deputies will see from the Estimates, the great bulk of this sum is actually for the payment of old age pensions. Even apart from the reduction in the number of old age pensioners which followed the 1924 Act, there has been for a considerable time an annual or a very steady decrease in the number in the area that is now the Saorstát. I think that with one or two amending Acts there had been at times a slight increase, but the measure of the decrease may be taken in this way: In 1912, when the peak point was reached, the number of old age pensioners in the area that is now the Saorstát, was 156,000. This figure has steadily decreased to the point that on the 31st March last it was 115,817. It might be of interest to Deputies if I gave some indication of the numbers of pensions at the various rates. On the 31st March last the number of pensioners paid at the 10s. rate, that is, people who were over 80 years of age when the 1924 Act was passed, was 29,693. The number at the 9s. rate, the new full rate, was 59,609. The number at the 8s. rate was 7,759, at the 7s. rate 4,062, at the 6s. rate 6,899, at the 5s. rate 1,927, at the 4s. rate 2,250, at the 3s. rate 1,660, at the 2s. rate 1,323, and at the 1s. rate 635.

There is a remarkable difference between the proportion of old age pensioners in various counties. Of course, that is very natural, because conditions vary considerably. If we take the old age pensioners alone and leave out the pensioners under the Blind Persons Act, we find that the numbers per thousand of the total population vary from 21.01 in Waterford Borough up to 57.55 in County Leitrim. In the same way the charge to the State, if calculated as the amount of rate on the rateable valuation of the various counties, varies very considerably. In County Meath the amount paid for old age pensions is equivalent to 1s. 9d. on the rates of that county; in County Mayo it is equivalent to 14s.; in Leitrim, 11s. 2d.; in County Kerry, 10s.; in County Donegal, 12s.; in Westmeath, 2s. 5d.; in Wicklow, 3s. 1d.; in Wexford, 3s. 9d.; in Limerick County, 3s. 5d.; in Leix, 3s. 5d.; in Kildare, 2s. 5d.; in Kilkenny, 3s.; in Dublin Borough, 2s. 4d.; in Dublin County, 1s. 8d. The expenses of the pension committees have not varied since last year, and it is not anticipated that there will be any variations. The appropriations-in-aid are due to repayments by pensioners of amounts wrongly paid. That would occur, for instance, in cases of fraud or misrepresentation when discovered.

Mr. WOLFE

There are two cases I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister in reference to claims for old age pensions, both of which were refused by the pensions officer. The names of the applicants are:—Mrs. Elizabeth Cass, Caragh, New Bridge; and Mrs. Wiseman, Bishophill, Ballymore-Eustace. In both these cases I brought evidence before the pensions officer, which he said convinced him. He said he was satisfied they were both entitled to the pension, and that if they made fresh claims to the Pensions Committee, and the claims were passed by them and sent on to him, they would go through as a matter of course. I gave this direction of the pensions officer to these persons, and they carried it out, so that I concluded the matter was settled. Months have gone by since that occurred, and I found just by chance the other day, that in neither of these cases, although they have complied with the directions given them, has anything been done, and these unfortunate old people are still without their money. I would be deeply grateful to the Minister if he would inquire into the matter and see that this recommendation is carried out, as very great hardship has been inflicted on these people, who are most deserving cases.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I should like to deal with the matter of blind pensions and the way in which the law has been interpreted with regard to the degree of blindness and also as regards the delays in deciding appeals. It is no exaggeration to say that unless applicants for a blind pension can prove total blindness there is very little chance of them receiving a pension. There is nothing in the Act to require that a person must be totally blind. The fact is that the pension officer appeals against every application, even though he knows the person is so blind as to be unable to do work for which eyesight is essential. What is laid down in the Act is that the person must be so blind as to be unable to perform work for which eyesight is essential. Pensions are refused even though the applications are accompanied by a doctor's certificate. When an appeal is made and sent forward to Dublin, it is quite a common thing for the applicant to have to wait for twelve months, or two years, or in some cases longer, before the appeal is decided. That is a very great hardship on poor people who, in many cases, are destitute.

The way in which the degree of blindness is being interpreted by the pensions officers and the inspectors is not fair to the applicants and is not giving them the benefit of the Act. I have in mind a couple of cases. One man applied for a blind pension and after a lapse of two years the pension was granted from the date of application. In another case the applicant was waiting for fifteen months before the medical inspector came and decided that he was entitled to the pension from six months after the date of his application and nine months before the inspection was made. In another case the inspector decided after a lapse of seventeen months that the applicant was entitled to the pension from the date of the medical examination. In that case it was a great hardship that the medical inspector did not come six or twelve months earlier. Probably the Minister's answer will be that in the case of a progressive disease, the medical inspector will be able to say at what time the person reached the degree of blindness required. Applicants for blind pensions are certainly of opinion that unless they can prove, not only to the pensions officer and the committee, but to the medical examiner, that they are totally blind, they have very little hope of getting a pension. Take the case of a man who has been working as a tailor for forty or fifty years and whose sight fails him to such an extent that at sixty-five years of age he is no longer able to work as a tailor. That man is of no use for any other class of work, but if he has sufficient vision in the opinion of the medical examiner to enable him to pitch manure into a cart, he is disqualified from receiving a pension. That is certainly a very great hardship upon such people. Cases of that kind are occurring every day in the week.

The Minister should see that there is a fair interpretation of the Act and that there is a speeding up of decisions in appeal cases. I know there has been considerable improvement as far as that is concerned, and I am led to believe that for the future they will be able to deal with the cases within a reasonable time. It is only fair to say that the delays are not due to the medical inspector, but to the fact that there was not a sufficient number of medical inspectors appointed. It was only after great pressure from Deputies that the Government agreed to appoint the second inspector. I hope the Minister will see that there is a more liberal interpretation of the Act.

Mr. T. MURPHY

I desire to call attention to another matter in connection with old age pensions. In my constituency a number of persons who were receiving the old age pension in one particular district suffered as a result of the legislation introduced last year. In a number of cases people felt that they were treated unfairly and they approached the local officer to have the cases re-opened. I took the cases up with the Department here and was advised that they should acquaint the pension officer that they desired to raise the question of their pension with him with a view to obtain ing an increase. That was done and the pension officer refused absolutely to take any notice of the applications. In at least two or three cases, when they failed, the pensioners sent to the pension officer a statement by registered post asking to have their case taken up and put before the committee. The pensions officer deliberately ignored that and, as a matter of fact, denied that he had ever received any such applications. I am assured that this officer is very careless in his work in this respect and has the reputation of being rude to pensioners generally. He has acquired such a reputation in the district that old age pensioners are led to think that there is no use in approaching him. He is a sort of Kaiser in his own dominions and has gone out of his way to be insulting and nasty to pensioners, and has refused to do his work. The pensions officer I referred to is Mr. McKenna, who lives at Clonakilty.

I am glad to be able to say that conduct of that kind is not general. Personally, I have not had any other complaints of conduct of that kind. In the case of a well-paid official like that, I think he might do the work he is paid for doing, and I am glad of the opportunity to bring this officer's conduct to the notice of the Minister. In at least one of the cases, my colleague of the Farmers' Party who is not present at the moment—Deputy Donovan—informed me that one of the persons who endeavoured to get a case re-opened was absolutely destitute. I am satisfied that there were good grounds for reopening some of the other cases. Be that as it may, the duty of the officer was to do the work he was paid for. I take it that the Ministry does not wish officials to adopt that attitude and to take upon themselves the duty of finally deciding cases of this kind. The final decision rests with the Department, and I desire to say that the officials of the Department here generally do the fair thing. This is a matter I thought ought to be mentioned and I am glad to say that the line of action taken by this officer is not the line of action taken by pension officers generally.

Mr. BLYTHE

If Deputy Murphy will give me the name and station of that officer, I will have inquiries made into the whole matter.

Mr. MURPHY

I did mention the name of the officer.

Mr. BLYTHE

I will have the case inquired into.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

Deputies generally welcome a reduction in estimates for the public services. But I think there is no estimate in which a reduction is less welcome to Deputies than the public service which is before us at present. I think a reduction in old age pensions is very unwise economy. In the circumstances, it may have been impossible to avoid it and the Executive Council, in deciding that it was advisable to reduce this estimate, were probably controlled by circumstances. These circumstances, I should hope, are fast passing and we should expect that the Minister for Finance here to-day will hold out to us some hope that that road of economy is not to be pursued and that we may expect to revert to the normal as regards pensions for our aged people. I find that for the year 1923-24 there was £3,180,783 paid in old age pensions. The estimate was £3,270,000. For the following year, 1924-25, the estimate was £2,912,000, and the estimate for the present year, 1925-26, is £2,600,000, which means, on the estimate of this present year, a reduction as compared with the actual sum paid in pensions in 1923-24, of £580,783. Most of us who supported this reduction were led to believe that it meant only 10 per cent. These figures show a reduction of something like 17½ per cent.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Something like 25 per cent. in some cases.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

That may be so in some cases, but on the average, it works out at what I say. While that is the case in regard to pensions, I find that the expenses of administration have increased from £7,365, which was the amount actually paid in the years I have referred to, to £7,700—an increase of £435. There is a saving under one head—the amount given to the people in pensions—but there is an increase in the amount expended on the administration of the pension service. There are a great many hardships imposed by the Act that were never intended when it was passed here. I think that the proof of age could be made a good deal more simple. It could be made more easy for those poor people to discharge that duty. The onus rests upon them, according to the law, to prove their age. That is difficult for them to do when they are left without any records. The onus of providing them with these records should rest upon the Government of any well-ordered country. These records are not available to the people and, consequently, the people are not able to discharge the onus that rests upon them. They are left to suffer the disability of continuing without pensions in the majority of instances, having very little means of subsistence. It should be the first duty of any Government to deal with this question and to say that, whatever may be the resources of the State, this is one service that is not going to be subjected to economy in the sense that the interests of these poor people should be subordinated to the other requirements of the State. This is a service that should not be subordinated, in my opinion, to any other exigency. Whatever credit we may expect in the eyes of the world, we will not get any credit by proving that we economised by a reduction of expenditure upon this particular service. Undoubtedly, the times that we have passed through made the necessity. That necessity is passing away and very soon we should be back in normal conditions. The first subject, then, to be dealt with should be the subject we are concerned with now.

We realise, from the figures given by the Minister, that the proportion of old age pensioners to our population is very large. I do not know whether we should consider that a misfortune. I think we should rather consider it creditable that the duration of life here is so well maintained. It is proof that our people live according to the rules of public health and that they lead, generally, a wise and moderate existence. That should be rather to our credit, though it counts against us when we come to reckoning the expenditure on old age pensions. There are other things that I hope will reduce, to some extent, the amount that will be required for this service in the future. We find that for a considerable time back pensions have been given for other purposes. A great many people will fall into a category in which it will not be necessary to provide old age pensions for them, because they will already have been provided with pensions from other sources. Deputy Gorey, the other day, made a proposal that the small minority left without pensions should be provided with pensions. I think it was a very sane suggestion. I think we should shortly have a very small number to provide with old age pensions, if we pursue the road we are pursuing with regard to pensions generally. While I am not a very strong advocate of pensions generally, I am a particularly strong advocate of pensions in cases where the old people have no other resources. I would ask the Minister when he is making his statement to hold out to us at least a hope of being able, at a very early date, to restore to those poor people what was taken from them owing to the exigencies and stress and difficulties of the times. When we arrive at the time that that can be done, I hold that it should be the first duty of the Government to see restoration made to those people of what, I believe, has been wrongfully taken from them.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

The last speaker has alluded to the fact that we ought to go back to the previous conditions and restore the old age pensions. It was admitted during the discussions last year that a great many people were receiving pensions who were not entitled to them. If we have reached the stage when that abuse has come to an end, I think we might make a claim to have the amount of the pensions to those who are really deserving increased. I am quite sure that it was possible for persons with a certain amount of means to hand over the property they had to sons or daughters, and put themselves upon the pensions list. I think the Minister had in mind that people of that class should not be encouraged to come under this scheme. At the same time I do not think a pension of from 4s. to 9s. per week is very much to an old person, and I would be glad to see people really deserving of pensions getting an increase.

Deputy Morrissey has alluded to one or two points that I was interested in. He cleared the matter up to some extent before he sat down, but I was rather surprised to find that an appeal had been before any court for fifteen months, and had not been attended to. I was surprised to hear that blind men had made claims for pensions for blindness, and that the matter was not attended to for seventeen months in one case, and for fifteen months in another case.

Mr. MORRISSEY

For two years.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

That was a very serious state of affairs, and it should not have been allowed. I admit that a great deal of care must be taken in establishing a claim to blind pension. I am ignorant on the question of the appointment of the person who adjudges these appeals. I would like to ask the Minister whether the medical officer appointed is one of the Local Government inspectors or whether he is a specially-appointed medical officer who has a special knowledge of this class of work. I think it is necessary that the man who is doing this class of work should have more than the ordinary knowledge possessed by the ordinary medical man in connection with these matters. I hope that is the case. I hope, in one sense, that the medical inspector is one of the inspectors of the Local Government Department, because I have alluded to the fact on previous occasions that I did not know how the medical inspectors of the Local Government Department employed themselves—there were so many officers in charge. That is the reason why I say it was a disgraceful thing that these appeals should be from fifteen months to two years unattended to. The Local Government department had more inspectors than they could find work for. Perhaps the Minister will clear up the point as to whether the officer appointed by the department to do this work has to do the entire work of the twenty-six counties, or whether, as Mr. Morrissey suggested, a second inspector has been appointed to do this work. I am quite sure it requires as much care to eliminate people making absurd claims to blindness as it does to eliminate people putting forward claims a certain age when they have not attained that age, and representing that they have no means at a time when they have sufficient means, without being placed on the pension list.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

There is just one thing that I would like to call attention to. It arises out of one remark made by Deputy Sir James Craig. He referred to the fact that people who are in fairly comfortable circumstances make over their goods to their sons and daughters in order to become eligible for the old age pension. I heard that statement mentioned before on several occasions, and I think too much is being made of it. I think Deputy Sir James Craig, or other Deputies who mentioned this matter, cannot know the circumstances as they exist in that portion of Ireland where this thing does happen; that is, very largely the West of Ireland. The old age pension administration, in so far as that class of people is concerned, is particularly harsh. There have been numerous instances throughout Galway and Mayo where old men and women, living in the house of a little farmer, were drawing the pension before the 1924 Act came into operation. The effect of the Act, and the tightening up of the administration under it, resulted in the pension being taken away from those people. In many, practically all, of these cases the valuation of the little holding is not more than £3 or £5. Existing on this holding would be a man and his wife, and, perhaps, a few little children. In addition there would be the old man, or the old woman, possibly the old couple, alive.

In estimating the means of those old people, too much value is placed by the pension authorities on the maintenance they obtain from the son who is married on the little farm. That is pushed to too great an extent in those cases. There are hundreds of those cases over the Connemara area and in the western portion of Mayo. The net result of the administration will be that those people will come on the home help or on the local rates. The present system of administration will bring about that result. It has been stated, often, that farmers especially have resorted to this kind of thing so as to get a pension for the old people. I know that in connection with the class I am speaking of there is nothing else for them to do. As a matter of fact, the pension was a great means of keeping them alive in many cases in the old days. There is very great hardship in those areas now as a result of the tightening up process and the methods adopted by the pension officers in the administration of the Act during the last twelve months.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to follow on the lines on which Deputy O'Connell has based his remarks. The issuing of instructions for a tightening up has been interpreted to mean that the screw must be put on just as tightly as it possibly can. The effect of putting on that screw has been very much on the lines of putting on a thumbscrew. Some people have been driven to distraction. The Minister gave certain figures at the opening of his statement. I would like if he could supplement those figures, which dealt with a comparison between 1912 and 1925, with figures relating to 1923, 1924 and 1925, preferably 1923, just before the last Act began to operate, or was contemplated. We would then have a better idea of the effect of the Act and the number of pensioners receiving respective weekly sums.

The Minister gave us certain figures or percentages when referring to old age pensioners. He stated that the total population ranged from 21.01 in Waterford Borough to 51.55 in Leitrim county. Figures like that presented by the Minister are apt to be used for the purposes of comparison with figures in Scotland and in England. On an earlier occasion I think the Minister did adduce figures of this kind and compared them with Scottish or English figures. It is well to be warned that if there is going to be any fair comparison, the figure of old age pensioners to-day ought to be in relation to the population of 70 years ago. If we are going to compare our figures with Scottish figures, we have to make allowance for the increase in population in Scotland and the decline of population in Ireland. Except for the purpose of showing the relationship to the total population in Ireland to-day, which is a matter of interest, those figures are not of much value and they should not be used—as I am afraid they may be used—to suggest that the number of persons obtaining old age pensions in these districts is excessive, not by virtue of their rights under the law, but by virtue of their ability to deceive. That seems to be the suggestion that has been taken out of similar figures that were put forward in the past, and it is not right that such imputations should be made.

In regard to a remark by Deputy Sir James Craig, I think he should bear in mind that before the applicant for a blind pension has his application considered it must be accompanied by the local doctor's certificate to the effect that the man is blind. The only question then is whether that is fairly satisfactory or prima facie evidence of his blindness. The doctor may not be a specialist in eye diseases, but no progress can be made until the application has been corroborated by the doctor's certificate. There should be no question, when the pension is ultimately paid, that it should be paid from the date of the first application. Wherever any departure from that policy has been made, it is due that there should be a repayment. It is not fair that because of the fault or negligence or incapacity of the Department to do its work up to time, the applicant should suffer the loss of the pension from the time of the application. As Deputy Morrissey pointed out, one or two years may elapse, and it would not be fair that in paying a pensioner that period should be overlooked.

Deputies McGoldrick and Craig are pressing and pleading for a revision of the policy in respect of the amounts of pensions; they are pleading for a reversion to the pre-1924 policy and practice. The plea they are making now is that, instead of cutting the pensions, what should have been done was to tighten up the administration. It would have been much better and more satisfactory if that pressure had been applied to the Ministry when the proposal for cutting the pensions was before the House. Many opportunities were provided; but, unfortunately, they were not availed of by the Deputies who now say it was not right to cut the pensions and that a great part of the benefit might have been obtained, and a good part of the saving might have been made, by a reasonable tightening-up in the administration and an effort to correct what may be assumed to have been general abuses without being so rigorous as to create an injustice.

Mr. JOHN CONLAN

I think we ought to have an authoritative announcement upon the right interpretation of the expression "means" in the Act. We should know whether means must be accounted as actual cash or income in money, or whether the shelter of a room or the necessaries of life, given to an applicant for an old age pension, can be considered as means. I will give a case in which I think a wrong interpretation has been given to that word. It is the case of a homeless widow, admittedly without means of her own. This woman was admitted to the house of another widow, who was a first cousin of the applicant's deceased husband. The applicant was admittedly over the pensionable age. There was no question whatever on that point. Still, she was refused the pension on the grounds that she had means. The shelter she was afforded and the necessaries of life she was afforded, not by any persons who had legal obligations to give her those things, but who merely acted on motives of charity, were taken into consideration. Her means were estimated at £37 a year and on these grounds she was refused a pension. I think that action not alone stretched the Act too far, but it went beyond the powers the Act gives the pension officer. We expect a pronouncement upon that point from the Minister.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I would like to say another word with regard to applicants for a blind pension. I understand that medical certificates accompany each application. If the Pensions Committee are not prepared to accept that, what is the use of a certificate at all? I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a general setting aside of the medical certificate that has been given to the blind people by the local Pensions Committee, or whether it is only in certain cases that the Pension Committee take on themselves to override the certificate that has been given by the local medical officer. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that there should be any number of these appeals made. I grant that in my first statement I suggested that anyone dealing with the matter of appeals should be himself a specialist as regards eye work, or, at least, have a little more than the ordinary knowledge to interpret a very intricate case. I do not think that there is any difficulty about the doctor in the ordinary sense of the term giving a certificate for cases in the ordinary way.

I should like to say, with regard to what Deputy O'Connell stated, that it was from the statements made here in the Dáil that I learned that very much fraud had been perpetrated in the old days with regard to the number of pensions granted. I think it was even suggested from the Ministerial benches that the people here thought it was no harm to get as much as they possibly could when the pensions were being paid from the other side. At all events, I gathered that the general impression in the Dáil was that there was a considerable amount of laxity with regard to the giving of pensions to people who did not deserve them. Deputy O'Connell may take it from me that I certainly have no objection to people who are deserving and who are poor getting some help in their old age.

Mr. MICHAEL DOYLE

For the information of Sir James Craig, I can recount a case where two local medical officers certified as to the blindness of a certain lady in my county. She also held a certificate from a specialist in Dublin—Doctor Connolly. Still the pensions officers appealed in her case to the Local Government Department. She was brought up here and appeared before the Local Government medical inspector. He certified that she had some vision in one of her eyes. This old lady was 68 years of age at the time. She was very feeble and practically unable to do any work, no matter what her sight might be. The two local medical officers and Dr. Connolly, the eye specialist, certified that she could not do any work for which eyesight was essential. In spite of that the pensions officer brought on the appeal and the pension was refused on the ground that the Local Government medical officer certified that she had some vision in one of her eyes. It was rather a hard case. She lost her Home Help on the strength of the Pensions Committee granting her a pension, and the only suggestion I received when I brought her case before the Minister for Local Government was that she should go back and have Home Help again. If she were qualified for the blind pension I believe that he should not shirk giving her help from his Department. That was not the way to treat this old lady, to refer her back to the local rates for Home Help.

Another phase of the question was dealt with by Deputy McGoldrick. That was the question of facilitating matters for those people who could not procure their baptismal certificates in their own parish or here in Dublin. One pension officer has suggested some time that those people should have their ages proved by two older people. Still when those witnesses go before a Peace Commissioner and make an affidavit that the applicants are up to 70 years of age the case is appealed in nearly every instance. I do not see how those poor people can really prove their ages except through people in the district who are older than themselves. If people who are older than them make affidavits that they are of the required age it should be sufficient for the pensions officer, and these appeals should not be brought on. I think it is a matter that the Government should look into. They should provide some way or means for those people to establish their age. Those poor people do not know where to go. They cannot find baptismal certificates. The records were burned or they were not kept, and they have no means of proving their age by documents. I believe the Government should find some way for those people to prove their age, and the way I suggest, I think, ought to be sufficient.

Mr. MORRISSEY

With regard to the question of certificates given by local doctors, which was referred to by Sir James Craig, as far as I am aware those certificates are not accepted. Unless an applicant for a blind pension has a certificate from an institute for the blind the pension officer, as far as I know, appeals in all cases, even where the applicant has a certificate from a local doctor stating that he or she is blind. There is an appeal in practically every case. That is one of the reasons why people have to wait 15 months and two years before their appeals are decided. As a matter of fact, a number of these applicants have actually died while the appeals were pending.

Mr. D'ALTON

I think Deputy Doyle has put his finger upon the blot regarding these pensions. Undoubtedly the great difficulty lies in proving the question of age, and I think it will be found that the great bulk of the appeals are made upon that point. It is a remarkable fact that previous to the loss of the documents in the Four Courts the census returns were available for this purpose and a large number of people who were placed on the pensions list at that time were placed on it from the information supplied by the census. The evidence supplied by the census returns furnished the evidence of age in the case of those who received the pension. It is a fact that the Government, though not willingly, actually and in fact destroyed these documents and they call on the old-age people to supply evidence from documents which they themselves destroyed. I believe the President is particularly answerable for that. I am aware from my own experience that the great difficulty in these questions is for poor people to supply evidence of their age. Last year I suggested to the Minister for Local Government—I think on the estimates —that a leaflet might be issued instructing the poor people how they might furnish evidence and how it might facilitate them in making their claims. That leaflet was issued last year, but I am told that the revenue people so revised that document that it is not understandable. May I suggest, particularly in the presence of Deputy Morrissey, who is a vigilant member of the Committee looking into this question, that if simple instructions were issued broadcast, particularly in poor districts, directing what evidence should be supplied and how it should be obtained, and if a specimen were given on the back of the leaflet of the declaration that is required in these cases where there is really no evidence, it would help these people to make out their cases perfectly. I understood last year that the objection to doing that was that it was no part of the Finance Minister's business to help people to take money from him.

In regard to blind pensions, I have a good deal of experience of that matter, too. There is no question whatever that many people on the certificates of local doctors were getting blind pensions to which they were not entitled by law. The matter has been tightened up now, and the names of these people have been removed from the pay lists. The difficulty remains that those of them who are really eligible are not able to get attended to. I do not think the difficulty there lies with the administration at all. It lies with the Dáil. They pass the Act and the regulations resulting from that Act prevent doctors, except in cases of actual blindness, from certifying for pension purposes. I believe there are two doctors dealing with this business. I know one of them, and, for the information of Sir James Craig, I should say that he has experience of opthalmic work. He does his work scientifically, and he is a very kindly man and a hard worker. The difficulty with him is this, that he is up against these regulations. I think these regulations should be relaxed. I think this blind pension should cover all cases of people who are so blind as to be unable to earn their livelihood. The Minister, in his short statement, read out some figures. Deputy Johnson has already dealt with one side of these figures. I would like an explanation, for, frankly, I do not understand what the second return is for. The Minister gave certain counties, and he gave the poundage on the valuation of these counties, corresponding to the amount of money paid for old-age pensions. One of the counties that he gave was County Meath. The old age pensions paid there would run to 1/9 in the £1. He mentioned the County Mayo, in which Deputy O'Connell is interested. He said the poundage there would be 14/-. He mentioned Donegal County, similarly valued to Mayo, and he gave it as 12/-. What do these figures prove? I only mention these so that they might come up before Deputy Morrissey's committee, and so that he will keep a vigilant eye on the purpose to which these returns are to be applied. The valuation of a holding in Meath would be very high. It is sparsely populated, and the valuation is extraordinarily high.

The population and valuation of Mayo somewhat correspond with those of Donegal, but in districts where most claimants receive pensions the average valuation does not exceed £2, and generally does not exceed 30/-, so that I cannot see what comparison can be made between these counties and Co. Meath, with its 1/9 in the £. If, as I hope, the Minister has in mind the extension of benefit to these counties, I hope he will remember that Donegal has smaller valuations than Mayo, and that he will at least bring Donegal up to the Mayo figure of 14/-. I join in the appeal made by Deputy McGoldrick to the Minister to take into consideration, when his finances permit, the restoration of the shilling that was taken off these pensioners. I think it would be money well spent, because in the poorer districts, and I am very familiar with them, I do not know any money that gives so much comfort to the poor as this. In a city like Dublin, where the poor people have to pay rent, the 9/- is indeed very small, and very little is left for the comfort which this Act was intended to bring. I have mentioned these things in the hope that the Minister will give us some hint as to what he will do when his finances permit.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think that a good deal of the discussion this evening ought to have been on the Local Government Estimate. Perhaps a good deal more than half of it had to do with the side of the administration under the Minister for Local Government. With reference to the position in regard to old age pensions, I made a certain statement in connection with the Budget, and I have really nothing to add to it. I have repeated that statement two or three times, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat it again. Delays in dealing with blind pensions were due to two causes: first, that the British authorities neglected to appoint an inspector to deal with the work during their period, and a great mass of what I might call fraudulent cases have gone through. Long ago I explained to the Dáil that in some counties you had as much as one in every 400 of the population drawing a blind pension, and in others you had one in every 4,000. You had all sorts of cases which should never have gone through. When the inspector was put on the work he was a considerable time in getting through the mass of arrears, and it was a long time before he could take up what might be called current work. Where we were wrong was that we did not appoint a second inspector earlier. I think we should have done so, and we should have recognised that it was impossible for one man to get through the work. The officer who does this work is an inspector of the Local Government Department. He underwent a special course of training before he undertook the work, and I understand he is a very good officer and deals with it in a very capable way. Deputy Morrissey mentioned the case of a man who was seventeen months waiting for the visit of the medical inspector and then only received the pension from the date of his examination. I have no information about the case, but I would hazard a guess that his complaint was something of a progressive character, and that when examined he was still a border line case. Probably what would have happened if the doctor had seen him earlier was that he would have been refused the pension, and would have had to make a subsequent application to be re-examined.

There is no doubt that the local doctors for various reasons cannot be trusted to deal with this work satisfactorily. You have to remember that nearly all doctors are soft-hearted people. That is a fact; we discovered it, for instance, during the civil war, and when a miserable case comes before them they are inclined to certify blindness even if blindness does not quite exist. Then there will be great variations so long as the wording of the Act is what it is, that the person to be entitled must be so blind as to be incapable of doing any work for which eyesight is essential, and different individuals will have varying views about that. Apart from any departure from the letter of the Act on the part of a person giving a certificate there will be wide variations of view.

Somebody asked whether shelter and the necessaries of life were to be counted as means. They are, of course, to be counted as means, and they always have been. The Act specifies what must be taken into account—the yearly value of property not personally held or enjoyed, or stocks and shares, the income which the person expects to receive, or may be expected to receive, in wages or profits from any business, the yearly value of any property in his personal enjoyment, and the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed. So that the position has not been altered by us. It has always been the same, I suggest, and even if we were considering——

Mr. CONLAN

Relief that may be discontinued at any time?

Mr. JOHNSON

That is the question. If a person is absolutely destitute for to-day and to-morrow, and gets a loaf of bread on the third day, is that to be accounted benefit in anticipation?

Mr. BLYTHE

That benefit would not be such as to put a person above the means allowance.

Mr. JOHNSON

As a matter of degree of interpretation of the Act one would imagine that that benefit is benefit that is due to the person. But here you have people who are absolutely destitute, without means at all, except such means as are provided at the discretion or by the charity of their friends. Is that to be counted as means under the provisions of this Act?

Mr. BLYTHE

It always has been. We have made no change in that respect. For instance, a son is not expected to maintain his father.

Mr. JOHNSON

There has certainly been a change in the administration.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think so, but it is now easier to bring complaints to light than it was. I think that that is the real change; if people feel a grievance they find it easier to get it voiced. However, that is how the law has always been understood. We have officers administering it who administered it in Great Britain. There were in the past changes of officers from one country to another, and as far as I have been able to understand, the method of administration here and in Great Britain is the same. If there was any laxity here in the past compared with the present system, it was perhaps during the years of keen disturbance. There may have been some laxity then; I do not know, but in the normal way there has been no change.

This question of establishing age is a very difficult one, in the absence of what would constitute anything like legal proof. Instructions were given to officers to take as lenient and as favourable a view as possible. But the position is that age must be proved by the applicant, and it would be very hard, when you are dealing with big sums of money and big departments, to instruct officers to neglect the law, not to demand proof. That might lead to all sorts of abuses and, perhaps, fraud. When you are dealing with public officials, the only way is to insist that they carry out the law absolutely strictly so far as the question of bringing personal bias into the matter is concerned. They must always be out to carry out the law, and even if the law seems to be unsatisfactory, that is not the business of the official. It is the business of the legislation to alter the law. If there is a defect in the law, you cannot expect officials to ignore the law or to stretch the interpretation of it. We have done all we could, I think, to enable people to get pensions who cannot obtain legal proof of the fact that they are seventy years of age. This is really a matter on which the Minister for Local Government should have been challenged, but I know that in the Appeal section of the Local Government Department they decide in favour of the applicant if at all possible. It is obvious that if we are to receive affidavits as evidence, if we are to be certain, for instance, that the Comptroller and Auditor-General ought not to object to them, there must be some definite statement in regard to age, and it is no use for a person to say, "I believe that Mrs. Jones is seventy years of age." It is quite obvious that the affidavit must be drawn up in such a form as will lead anybody to believe that the person making it has really good grounds for thinking and believing that Mrs. Jones is seventy years of age. It is obvious that there must be a certain amount of detail, relevant facts must be stated; there must be something to indicate that a neighbour is not swearing casually, "I am seventy-four years of age, and I know that Mrs. Jones is seventy." I do not know what could be done further in the matter. Somebody has suggested that we should issue a book of instructions to people on how to make false affidavits. It has been repeatedly said that affidavits will be taken if they contain matter necessary to constitute proof of the age of the applicant, and as I say, such affidavits are looked upon in a sympathetic manner. I have myself got the papers to examine them, and if no certificate was available, and affidavits of the type I mention were put in by reputable people, they were accepted, and the pensions were given.

That is one of the matters which this Committee, which is now sitting, is investigating, to find out if anything can be done to facilitate the dealing with these claims and appeals in a manner that would be fair and just to the applicants. But there always will be some difficulty if you are not going to open the door so wide that you will have fraud on a large scale, because everybody knows that people who are not the required age are constantly attempting to get pensions. There was the case, which I have already mentioned a couple of times, of a person who, to my own knowledge, supplied affidavits in four successive years and was refused, and then on the fifth year produced the certificate showing that he was seventy years of age. Previously he was supposed to be unable to get a certificate. There will be cases of fraud, and it is very difficult to strike a middle line between being too rigid and excluding people who, through no fault of their own, cannot prove age, and on the other hand being too lax and in people who are not entitled to the pension. However, I suppose I am really out of order in dealing with this, because it belongs to the Department of the Minister for Local Government.

Vote put and agreed to.