Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 25 Feb 1927

Vol. 18 No. 10

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 7—OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar Dhachad Míle Punt chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1927, 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.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding Forty Thousand Pounds be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1927, for the payment of Old Age Pensions under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908-24, for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith and for pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920.

In framing the original estimate for the year it was anticipated that there would be a decrease in the number of persons receiving pensions as has occurred for many years past, but a decrease did not take place. I have certain figures before me showing the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions for a number of years. In 1914 the number was 154,000; in 1915, 151,000; in 1916, 147,000; in 1917, 141,000; in 1918, 137,200; in 1919, 132,000; in 1920, 130,000. In the year 1920 the Blind Persons Act was passed and that caused a little increase, because of the blind persons coming in, and so in 1921 the number was 131,400. In the next year, 1922, the number was 130,000; in 1923, 127,323; in 1924, 122,000; in 1925, 115,000, and it is still about 115,000. It is difficult to state exactly the reasons for the fact that the number of pensions have not decreased, but one of the reasons seems to be that just about 70 years ago there was a rapid decline in the number of births. The estimated decline in births in 1851 was 5,700; in 1852, 4,400; in 1853, 3,700; in 1854, 3,700; in 1855, 3,200; and the next year 1,300. Then, by 1861, it had gone down to 1,000. The decline which had been at one period almost 1,000 a year, became very much slower. Then, in recent years there seems to have been an improvement in the public health and a decline in the death rate. When the returns of the present census are available it will be possible to anticipate almost accurately the number of persons that will be eligible for old age pensions in each year, because we will know the number of persons who will become 70 years of age. These figures were not available and the result was that in calculating the amount required and the number of persons to receive pensions during the year when the original estimate was being prepared, an underestimate was made.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister might have gone a little bit further in his explanation. I think the Deputies need not be reminded of one of the causes on which the Minister has not touched —of the rapid decline as from 1923 to 1925. I do not think he gave the figures for 1926.

Mr. BLYTHE

They are about the same. For 1925 I did not give the odd hundreds. The figure for that year was 115,817. For 1926 the figure was 115,095.

Mr. JOHNSON

The point I am making is that it was because of the administration and the cutting off of so many people consequent on the action of the Ministry that there was so great a decline from 1923 to 1926 as 10 per cent., as compared with less than half that, or 4 per cent. in respect of any other period of the same length in previous years. It is idle to talk about the responsibilities of parents of 70 years ago when the explanation lies in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, and on the legislation passed by this House at the instigation of the Minister. It is just as well that we should face the explanation of this sudden fall in these periods and the impossibility of any further fall in the number entitled to the pensions until the Minister amends the law further, to depreciate the advantages which the old age pensioners have received.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I do not know if I would be in order in drawing attention to the methods by which the officers of the Old Age Pensions Department assess the values of the incomes of the claimants. They certainly do not do justice to the persons claiming in putting a value on the privileges, etc., that these latter enjoy, and they do that in order to make up the amount required to disqualify the claimants. In putting a value on a bed or a room of the old man or the old woman that is stopping with a son or relative, I find that these officers put down five or six shillings a week on a bed occupied in one room in order to reduce the amount of the pension claimed by these people. That is not playing the game. It is not fair to those people that because a son or daughter provides them with a bed that privilege should be classed as an income of 5/- or 6/- a week. That thing is going on all over the country. To-day we had a question on this matter by one of the Labour Deputies, who stated that there were three people in a house, and because there was 27/- coming into that house with a family of three dependents on that 27/-, that the claimant got no pension. The method of dealing with these poor people and their claims is all wrong, and when the Minister was giving his figures about the number drawing pensions now, compared with 1920, he overlooked the fact that at that time the full pension was 10/- a week, whereas of the 115,000 people now drawing old age pensions it is probably that at least 15,000 are only getting 3/- or 4/- a week.

It would be of interest to know exactly how that 115,000 is made up. They are not all getting the full 9/- pension. I should imagine that 15,000 would be getting 3/- a week, and another 15,000 receiving 5/- or 6/- a week. The number drawing the full 9/- would not be anything like 115,000. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without drawing attention to the treatment of claimants for old age pensions generally by officers, who are trying to pile up the so-called incomes of these people. Sometimes it happens that charitable institutions give poor persons 2/6 a week, and because they are getting that 2/6 it is taken into consideration and the amount is deducted from the pension they get. I think the Minister ought to see that the benefit of the doubt is given to those people.

Another point is the continued refusal of officers to accept statements made by old people in the country where certificates of baptism or certificates of birth cannot be found. The officers refuse to accept statements proving the age of the claimant. They refuse to accept sworn declarations. This has happened on more than one occasion, and all that the claimant gets is the mere reply that the authorities or the Minister were not satisfied. Then there is a case where the claimant makes an appeal.

That appeal goes on behind the claimant's back. The claimant only knows of the officer's intimation to appeal against the decision of the local old age pensions committee. He gets no opportunity of going before the Appeals Board or of submitting any further evidence. The claimant is merely told that the officer is lodging an appeal against the decision and then, some time after, he gets another notice stating that the Appeals Board has refused the pension. I hold that the claimant should be given an opportunity of going before the Appeals Board in order to submit a further proof of age. I think the officer should be a little more free in the matter of accepting statements from claimants for the old age pension through the country in cases where baptismal certificates or birth certificates cannot be found. He should accept affidavits and statements of old people who knew the applicants and believe them to be over 70 years of age. I know of many cases where the applicants could swear definitely that they were over 70 years of age and they were turned down. We all know that in many areas the question of registration of births was not as well carried out as it is now, and in many cases there are no records at all. Consideration should be given to the old people in these cases.

Mr. LYONS

I would like to protest against the officials who are administering this business. There are at least 50 cases amongst my constituents where the certificates of birth or baptism cannot be found and where sworn affidavits have been put forward by respectable people of 80 years of age, and in these cases the pension has not been granted. The advice of the local officer is taken. If the local pensions officer goes into a house which is kept clean and tidy and has any appearance of comfort he appears to make up his mind that these people are sufficiently comfortable without the pension. But if he goes into a place that is dirty and untidy, then his decision is reversed and the pension is granted. The people who have lived and worked in the country until they were 70 years of age should be appreciated.

I believe that the 10 per cent. decrease in the number of old age pensioners alive is due primarily to the reduction in the pension. The amount they receive at the present time is not at all adequate. If they are in receipt of 3/- a week home help, that amount is deducted from the 9/-, if they are successful enough to get the pension. If a workman and his wife are living together, and he succeeds in getting employment, his wife, although she may be the required age, will not get a pension. The husband may be 70 years of age and he may still have the health to labour in the interests of his employer and, incidentally, in the interests of his country. I hold that if it is in the interests of his employer it is in the interests of the country. That man may be earning 34/- or 35/- a week, and because of that, his wife will not be granted the pension. If that man resigns, or is dismissed by his employer, then he and his wife will have only their pensions to live on. Surely it would be a great help to that man if his wife could get the pension.

In the case of persons claiming a blind pension, it is deplorable the examinations they have to go through. It does not matter how many doctors' certificates are submitted indicating that a person is blind, a medical inspector comes down from the Department, and he will question that person. If that person can possibly notice the light he or she will not be entitled to receive a blind pension. People would need to be, as it is termed, stone blind. I have brought under the notice of the Minister cases of persons who are blind, and who are unable to earn means of livelihood for themselves or their children, who in a great many cases are young and unable to work. Notwithstanding the fact that these people are certified as blind by doctors, if they are able to stand up and walk across the kitchen floor they will not be entitled to a pension. We all know that a blind person is in some way gifted, and Providence often leads the blind so as to avoid serious accidents. If a blind person applies for a pension and the inspector finds that person is able to go about, no pension will be granted. That is certainly a hardship.

Could the Minister give us an estimate of the amount of money paid out by local authorities by way of home help to those old people whose pensions have been reduced? The ratepayers in the different counties have to pay the amount saved by the Minister for Finance on Pensions. The sooner the pension is brought to its original level the better for the State in general. Every ratepayer has suffered because of the reduction of pensions.

We have in the Saorstát a number of officials. I daresay if the Minister were to tell us the number of persons employed on the administration of old age pensions, it would almost come to the same level as the actual number of pensioners. I would like to know how much of this extra £40,000 will be given to the pensioners and how much will go to pay the officials. I believe we could do with a smaller staff in connection with the administration of old age pensions, and in that case we could spare a little more for the old people to live on.

There was a Commission appointed by this House 18 months ago and we have never received the report of that Old Age Pension Commission. Anything that Commission recommended has not been put into operation. In the case of many pensioners requests were made by the authorities that the pension granted should be refunded.

If an old person living in a remote country district happens to possess a goat, three hens, a pig, or a donkey— these things would include the whole means of livelihood—no pension will be granted by the Government on the report of the old age pensions officer. If it is a thing that we want to show our appreciation of those old people who, in a great many cases, have succeeded by their manual labour in building up this country, something must be done. It must be remembered that but for the workers and their wives, the country could not progress.

Mr. BAXTER

I desire to refer to the method adopted by the pensions officer in the different districts when arriving at the means of claimants for a pension. In my opinion, the method adopted is not fair and is not equitable. In the first place, I question the ability of the pensions officer to assess fairly the value of the different possessions of, say, a small farmer. I do not know what training the pensions officer has had in order to judge whether a cow is value for £5, £10 or £2. I do not believe he is capable of doing it, and I am convinced, from my own experience, from contact with the Department, and through looking after the claims of old age pensioners, that the methods adopted are not satisfactory and react unfavourably on the claimants.

I cannot by any stretch of imagination see how it is possible that a cow, say, in Limerick, will be put down as an asset just equal to a cow in West Donegal, Connemara, or even in the mountainous parts of my constituency. So far as I know, that is the order. I do not know if that can be claimed to be fair or equitable. I do not believe it is, and there is an urgent necessity for an alteration in the present method of arriving at the valuation by which the claimant's right to a pension is decided. Time and again I have come up against claims where the income put against a claimant was a surprise to me and would be a surprise to any practical farmer who knows what the income from land is.

When you get a man living on the side of a mountain, having two cows from which he will probably get milk for three months of the year, and when you consider that the same value is put on those two cows as on animals owned by a small holder living in South Tipperary or East Limerick, or on some of the best land in Ireland, you begin to realise that the Old Age Pensions Act is not being fairly administered. I have often thought of raising this matter. Representations have been repeatedly made to me— honest representations—that this matter should be brought forward and the policy of the Minister or the Revenue Commissioners altered. Other Deputies have had the same experience, I am sure.

I feel that a change is overdue, and I think if the Minister gives ten minutes' attention to this side of the problem, he will recognise that in hundreds and thousands of cases justice is not being done. I urge on the Minister that the standard of values should be judged in the first place by men who are capable of judging, and, in the second place, the values put on the possessions of a small farmer or his wife, who may be claiming a pension, should bear some relation to the part of the country where these people reside, the land they hold, and what that land is capable of producing.

If the Minister stands to the hard and fast rules that are enforced in connection with the whole administration of the Act, then I say he is not dealing fairly with the claimants for old age pensions. In my opinion an effort should be made by those in authority to see that claims are not rejected on incomes which any practical individual dealing with the cases would know to be false incomes.

Major MYLES

I desire to ask the Minister if he is prepared to give effect to the recommendations of the committee that dealt with this problem within the last year or two. At present I propose to confine myself to two classes of cases of real hardship. I will pass over for the present the class of case to which Deputy Baxter referred— the case of people who already have something. That kind of case is not so urgent as the two to which I am going to refer. The Minister, in his statement, said that in a few years he hoped to be able to forecast accurately the amount of money required for pensions. I hope he does not mean by that, that the people who now cannot get certificates of their age will all be dead and hence will never receive a pension. That is one class I would draw his attention to: the class of people where it is simply a question of age, and where the people have no means of producing certificates. In cases of this kind I hope the Minister will advocate a slackening of the red-tape that at the moment is binding that question. I consider this to be one of the most important problems involved in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. It deals with the cases of people, not with farms, but with no means whatever. I now come to the question of the blind. I think that every Deputy in the House has come across cases of this kind. The fact that a man is not stone blind and does not reach a certain formula laid down by the doctors means that he gets nothing. I came across a case the other day where a very fine tradesman who had not quite reached the formula laid down by the medical profession, did not come within the Act, and it was suggested to him that he could earn his living as an errand boy. I ask the Minister is that a reasonable sort of objection to make, and can he not deal more sympathetically with the cases of men who are not totally blind but who are certainly incapacitated from following their ordinary occupations?

Mr. MORRISSEY

There are a few points that I want to put before the Minister in connection with this, particularly the matter referred to by Deputy Myles regarding the Blind Persons Act. I raised this matter last year when the Estimates were under discussion, and drew the Minister's attention to the fact that under the law as it is a person would want to be almost stone blind before he could qualify for a pension. The Minister on that occasion said that he was prepared to consider sympathetically the introduction of a measure which would lessen the restrictions in that respect. A case was quoted of a man who had been a tailor during his lifetime and had reached a degree of blindness that made it impossible for him any longer to earn his living at his trade. The position at present is, that if that man had sight sufficient to enable him to shovel mud off the road he would not be qualified for a pension, or if he had sight sufficient to enable him to walk from one end of the street to the other he would also be disqualified from receiving a pension. Would the Minister tell us whether he proposes to keep his promise in that respect, and if so when he hoped to be able to bring in legislation to alter the law so far as it affects blind persons? The two points that seem to me to present the most difficulty and to inflict the greatest amount of hardship in regard to this question of old age pensions are those relating to age and means.

The Committee appointed by the Minister to go into this matter found some difficulty in devising a better scheme for establishing a person's age, where the applicant could not obtain a baptismal certificate, than the system of affidavits. My complaint is that affidavits are not recognised by the Department when they are supplied. The Department's reply is that the affidavits are not made out in the prescribed form—that they are not definite enough. I submit to the Minister, as I did to the Committee that was appointed to go into this matter, that in very many cases that is due to ignorance of what is required. The Committee in their report suggested that steps should be taken to give applicants some rough idea of what sort of evidence they would have to submit in order to establish their claim for a pension. We do not know whether the Minister has given effect to that recommendation of the Committee or not. We do not know what part of the Committee's recommendations he has given effect to, or proposes to give effect to. I think the Minister might take advantage of this discussion to make that known to the House. I have a good deal of sympathy with what Deputy Baxter said on the question of means, but I might remind the Deputy that his Party and himself are responsible to a certain extent for the limitation of means by the vote they gave in this House when the question was under consideration.

Mr. BAXTER

They are not. You need not be twisting.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I am not twisting anything.

Mr. BAXTER

I spoke about the value of cows.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I am talking now of the question of means. What I am pointing out is that as a result of that vote the maximum amount was reduced from £1 to 16/- per week.

Mr. GOOD

But now the old age pensioners are living longer.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I imagine the Deputy will never have to make application for an old age pension. If he has to do that I hope he will be able to get his birth certificate. What I do say is that the present method of assessing means is not a fair one. Deputy Baxter has very rightly said that in most cases too high a value is placed upon the possessions of an applicant. There is no question about that. An ordinary man would find it hard to understand how the pension officer arrives at the value he puts on the possessions of an applicant for a pension. I think that the Minister for Finance, or his colleague the Minister for Local Government, might usefully give a little more attention to this question of old age pensions. It is a very important matter in this country where we have so many old people who look forward to getting the pension and who are dependent on it for an existence when they are no longer able to work. I think in conclusion that we are entitled to know from the Minister what parts, if any, of the Committee's report he proposes to give effect to. Does he propose to give effect to the report as a whole and, if so, when? I would ask him to state whether he has decided to introduce legislation to improve the Blind Persons Act. If he has decided to do that, I would ask him to introduce the legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. J. CONLAN

I do not think anyone can object to strict inquiry being made into applications for old age pensions, in order to ensure that they are granted only to necessitous persons. One direction, I think, in which injustice is done is in estimating income. Some time ago I called the attention of the House to the case of a woman, admittedly over 70 years of age, who had no independent income from any source, but was taken into and kept in his home by a connection by marriage. The pension officer estimated the applicant's means at £37 a year. It is hard to understand how that figure was arrived at in the case of a person who was taken into the house of a small farmer out of charity. When dealing with the case the Minister for Local Government asserted that what had been done was strictly according to law. If that is so, I say that a change should be made in the law in such cases.

Mr. M. DOYLE

I wish to emphasise the remarks of Deputy Conlan, as I have many cases in my constituency similar to the one he mentioned. I know two applicants for old age pensions, both over 70 years of age. They saved some money while at business, and when it was exhausted a nephew took one of them into his home. There was no compulsion on him to do so. The pension was refused because, as Deputy Conlan stated, a relative took her in out of charity, so that she would not have to go to the county home. The maintenance of the applicant was valued at something over the standard. Cases of this kind should be dealt with on the merits. If a relative of an applicant desires to keep that person out of a county home, it is not fair that the pension should be refused. If people of this class got the pension it would help considerably, even towards providing them with lodgings. I wish also to call the Minister's attention to the claims of blind persons. I believe they are not treated fairly, sometimes. I remember having a case where an applicant was examined by three doctors, one of whom was an eye specialist in the city. They specified that the person was blind to the extent that he was able to do no work whatever. On an appeal by the pension officer, after a visit from the Departmental doctor, the pension was refused. I would as soon have the opinion of the eye specialist as the opinion of the Departmental doctor. In that case I believe it was unjust to deprive the applicant of the pension.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. BLYTHE

A great many of the remarks made by Deputies have reference, really, to the law, and not the administration of the law. For instance, the law at present includes maintenance. That is perfectly clear. If a person is being maintained, then that person has means to the value of the maintenance they are receiving, and the officials would have no alternative but to take it into account. Certain of the matters referring to blind persons are also questions of law. As I said in the Dáil before, I am inclined to agree—I do agree, in fact—that the present provisions in regard to blindness are too rigid, and that some change might be made. I would not like to go as far as, I think, Deputy Myles went, when he stated that if a person could not follow his ordinary avocation he should be entitled to a blind pension. I would not go as far as that. On the other hand, I think the present arrangement, whereby a person cannot receive a blind pension if he has eyesight to do any work is too rigid. The method of arriving at means has been examined from time to time. I have not gone into it recently. I think it is the best that can be done. The whole matter, of course, is one subject to appeal by the Department of Local Government. I know that a very great amount of attention has been paid to this question of estimating means, the value of, say, a cow, or of other things that come into account when dealing with applicants from agricultural areas.

There may be injustice. Certainly there will be disappointments. There are disappointments in every law court. Every case that comes to be heard in a law court leads to some disappointment. If you are attempting to examine the facts in any one of these applications you are liable to cause disappointment. The applicant, and the applicant's friends, may feel that they have been hardly treated, but it does not follow that injustice was done. The only thing we can do is to try to be equitable, and, where it is a case of absolute doubt, give the benefit to the applicant. That is the policy that has been adopted. On the other hand, you cannot afford lax administration. Between strict and just administration and administration that would never leave anybody feeling that they had been judged somewhat hardly, the difference is very small indeed. I do not know that I can promise any change that would lead to Deputies hearing no complaint. Every possible care has been given the system, and not once has it been the subject of great care by the Minister, but several times during his period of office. Really, I do not see what can be done.

With regard to the recommendations of the Committee, I have not got the report before me now. I do not remember the recommendations but I can answer in the Dáil in regard to them. A great number have been carried out. Others will be carried out as soon as possible and some will be, at least, partly met by changes, if not fully carried out.

It is very well known throughout the country in what form affidavits should be made. Even with no satisfactory affidavits, in many cases pensions have been given—sometimes after the visit of an inspector and sometimes simply on a mass of evidence, no portion of which was very good in itself but the accumulation of which served. I think the position must always remain that the onus of proving age shall be on the applicant. As long as that is so, you will have people who are, perhaps, genuinely 70 years of age unable to obtain pensions. On the other hand, you cannot have a system of loosely giving out pensions. We are always discovering cases of persons who received the old age pension before they were 70 years of age, notwithstanding what Deputies allege. I can see no way of devising a system that would be satisfactory to everybody.

A DEPUTY

Change the law.

Mr. BLYTHE

You can change the law so as to give a pension to everybody claiming to be 70 years of age. If you did that, you would do away with a lot of these difficulties, but there would be an enormous increase in the pensions bill.

Mr. BAXTER

I should like to point out to the Minister that in raising this question of people who have been turned down on the question of means, I am going on facts which I myself have come up against. If the Minister had come up against these facts, I think he would recognise that the Act is not being equitably administered. I would urge him to take up with the branch of his Department which is responsible, this question of means. It is unfair to judge means on the same basis in every part of the country. As far as I can discover, that is being done at the present time. In my own constituency, the same value is put on the very poorest land as is put on the very best land, and the crops are similarly valued. If you are to administer the Act fairly, it is essential that some change should be made in the manner of assessing means.

Mr. CONLAN

We used to be taught long ago that out of nothing, nothing could be made. It appears that that is wrong. Under the present system, means can be assessed out of no means.

Mr. A. BYRNE

Is the Minister satisfied that the method of estimating maintenance is altogether correct? Must not the applicant be maintained by somebody? Is it right to put a value on what these old people get if they beg? Is it right that a value of 14/- or 15/- should be put on what is given to these old people by a charitable institution or by a friend who is under no obligation to maintain them? Is it right to class that form of maintenance as income, or is the Minister satisfied with it?

Mr. BLYTHE

That is the law.

Mr. BYRNE

The Minister should alter the law.

Mr. BAXTER

Would the Minister say if he thinks there is a case for inquiry on the facts I have adduced?

Mr. BLYTHE

I made inquiry some time ago. I am prepared to look into the matter again.

Vote put and agreed to.