Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 7

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 7 (OLD AGE PENSIONS).

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,705,300 chun slánuithe na suime is ga chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun íoc Pinseana Sean-Aoise fé Achtanna na bPinsean Sean-Aoise, 1908 go 1924, chun Costaisí Riaracháin éirithe a bhaineann leo san agus chun Pinseana fén Blind Persons Act, 1920.

That a sum not exceeding £1,705,300 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, 1927, for the payment of Old Age Pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 to 1924, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920.

This Vote is, practically speaking, for the actual cost of the pensions themselves and also for the fees and expenses of the clerks of local pensions committees. As I have already stated, the bulk of the administrative duties, including the printing of the old age pensions orders, the investigation of cases, the distribution of books, and so forth, falls on the Revenue Commissioners; payments are made by the Post Office, and appeals are dealt with by the Department of Local Government and Public Health. The peak point in regard to the number of old age pensions paid in the territory that is now the Saorstát was reached in 1912, when the number was 156,000. On the 31st March, 1926, the number was about 115,000. The reduction reflected in the Estimate this year is based on the calculation that the number of deaths of pensioners will be greater than the number of new pensioners. That, of course, follows the decline of population which took place all during the last century. The expenses of pension committees are slightly down. There are twenty-seven local pensions committees and 309 pensions sub-committees in the counties, and fifteen pensions committees and sixteen sub-committees in county boroughs and urban districts.

The Commission which dealt with the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts, and which sat last year, presented a report containing a number of recommendations with regard to the administration of the Acts and of old age pensions generally. We have been considering the report of that Commission in conjunction with the Department of Local Government and Public Health, and we are almost at a stage when we can act on the recommendations. The great majority of them are of such a character that we have no difficulties at all in accepting them. The recommendation that it should be compulsory on the pensions officer to attend at the committee meetings is one about which we feel some difficulty in complying with, and we are still examining that. But in any case, if we do not make it absolutely compulsory on the pensions officer to attend, we are agreed that his actual presence at meetings is most desirable, and it certainly should be a general rule, if not a rule without exception. There were suggestions before the committee to make his attendance compulsory, but they did not weigh with the majority of the committee. We think, however, that they are of importance. That is one of the matters that has not yet been determined. In regard to most of the other recommendations, I think that with certain modifications we will be able to comply with them and, even if we do not accept that particular recommendation in the letter, I think we will, at any rate, modify the practice, following consideration of the recommendation.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I want to say that I am rather disappointed that the Minister has not been able now to announce to the Dáil the decision of his Department with regard to the committee's report. I cannot see why the Minister could not have made up his mind on the matter before this, seeing that he has been in possession of the committee's report since last November. There is nothing very far-reaching in that report, nothing that would call for a great deal of consideration, mainly because the terms of reference were very restricted. I trust that the Minister will adopt that portion of the report dealing with the attendance of pension officers at the committee meetings, because the committee of inquiry looked upon that as the most valuable recommendation which they made, and they believed, if it were adopted, that it would make the administration easier and, in fact, less costly.

At present there is no contact, or very little contact, between the pension officer and the pension committee, and they are continually at loggerheads, so to speak. The pension committee will not agree with the report of the pension officer, and the pension officer, in most cases, appeals against the decision of the pensions committee. The committee, which was set up by the Minister, believed that if the pension officer were to attend the committee meetings and explain his reasons for granting, or refusing, a pension, there would not be so many appeals and, consequently, there would not be so much work thrown on the Local Government Department. I hope that the Minister will give his decision on the matter very soon.

I want to ask him to give us some information with regard to what saving has been made since the introduction of the 1924 Act, and what saving has been made as a result of the cut, apart from the saving which has been made by tightening up the administration. I do not suppose that I will be allowed, at this stage, to go into the question of the cut, but I want to put it to the Minister that the administration has been tightened too much. I admit that there was necessity for tightening up the administration. I am quite prepared to admit that the whole thing was being worked in a very loose fashion prior to the setting up of the Free State and some time afterwards. I am quite prepared to admit that many of the pension committees looked upon it as a rather patriotic thing to grant as many pensions as they possibly could and to get as much money as possible from the British Government in many cases, whether the applicants were qualified or not.

I am, however, afraid that the Minister has gone to the other extreme and that the administration has been tightened so much that many applicants who were qualified to receive pensions are being squeezed out. There was cause for complaint with regard to the delay in deciding claims for pensions, both for blind and old age pensions, particularly the former, and also with regard to the delay in having decisions arrived at on appeal, but I think that that matter has been remedied to a large extent, and that they are being dealt with fairly expeditiously at present, but the matter which gives most trouble at the moment is the question of establishing age. It is well known to the Minister and to most Deputies that very many applicants for old age pensions within the last few years have found it impossible to get any documentary proof of their age, and the Department, by regulation, started the device of affidavits, but, so far as we can see, it is almost impossible to have an affidavit framed which will satisfy the Department.

This matter was gone into at some length by the Committee, and while we believed that the affidavit method of establishing age is the best method, I must say that I am not satisfied that the Department is dealing with the matter in a fair way. As I say, it seems to be impossible to have an affidavit framed which will meet the requirements of the Department. I have seen affidavits made by very respectable people which gave in detail their reasons for knowing that the applicant was seventy years of age or over, and, in most cases, these affidavits have been rejected by the Department, with the result that many people, who are undoubtedly qualified to receive pensions, are still without them. There is, consequently, a feeling growing up amongst these people that the Government are deliberately trying to deprive them of the pension to which they believe they are justly entitled. I would be sorry to believe that that is so, but I suggest to the Minister that he ought to go into this matter, and, while doing what he can to prevent people who are not entitled to receive the pension from receiving it, he ought not tighten the administration so much that people entitled to the pension cannot get it. That, I think, will be admitted by most Deputies to be one of the matters which is causing most trouble not only to the applicants, but also, I think, to Deputies.

The feeling is there amongst the applicants that it is only waste of time to get people to make affidavits as to age, because, in every case in some districts, and in almost every case in other districts, the pension officer appeals on the ground of age, unless the applicant is able to produce a baptismal certificate. I think if the pension officer were to see the applicant and speak to him, that that, together with the affidavit, would put him in a position of being able to say, with a reasonable amount of certainty, whether the person was, or was not, seventy years of age. I would like the Minister to give some attention to that matter, because it is creating, and has created, a good deal of dissatisfaction and even bitterness amongst many old people. If the Minister was able to settle the matter in some way so that, without opening the door too wide he would open it wide enough to give people who are qualified a chance of getting pensions, he would be removing a great grievance.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I notice that there is a sum of £50,000 required this year less than the amount required last year. That, to my mind, is proof of the statement that there is rather a severe tightening up, and I would add further that in many cases injustice is being done to many deserving claimants. I am aware that there is great difficulty as regards persons who cannot produce their birth certificates. In many cases these applicants should get the benefit of the doubt, especially when a declaration, or other form of evidence, is given which could reasonably be accepted as proof of age. Some cases have been brought to my notice within the past twelve months in which very deserving poor people could not get the pension because the records were destroyed in the parishes in which they were born. They produced, however, declarations and other forms of evidence from the parish priest of the district, and one would imagine that these would be accepted, in accordance with the Act and in accordance with the statements made by the Minister when introducing this Vote on a previous occasion.

I ask the Minister to convey the instruction to the authorities dealing with these applications that where there is a doubt, and they are not altogether satisfied they are doing the right thing by disqualifying a poor person, they should give the benefit of that doubt to the claimant as against the Government. I am sure that many Deputies, at some time or other, have had cases brought to their notice in which, if it were left to them to decide, they would, on the merits, declare the claimant entitled to the pension. I have known cases where old certificates, old documents and even old school-books which belonged to people when they had reached a certain age, and which were reasonable proof, were turned down. I am sorry to say I am not altogether as satisfied as Deputy Morrissey is that there is not a desire in order to keep this Estimate as low as possible to overlook hardships that are being inflicted.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I did not say that there were not hardships being inflicted. I said I did not believe that would be done designedly.

Mr. BYRNE

I did not mean to convey that the Deputy expressed himself otherwise. I have not the same confidence in the judgment that is being exercised in dealing with these cases as the Government has. I have not the same confidence in those who deal with the application forms that come in. I am not satisfied that they show the sympathy necessary in dealing with such cases. I believe they look upon each case from, as it were, within the four walls of the Act, and they will give no benefit of the doubt to claimants. I suggest that the Minister should instruct officials dealing with applications for pensions, or the committees considering those applications, that at all times where there is a doubt in regard to the evidence that is submitted, particularly by means of sworn declarations or marriage certificates, the benefit of that doubt should be given to the applicant. In the old days a marriage certificate 48 years old would be always accepted as evidence of age and it is not accepted now.

Mr. BLYTHE

Marriage certificates?

Mr. BYRNE

Yes, representing that the applicant had lived 48 years of married life. Those certificates were formerly accepted and committees would give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant, believing that the marriage took place when the claimant was at least 20 years of age. When I was on a pension committee some years ago marriage certificates were always accepted as reasponsible evidence both by the committee and the Government of the time.

The fact that there is £50,000 less required this year as compared with last year for old age pensions shows that there is a tightening up that might not be forced in the manner in which it is being forced. I had hopes that the Government would have been in a position to announce that the shilling would be restored this year.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Wait for the next Budget before the general election.

Mr. BYRNE

Apparently the Deputy knows something about it.

Mr. CORISH

That is the reason he has confidence.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

That question cannot be discussed at this stage.

Mr. BYRNE

I am not discussing it. I allowed the Deputy to refer to it. I am satisfied that the reduction of one shilling originally intended by the Dáil has risen in many cases to four, five and even six shillings, and this applies to many deserving cases.

Mr. COLOHAN

I would like to bring once more to the Minister's attention a case about which I asked a question yesterday. I asked for information as to how a pension officer calculated the means of the applicant. The case I had in mind was the case of a woman who was granted a pension of one shilling per week. Her husband was out of work and was receiving unemployment benefit. The pension officer calculated that the yearly income from unemployment benefit was £52. I would like to know if there is any man in the country who receives £52 a year—£1 a week—from unemployment benefit, and I would like to know how the pension officer understood that he was receiving £1 a week for 52 weeks. How long will the unemployment benefit last in this particular case? Is it fair to calculate unemployment benefit as means? It does not matter so much about a single case, but if this is general throughout the country I think it is a great hardship on people who are looking for the old age pension. I ask the Minister to bring that pension officer strictly to account, to review that case, increase the pension, and in future to give instructions to all pension officers that unemployment benefit must not be considered as means.

Mr. HALL

This year there is a decrease of £50,000 in the amount allocated for pensions. One must conclude, in view of such a huge reduction, that it is again the desire of the Minister for Finance to economise at the expense of the aged and destitute poor. It would require a good deal of explanation to show how this reduction has been arrived at. What has occurred between this time twelve-months and to-day that has brought the Minister to realise the necessity of reducing the amount allocated for pensions by £50,000? It was not enough to reduce the weekly amount awarded to old age pensioners, but it appears there must be a reduction in the amount that will be available during the coming year for the payment of old age pensions to those who may be applicants. Every attempt is made to economise at the expense of the destitute poor. It would take a lot of explanation on the part of the Minister to satisfy the Committee or the people who will be the victims of the reduction.

The question of establishing age is a very curious one. It is nearly impossible to know what is required to establish age. Sworn affidavits apparently are useless to the extent of 90 per cent. Practically every case that came under my notice in which there were sworn affidavits has been turned down. The evidence of other people is not acceptable. I recollect one case that came to my notice in which a woman who was drawing a pension for something approaching two years made a sworn affidavit to the effect that another woman, who was an applicant for a pension and who was rejected on her first application, carried her to school when she started going to school. Here was a woman practically 72 years of age swearing that an applicant who was rejected on the grounds of age carried her to school. Notwithstanding that fact, the applicant was turned down, and up to this she has not got a pension.

It is a serious thing. I do not know why people who swear affidavits are treated in this fashion. Is it the view of those responsible for considering affidavits that everyone who swears an affidavit does so for the purpose of swearing falsehoods? I think it must be in the mind of the Department that those people are perjuring themselves. There was a plain case of a woman of 72 years of age who was at least four years younger than another woman whose claim was rejected on the grounds of age.

I consider the amount of money allocated for the expenses of pension committees is altogether too small. I consider that the clerks of local pension committees are underpaid. The remuneration allowed to those clerks is not up to the standard that it should reach. Take the case of a clerk acting for a whole county. Very often he has to go to different districts to attend meetings of local committees. His remuneration will not allow him to hire a motor car, and in all kinds of weather he has to push a bicycle.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The clerks are paid on a fixed scale, I understand, and the Minister is not responsible.

Mr. HALL

I do not know; probably that is so. However, I say the amount paid is altogether too small, and something should be done by the Minister to supplement it. These clerks should have their remuneration supplemented.

Mr. NAGLE

I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the question of the income of applicants for pensions. I have known at least one case where an old lady—there was no question at all about her age as there were certificates to prove it—was living with a sister and brother-in-law and simply because they gave her the shelter of their house and allowed her participation in whatever meals were going, the pension officer claimed that her maintenance was worth 10/- a week. They assessed her income at 10/-, and awarded her 6/- instead of 9/-. That case suggests to me that before a woman who has absolutely no means can establish her claim to the full amount of 9/- her relations must cast her out on the street. If her relations have anything of the milk of human kindness in them and afford her the shelter of their house, then the State will take advantage of that fact and curtail the woman's allowance. I suggest that is altogether wrong.

I have in mind a case which came to my notice some time ago. The applicant had been awarded a pension of 6/- a week. On my advice she made another application. Her income, with the 6/- a week, was just the same as it was before she got any money from the State, and for this reason, that the kindness of her relations in maintaining her when she had nothing was valued at 10/- a week. When she got the 6/- a week from the State she gave that to her people for her maintenance, which was still valued at 10/- a week. That meant that there was 4/- worth of support contributed by her relations and that she was entitled to another six if the Pension Act allowed it. She was actually entitled to and got another 3/-. The point I want to make is that that person and those interested in the case were put to the trouble of having to make a second application. If the pension officer had exercised even a small amount of common sense in the first instance he would have given the 9/- originally, and the State would not have lost anything more than the difference between 9/- and 6/- for four or six weeks. The case goes to prove that in very many instances some of these pension officers are absolutely lacking in plain common-sense, a thing that Ministers tell us so often it is necessary to develop.

That is an aspect of the question I would ask the Minister to consider. I would ask him, too, to instruct these pension officers in future that they are to use their common-sense instead of going purely by rote. It should not be necessary that a man or a woman in fairly good circumstances should be obliged to refuse the shelter of their home to an aged sister in order to enable her to get what is due to her from the State.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

I had not intended intervening in this discussion but for the observations of Deputy Hall, and to some extent, of Deputy Nagle. Their observations impel me to say that they understand nothing whatsoever of the regulations governing the rates of pension. I suppose there is no Deputy in the House who has more to do with the carrying out of this Act than I, unfortunately, have, and to that extent I claim some special knowledge on the subject. If such a case as Deputy Hall instanced occurred it is a scandal, because if evidence were put forward, evidence such as the Act and the regulations prescribe, the case could not have happened. To some extent the case mentioned by Deputy Nagle is slightly different. I am always anxious and agreeable to hear arguments put up by the Deputy. But I say to him in regard to this case that it is about the most inept and stupid one that could be put up. Why was not the case put before the Department to deal with? I would like to be very complimentary to the Deputy, but I am afraid I cannot compliment him on this.

A Commission was appointed to inquire into the working of the Old Age Pensions Act, and it will probably be reporting before the House adjourns. This Vote for old age pensions is an annual one, and I have taken the trouble of acquainting myself with the requirements of the Act. In the whole congested area of West Donegal in which I live, though I am a representative of the whole county, there is not a case of hardship, that is a case where a person had been harshly dealt with by the pension officer—cases such as that mentioned by Deputy Nagle—that we have not composed. The point I would like to impress on the House is that no matter what you do in this House, unless the administration of the Act is efficiently carried out, the position will be hopeless. The administration carried out by the pension officers is left in the hands of the local committees.

I do not think there is a Deputy who will say that these local committees are doing their duty in that respect. Why then blame the Minister or the pension officers in connection with matters which it is our business to see that they carry out? If they do not carry out their duty in my section of the country they are soon made to know about it. You cannot get local committees to do their duty in that respect, but it is our business to see that they do it. Cases which were turned down by the pension officer and which I investigated myself cost me a good deal of inconvenience as well as expense, but 99 per cent. of them in the last 12 months have been restored because I put evidence up. Other Deputies, I suggest, could also do that instead of coming here to growl against the Minister for Finance. I certainly am not very friendly to him in most ways, but in this matter the complaint rests not against the Department, but against Deputies.

Mr. T. MURPHY

I endorse the appeal made by Deputy Morrissey to the Minister in regard to the recommendations of the Committee that investigated the Old Age Pensions Act and in particular the recommendation that pension officers should be asked to attend the meetings of the local pensions committees. My experience as a member of a pensions sub-committee leads me to believe that that would be a very useful provision if put into operation. I have seen cases come before the local committees, and with the pension officer present satisfactory arrangements were come to as the outcome of a discussion between the members of the committee and the pension officer. The adoption of the recommendation referred to would, I think, go a long way to remedy the position you have now in which the pension officer usually takes an exactly opposite view to that of the members of the committee, and in which he appeals automatically to the Department of Local Government as it were. There does not seem to be any definite regard for the decision of the committees, and while there may be justification for that in regard to certain committees and in regard to the manner in which they are inclined to view cases in some places, I do not think that that obtains generally.

I would ask the Minister to take that matter into consideration and see whether some arrangement could not be made so that the pension officer would measure his views on the merits of the case rather than take an exactly opposite view to that of the committee. The pension officer religiously appeals every single case as far as I know, and I am not at all satisfied that he is acting fairly in doing so. As regards the calculation of means, I think there is a great hardship in that. In the case of poor people in the country, of small farmers, the pension officer goes out and examines the place and puts a very high valuation on their means. Fowl and other things are valued at an extremely high rate and out of all proportion to their worth. I think there ought to be more common-sense and a more reasonable spirit adopted in assessing the means of people who claim the old age pension, people such as small farmers and others in a poor position. The little worldly goods they have are assessed on a value altogether out of proportion to their real worth. I think there should be more latitude and more reason in that matter. It presents one of the big difficulties to those who know anything about the administration of the Act, and we are up against it every day. In the case of old people living with their children a particular difficulty arises.

In other cases old people down the country give up their farms to their children, reserving £8, £9 or £10 a year for themselves. In a great many cases the sons or daughters on these small holdings are not able to meet that money; in fact it is never asked for, although it is put in as some sort of protection for the old people when marriage settlements are being drawn up. Each case should be examined on its merits and some provision should be made for those who live with relatives and for whom some little money is provided in marriage agreements, but who never draw that money. I know that the attitude of the Department is that a son or daughter is bound to maintain his or her parents. Very often that leads to a great deal of trouble. Very often people are being charged with maintenance that they are not able to meet, and old people are credited with having sums of money allotted to them under agreements that they never availed of, for the simple reason that if they asked for it they could not obtain it; if they did they would simply smash the persons responsible. It seems to me that small farmers particularly are victimised because of their thrift and industry. If a pension officer sees a little farm place tidy, clean and comfortable, he puts a very high valuation on it and reports that the place is worth very much more than it is.

If it appears that the person who is claiming a pension has been a waster, if he is untidy, miserable and poor-looking, he gains, while the worthy person who has made every effort to pull along decently suffers on account of the thrift and industry he has displayed during his life-time. I disagree with what Deputy O'Doherty said in regard to the pensions committee. I know at least one or two committees where the pensions officers come to the meetings and where there never has been any difficulty. The pension officer places his view before the committee. Matters are discussed freely, and nearly always a satisfactory arrangement is come to. I do not hold the view that it is the duty of pensions committees to pile up applications and grant claims automatically. I have been a member of a committee and I have seen members of that committee very anxious to reject claims where they thought they were not reasonable. They were not a bit afraid of any unpopularity that might result. They simply did their duty and they were glad to have the assistance of the pensions officer. I think the Minister will find that the attendance of the pensions officers at these meetings will lead to the better working of the Act. I should also like to refer to the case of pensioners. Take the case of a person who receives a pension of 10/- a week from the British Government, as a result of somebody being killed in the war. A deduction of 4/- in the old age pension of that person is made. It seems to me that that is unfair. There is no reason why the old age pension should be cut down.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

Why?

Mr. MURPHY

It amounts to this, that the Government here are collaring money that these people are obtaining from another source.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

Are they not getting £26 a year?

Mr. MURPHY

I do not like to enter into any arguments with the Deputy. If he allows me to develop the point perhaps he will understand the position better. It seems to me that they are taking money that they ought not to take. That money is not being contributed by the taxpayer of this country; it is coming from another source and it should not be touched, in my opinion. I have no complaint to make as regards the manner in which the Local Government Department deals with the claims. But down the country there ought to be more give and take, and generally the administration of the Act ought to be broadened. It would do no harm to the State nor to the people generally. I think, on the contrary, it would lead to more confidence in the manner in which the Act is being administered, and I think that would be an object worth attaining even at a little extra expense.

Mr. BAXTER

I want to say a word or two in support of some of the remarks very aptly made by Deputy O Murchadha. Undoubtedly the basis of assessment of the value of the stock of a small farmer down the country is unfair. I will only say that if the same value were to be put on all the stock in the Saorstát as is put on what is found on the holding of an applicant for an old age pension, the Saorstát would be about three times as wealthy as it is valued at the present time.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

Nonsense.

Mr. BAXTER

Deputy O'Doherty can be very well satisfied, for I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that about one-third of the money that is voted for old age pensions must be paid into Tirconnaill. Undoubtedly there is a case for reconsideration of the value that is put on holdings and what they are capable of producing. There is something very wrong about the question of affidavits. Like other Deputies, I have some experience of this matter. If a Deputy is particularly active and goes to a lot of trouble with the Appeals Branch there are possibilities that the pensions will be secured to claimants, but that is not as it should be. The law should operate in such a manner that whether or not anyone intervenes on behalf of these people they would get the pension, if they were entitled to it. Some Deputies find that a considerable amount of their time and energies are wasted in trying to get pensions for people who they believe are entitled to them. Even to-day I had the experience of going to this Department. I must say that anyone who goes to the Department is treated with courtesy and consideration. He is treated fairly, as far as the Department can do it.

In the case in question three affidavits were sent to the Department. They were definite and explicit statements as to the age of the individual concerned. One was a statement by an older sister of the claimant. She swore that she was seventy-six years of age and that the claimant was seventy-three. She was the next of the family to her. I know the claimant myself. But these affidavits were not accepted as sufficient evidence that the claimant is the age. I do say that it is difficult to find out exactly what should be done in the matter of affidavits. The Department's point of view is that specific evidence must be given of how those who make the affidavits arrive at the conclusion that the claimant is the particular age they state. It is not an easy matter to get an old person of seventyfive or eighty years of age to come up to the very close reasoning that is required in the affidavit, and I say undoubtedly but for the efforts of the Deputies in this House hundreds of claimants every year would be deprived of their pensions. Deputies have to write letters, interview claimants, and get affidavits sworn in order to get pensions for people who are entitled to them. That is not as it ought to be. There should be some system of administration, that while being satisfactory to the Department would at the same time be just to the claimants. It is up to the Department to find a solution of this difficulty, and not put Deputies to the extraordinary trouble they have to go to. This should not be part of the duties of a Deputy. It is, in fact, taking part in the administration for which officials are paid, and I urge very strongly on the Minister that something should be done other than what is being done at the present time to make the working of the Act more satisfactory to everybody.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

I suppose there is not amongst the Deputies here a single man who has more experience of this question than I have, and who has taken more trouble than I have in getting old age pensioners' evidence recognised. I therefore speak with some knowledge of the subject. In this solitary instance that Deputy Baxter raised here had he even used the village idiot to put up an affidavit the Department would have considered it. I am not a supporter of the Department, the Minister or anybody else, but I must honestly say that the Department that is dealing with old age pensions is one of the finest we have in the Saorstát. They have turned down many of my own recommendations, but when I get the evidence that is necessary under the Act there is no trouble whatsoever. Deputy Baxter instanced the case of an old woman up in Cavan. In the name of all the eternal verities, why does not Deputy Baxter go down to that old lady and find what evidence she has got? Instead, he comes to this House and gives vent to that mournful cry, which to me is very objectionable, against a Department in respect of which he has not made a case. That is not fair. Most Deputies know pretty well that I am fairly independent.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I am afraid the Deputy is getting away from the subject of the motion.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

I understand this question perfectly. I have had a great deal to do with it and it is, I think, within my right as Deputy to testify to the capacity and honesty of this Department when attacks are made upon it.

Mr. GOREY

I support what Deputy Nagle has said. I do not blame the Commissioners or the officers dealing with these claims if they are tied down by the specific terms of the Act.

Mr. MORRISSEY

By regulations.

Mr. GOREY

I do not see the justice of the regulations which apply to the assessment of means of an individual supported by friends, out of human feeling or charity. I referred to this matter before. To count assistance given in this way as means is to do something that the State is not entitled to do.

Mr. BLYTHE

That is the law.

Mr. GOREY

If it is the law, then the law ought to be amended and amended instanter. The State has no right to assess assistance rendered out of human feeling or charity to individuals. If members of a family choose, out of human feeling, to provide for a person who may perhaps not even be related to them, and if this person would otherwise be entitled to an old age pension, then I say that it is wrong that the State should assess this support as an asset of the individual. That is what it amounts to. It may be the law, but if there is no other means of dealing with the matter it is the duty of the Dáil to amend the law.

I know of a few cases in which documentary evidence of birth cannot be produced. I believe there are a good many people in the country who find themselves in a similar difficulty. Is it absolutely essential that a baptismal certificate should be produced? Cannot the pension officer and the State exercise their common sense? Evidence has been produced in several cases to show that the applicant is over 70 years of age, and still we are told that the officers are tied up by statute and cannot do anything. There are several people unable to produce their baptismal certificates for one reason or other. It may be that they were never registered. These omissions occur even now. In some cases children born within the last two or three years have not been registered. I am not so sure that, as a parent, I have not been an offender in this respect myself. If that can happen to-day, it could well occur 70 years ago. I should like to know from the Minister whether documentary evidence is absolutely essential. That seems to be the only thing that is holding back pensions in many cases. Other classes of evidence, however conclusive, do not seem to be acted upon. The Minister shakes his head and suggests that documentary evidence is not essential. If it is not essential then an explanation is due of the action of some pension officers.

Mr. J. CONLAN

I support the plea put forward with regard to means. I can state a case which will show how strictly the law—if it is the law—is administered in this regard. I brought before the House some time ago the case of a widow over 70 years of age without children. On the point of age there was no doubt whatever. But this woman was disqualified on the ground of means. She had been admitted to the house of a friend—by marriage, not a blood-relative—and the means coming from that support were valued at £35 a year, which disqualified her for a pension. As Deputies have said, if that is the law, it ought to be changed, because this person was admitted purely from charity. There was no obligation whatever to support her, and if State aid is to be extended to persons over 70 years of age certainly this was a case which should have come within the ambit of the Act.

Mr. MacBRIDE

I think Deputy Gorey is under a misapprehension as to the working of the Old Age Pensions Act. I never found any difficulty as regards the documentary evidence to which he refers.

Mr. GOREY

I am only asking for an explanation, because in several cases that I know of, everything was present except the documentary evidence.

Mr. MacBRIDE

In several cases in which I was concerned I had the opposite experience. In a case where a man was looking for an old age pension he had represented himself as ten or fifteen years younger than he was when he was getting married. That was documentary evidence against him. The Old Age Pension authorities, however, on sufficient proof being supplied, admitted he was seventy years of age. In a number of other cases, where the applicants were not able to prove documentarily that their father and mother had been married on a certain date, lived in a village in a certain parish, and had a certain number of children, for the purpose of showing that the applicants had attained the proper age, the pensions officer dealt with the proofs adduced very liberally. He gave applicants in such cases every chance to prove their claims, and they succeeded. It is only a matter, in my opinion, of helping the authorities along the way. If you give them all the available assistance, you can practically prove your case. But if you merely give them an affidavit, in which there is no definite statement, you cannot blame them if they refuse to accept that as conclusive evidence.

Mr. SEARS

I desire to refer to the case of claimants living on holdings under £10 valuation. It is generally admitted that these holdings are uneconomic. If you take the case of a man and his wife and four or five children, living on a holding of £5 valuation, he is not able to rear his family in any sort of decency or comfort because of the limited resources of his little farm. Let us assume that a claim is made for a pension in respect of the father or mother of the holder of that farm. The pension officer arrives on the scene, and he makes the remarkable discovery that, on account of the father or mother being maintained on that holding, he or she is enjoying means to the amount of 10s. per week. That is as much as to say that the occupier of that holding, after supporting his family, is able to spend 10s. per week in supporting a parent, or, if the two parents be maintained, that he is able to spend £1 per week in this way. In that there is contradiction, because we have been told here frequently that those farms are under the economic level, which is to say that the occupiers are living on an inadequate income. If that be the fact, how can the means of these applicants be estimated at 10s. per week?

It has been said here that in pre-Treaty times committees were inclined to grant pensions very generously. They did not inquire particularly into means, and for that there was a certain amount of political justification. At all events, they got into a very bad habit. Times have changed, and old age pension committees are aware of the change just as well as other people. They are aware that they have to foot the bill for these pensions. They are not, therefore, as generous as they used to be, and they are inclined to examine cases very carefully. That being so, I think more attention should be paid to their representations. In my constituency there is unanimity among old age pension committees that their representations do not receive sufficient consideration. In one case, a parish priest—the chairman of a committee— refused absolutely to act, because, he said, the recommendations made by his committee did not receive consideration. These committees are part and parcel of the machinery for administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, and the Department and the pension officers ought to keep more in touch with them. If the pension officer attended their meetings, giving the committees the benefit of his knowledge of the law, it would moderate their dissatisfaction to a great extent, and there would be fewer appeals. It would make, too, for closer relationship between the committees and the Department.

I would also like to support what has been said about the difficulty of getting evidence. It is an unfortunate day for some old man or woman when he or she has to commence a pilgrimage all over the country to look for evidence of birth. Some of them showed a great lack of foresight by being born in parishes where no records were kept, while others were more fortunate. It is very difficult for some people to prove their ages, as all of us know who have heard stories from claimants, and it is very difficult in a country parish to get affidavits of a satisfactory character. There may have been no important events at which people were present and from which their ages could be known, and it is therefore very difficult to get these affidavits. If the committee makes a recommendation that they believe a man is up to the age, a pension officer should not appeal, unless from his own knowledge of the man he thought that that was not the case. But to appeal because a man fails, through no fault of his own, to get documentary evidence, leads to injustice in a number of cases, and if it does that there is reason for remedying the law.

Mr. DONOVAN

I wish to support the plea put forward by my colleague, Deputy Murphy, on behalf of the small farmer. Both Deputy Murphy and I come from an area which contains a number of small farmers. I consider that the basis of assessment on valuation in these cases is wrong. As Deputy Murphy stated, the thrifty farmer and his wife, on reaching the age of 70, are penalised, and the pensions officer over-values their stock because they have been thrifty and because they may have fowl and other little goods and chattels. The manner in which this valuation is carried out is an incentive to the slovenly farmer and it penalises the thrifty man. I support the suggestion that the method of making the valuation should be reconsidered.

Mr. M. DOYLE

I support what Deputy Sears has said as to paying a little more attention to the findings of the committees. It is becoming a very difficult problem to get anyone at all to act on these committees owing to the fact that little heed is given to their recommendations. I also support Deputy Sears' plea for the attendance of the pensions officers at the committee meetings. It would simplify matters considerably if cases could be discussed between the pensions officers and the committees, and it would lead to more amicable understandings on both sides. I would also like to refer to the question of means. I have known people who had actually no means, who had practically nothing whatever to live on, and who were taken in by relatives. Applications for pensions were made and were granted, but the pensions officer appealed on the grounds of means, as the people who took them in had some means of their own and kept them, more for humanity sake than anything else. The committee's recommendations were turned down on appeal. I have known some of these applicants then to go into lodgings for a short time, and immediately they did so pensions were granted. I hold that if they were eligible for pensions when living in lodgings they were surely eligible when staying with their friends, and the law at present is depriving these people of the little comfort they would have by staying with their friends.

Mr. CORISH

I also appeal to the Minister to give a little more consideration to the recommendations of the pensions committees. At present the committees are treated almost as registering machines, just to receive the recommendations of the pensions officer in connection with claims that are purely non-contentious. In almost every case in which there is any doubt at all, the Department upholds the decision of the pensions officer, notwithstanding the fact that nowadays committees go to all kinds of trouble in order to investigate claims properly. Like other Deputies, I am prepared to recognise the fact that prior to the establishment of the Free State committees were inclined to be liberal in granting claims at the expense of another Government, but I think that people have now developed sufficient civic spirit to investigate claims properly, knowing that the money which pays these claims comes directly out of the pockets of the Irish taxpayer.

The evidence of age is a very difficult problem which confronts every committee and every claimant, and I am inclined to ask: "When is an affidavit an affidavit?" I happen to be the chairman of a pensions committee, and I know that we go to great pains to find proper, responsible people who are prepared to make an affidavit in favour of a claimant, but in 99 cases out of a 100 what we consider to be proper affidavits are turned down. The general feeling in the country at present is that the Government are prepared to take advantage of anything and everything in order to deprive the people of their rights to pensions. I would ask the Government to try to devise some means whereby this affidavit question will be simplified. So far as means are concerned I, like other Deputies who have spoken, believe that the pensions officers are stretching a little too much what they conceive to be their powers. I put a question down a fortnight ago somewhat similar to that to which Deputy Conlan has just referred, and the Minister stated that the reason the pension was not allowed to the lady in question was that she was living with her brother-in-law. I do not think anybody will try to make the case that a brother-in-law is under any liability to keep his sister-in-law. Many of these old people would be sent to the nearest county home were it not for the fact that in perhaps twelve or eighteen months' time they would be entitled to the pension, and rather than see them going into the county home or the Union, as the case might be, their friends and relatives take them in, on the understanding that they will get the pension at the end of a certain period. I do think that the pensions officers and the Department responsible for the administration of the pensions are tightening the strings too much as far as the administration of the Act is concerned, and I ask the Minister to see to it that the people get fair play. I do believe that things are tightened up too much and that there should be a little more give and take, and I would ask the Minister to pay a little more attention to the recommendations made by the committees.

Mr. GOREY

On the question of the means of applicants, I wish to make particular reference to means from land, and I think that the only correct valuation is the poor law valuation. When an officer has the poor law valuation and any outside means before him, there ought to be no inquiry with regard to the comfortable appearance of the applicant, or anything of that kind. A penalty should not be put on thrift, because that is what it amounts to. People should not be penalised because they were able to make a little more of their facilities than other people. I think a standard based on the valuation of the holding and other means from outside, such as investments, ought to be the only things that should concern the pensions officer, and whether the home has a comfortable appearance or not should not be taken into consideration. They should not be penalised because the homes are comfortable, and if these old people keep a few fowl or a pig that should not be taken into consideration.

Mr. M. EGAN

I desire to say a word on the question of evidence as to age. I seriously hope that the Minister will make it quite clear as to what action an applicant for an old age pension has to take with regard to obtaining evidence by affidavit. I am aware of a case that was pending for the past twelve months, and notwithstanding the fact that an affidavit was made by two people who are undoubtedly over seventy-six years of age, the pensions officer has turned down the claim, and the applicant has nowhere to go for redress. It is admitted that he is seventy-three years of age, and in every other way is entitled to a pension. From the means point of view he is practically destitute, but he has no method, except by affidavit, of showing that he is over the age. We are all aware of the fact that when the Old Age Pensions Act came in a number of these old people were not registered, and that is applicable to this case. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will make it plain what step a man who is undoubtedly over the required age should take to get a pension.

Mr. McCULLOUGH

I would like to say a word also with special reference to Deputy Sears' suggestion that the officer should keep more in touch with the pensions committee. I think there is no doubt whatever that pensions committees generally have a stronger sense of responsibility than they used to have with regard to the money they recommend to be spent. I have no desire to see the pension list swelled by any improper claims, but, with special reference to the county of which I am one of the representatives, I know that many of the claimants have no means of proving age from records, due to the fact that no records are available, and that all they can do is to produce affidavits from people who are old enough to testify as to their ages. I have a case in mind of one claim which has been turned down, although affidavits have shown that the claimant is seventythree years of age. His sponsor at baptism was unmarried, and yet her eldest son is now receiving a pension. Affidavits have been presented but have not been accepted. I know that the Department has issued a circular setting out the requirements necessary in connection with affidavits, but on the western seaboard in particular, and in counties like Tirconnaill,. where the language is largely Irish, the people are not always capable of dealing with the legal forms involved, and I think that some effort should be made to give at least favourable consideration to the claims of such people. I have had conversations with some of the responsible officers in the Department and they assured me that 99 per cent. of the claims that come from my constituency are honest claims. Yet in a large number of cases they are turned down for lack of documentary evidence. I believe that if the pensions officer, who, of course, has to carry out his duties strictly in the interest of the State, were more in touch with the committees he would be less drastic in turning down claims. I would urge the Minister to give the necessary indication to enable claimants to get the necessary information.

As I say, especially on the Western seaboard, where the people are largely Gaelic speakers, they are not able to deal completely with the forms sent down. I believe, if that were done, a good deal would be done to do justice to old people who are justly entitled to pensions but who are unable, owing to the fact that no record of age is available, to prove their claims completely. I confess from personal experience that the Department are not ungenerous in the matter, and I have no doubt that it is not part of the policy of the Ministry to cheat old people out of their pensions when they are justly entitled to them, but I would urge that more favourable consideration be given to cases in which affidavits are sent in in favour of the applicant.

Mr. BLYTHE

I agree with several speakers who said that it is desirable that there should be close contact between pension officers and the committees. I think I can promise that for the future there will be, at any rate as a general rule, attendance of officers at committee meetings so that there may be the personal contact, which may sometimes enable difficulties to be got over and doubts to be cleared up which would be difficult to clear up by correspondence. I could not say to Deputy Morrissey at the moment what saving has been effected as a result of the cuts, apart from what may have resulted from tightening up the administration. The present Estimate is something like £600,000 less than that for the year 1923-24. In addition, however, to the cuts, something has been caused by better administration and also by the process of natural decline. The decline in the number of pensioners from the year 1912 to the present reflects the sharp decline in the population of the country from the year 1845. There would be in any event a reduction each year, apart from the cut or the tightening in the administration.

I do not think that there has been any undue stringency in administration, especially as regards the establishment of age. When the Bill of 1924 was going through the Dáil many Deputies complained that it was very difficult for people to establish age. As a result of discussions and also as a result of the feeling that the cuts under the Act were a hardship on pensioners, the Minister for Local Government and myself had a conference with the officials who deal with appeals, and we made it quite clear to them that, so far as their duties would permit, we desired that they would take a sympathetic view of cases. It is not, however, possible to tell officials, and it is not possible for officials, to take up the attitude of giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimants. The law is not so drawn. As the law is drawn the onus of proof is on the applicant to prove that he is seventy years of age, and, while it is right, having regard to the difficulties in giving proof in many cases, that the officers dealing with the matter should be sympathetic, it is another matter to say that they should give the benefit of the doubt in every case. Every time they do so it is equivalent to paying out £120 or more of State money. If you want your service to be right, you cannot take up an attitude of instructing officials to give the benefit of the doubt in that way. You must get your officials to administer the law fairly, but strictly. I, for my part, would never give instructions to officials to do other than that. There has been a good deal of discussion as to the difficulties of proving age. The Committee of Inquiry referred to that particular question. Here is what they say:—

"A very large number of suggestions and complaints were made before the committee in reference to the proof of age, and many of the witnesses referred to instances in which claims were turned down on the question of age, notwithstanding the production of affidavits from old people in the district. None of the witnesses who made these complaints furnished the Committee with copies of the affidavits which were alleged to have been rejected in the cases referred to, and in most cases their recollection was somewhat hazy as to the averments they actually contained. The Committee suspect that if these affidavits were produced and the case investigated, it would be found that they were rejected on the principle adopted by the Department of Local Government in such cases, viz., that mere bare declarations of belief that a claimant has attained the age of seventy years should not be accepted. The view of the Department, in which the Committee concur, is that an affidavit as to age should show upon its face by reference to some definite fact or circumstance common to the lives of the deponent and the claimant, or by hitching on the deponent's belief to some outstanding event or otherwise, that the statement is something more than a mere general averment, without tangible support."

I cannot deal with any individual affidavit which a Deputy might mention as I have not got them before me, but I know it is not the policy of the Local Government Department to reject appeals, if they could be rejected. It is simply the duty of the officials to try and ascertain whether or not there is reasonable proof, remembering that the onus of proof lies on the applicant that the applicant is seventy years of age. We all know that there are fraudulent cases, that there are cases of people making application and claiming to be seventy years of age who are not, in fact, that age. Some scrutiny must take place as regards claims, and something that could be held to be proof of age must be put up and, certainly, I am convinced that there is no bias against claims at all.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Is the Minister aware that some pension officers take up the attitude of appealing in every case where there is not documentary evidence, no matter how good may be the affidavits which are furnished? Delay, if nothing else, is thereby caused.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not know whether that is so. The attitude of pension officers must be rather different to the attitude of those officers who act as hearers of appeals. The pension officer knows, at any rate, that, even if he does appeal, there is still somebody who may give the claimant a pension where he is doubtful, but I think the point of view must be accepted that you cannot expect the attitude of a pension officer to be the same as that of a Local Government official who is hearing the appeal. The pension officer is there to administer the Act and see that pensions are given, but he is also there to safeguard, to some extent, the interests of the Exchequer. Some reference has been made to means which consist of the maintenance of the applicant by some relative or friend. In any case, there is no option to the pension officer as he must take all means into account. That has always been the law and the practice. I do not know whether appeals were as strictly dealt with according to law in the past as we deal with them, but no change has been made and all means have to be taken into account. Some Deputies have said that the present system of strictly assessing means is a penalty on thrift. The means limitation is a penalty on thrift to some extent, but if we wanted to penalise thrift we would say that means should not be taken into account. I think that is the only way of getting over that difficulty, but such arrangement would, I think, double the cost of old age pensions. The difficulty which Deputies have mentioned cannot be eliminated unless we leave the means disqualification on one side and simply say that all persons, whatever their means, claiming to be seventy years of age shall be entitled to the old age pension. If we did that, we would have no difficulty, but the cost would be very high. Unless we do that we will have difficulty in regard to means and in regard to age. I think that the Act is being fairly and humanely administered.

Mr. GOREY

As a whole?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. GOREY

I think that is admitted, but there are exceptional cases.

Mr. BLYTHE

I believe that the recommendations of this Committee of Inquiry, which we propose in the main to adopt, will produce certain improvements and, if there are other points which can be met, we are prepared to meet them, but I would like to say that we cannot have pension officers exercising a sort of discretion which they might exercise if they had, for instance, to distribute £10 to any charity they liked. They are really custodians of public money. The average old age pensioner lives for six or seven years, so that there is a sum of about £120, or more, paid out of the Exchequer as a result of every pension that is granted. No Deputy would say that an official of the Ministry of Finance should, without the strictest accounting and proof, pay £120 to somebody who claims it, that he should pay out money loosely to people who claim that some debt was due to them. The officials under the Old Age Pensions Act must really act in some such way.

I entirely disagree with the suggestion that they should give the benefit to anybody. If you put that sort of attitude that is suggested to officials, and if it were accepted by them, you might later on, by a process of progression, have a great deal of looseness in your administration and in the actions of civil servants. The instruction given by the Minister for Local Government and myself, in the matter of these appeals, to the officials dealing with them was, that so far as their duty permitted, they should deal sympathetically with cases where proof of age was difficult. I have not, since that time, seen any files because I am not in that Department. When I was in Local Government, where complaints were made that cases had been turned down on appeal, I got the files in a certain number of cases and examined them, and I must say it is extremely difficult for anybody to be satisfied in many of these cases.

A person who has to do justice to the general taxpayer and to the applicant is in very great difficulties and sometimes an injustice will be done on either side; that cannot fail to happen. Sometimes an applicant who is not entitled by law will get the pension, and sometimes an applicant who really does come within the Act will fail to prove his case and convince the officer. I do not believe there are many such cases. There is a certain number of age cases. I think I once told the Dáil of an instance which came under my own notice where an applicant said he could not get his baptismal certificate and in successive years he presented claims and affidavits alleging that he was seventy years of age. Then at the end of the third year he produced his baptismal certificate which showed he was then seventy years of age. That was a case which came under my own notice and it convinced me that the officers cannot simply act on sympathy. They have to scrutinise each affidavit and they have to see if it is not the sort of general belief that the sympathetic person will have that somebody else is seventy years, if that person is claiming a pension.

Documentary evidence is talked of. We frequently have documentary evidence, adverse to the applicant, in marriage certificates. Deputy MacBride referred to such cases. Those certificates contain evidence which, if we cared to stand rigidly on formalities, would be evidence that could not be rebutted because there could be no documentary evidence put up against it. Yet in such cases the Department is willing to accept the fact that people frequently understate their ages on marriage, and is prepared to disregard that evidence.

Another year will show what results will come from the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee. I believe that as a result of that adoption all the troubles that can be got over will be got over. In this connection I would like to express a word of thanks to the members of the Committee for the painstaking, very fair-minded and reasonable way in which they examined the whole matter and for the practical and reasonable conclusions to which they came.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Has the Minister considered the question of introducing an amending Bill to the Blind Pensions Act with regard to the degree of blindness? The Minister will remember that the Committee referred to it in their report, and I think an illustration was given. Under the Act as it stands, if you take the case of a man who was a tailor but who, after reaching the age of 56 years, became so blind that he was no longer able to continue at his trade, but still had sufficient sight to enable him, say, to fork manure into a cart, he would not be allowed to receive a pension. Has the Minister considered the question of bringing in an amending Bill to deal with that and other matters that require to be remedied in the Act?

Mr. BLYTHE

I have not exactly come to a conclusion on that point, but I think the recommendation of the Committee is fair and that the present definition of blindness is too restrictive and does require some amendment.

Question put and agreed to.