Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 12

SUPPLEMENTARY AND ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES—RESUMED. - OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

"That the Old Age Pensions Bill, 1928, be read a second time."

The Bill is a very short one. It gives effect to the resolution in connection with old age pensions which was recently passed in the Dáil.

Steps will be taken, immediately this Bill has received its Second Reading, to get ready the machinery to pay the increase, and we hope in most cases that the increase will actually be paid on the first pay day in the new financial year. In certain cases it may be some time before the new books can be put out, but in any case the pensioners who are entitled to the increase of one shilling will be paid whatever is due to them in a lump sum.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I do not desire to say very much on this Bill. I do not think I could say very much unless I were to repeat what I said on the original motion. But there is one point I would like to put forward for the consideration of the Minister and the House and it is this: During the discussion on the motion the Minister and the House refused to restore the old conditions to all the old age pensioners and blind pensioners. I want to ask the Minister and the House to make a much smaller concession. I put it to the Minister that he should agree that the old conditions, that is to say, the conditions which obtained prior to the passing of the 1924 Act, should be restored so far as the blind pensioners are concerned. I think there are roughly about 3,000 of them in the Saorstát. The number of blind pensioners whose income, as distinct from the pension, would be in excess of 6/- per week is rather small, and if the Minister and the House were to agree to my suggestion the cost to the State would be comparatively small. The House, of course, is aware what my views are, that the old conditions should be restored to all, both the blind and the old age pensioners. However, the House by a majority decided that that would not be done. I suggest, however, that a special case can be made for the blind pensioner. The old age pensioners, whether men or women, even if they are over seventy years of age, may be of some use in the home. There are many useful little things they can do, and in many cases they are helpful in the home. On the contrary, the blind pensioner is of no help. As a matter of fact it is the other way about, and therefore I hope Deputies will agree that blind pensioners are on a different footing to the old age pensioners, particularly when you take into consideration that under the Acts in operation at present, as they apply to the blind, a person must be so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential in order to qualify for a blind pension.

Following a recommendation made by the Old Age Pensions Committee I know, of course, that the Minister has promised to introduce legislation to amend the Act in so far as it deals with blind pensioners. I hope that the introduction of that legislation will not be delayed much longer. In regard to the provisions in the Blind Persons Act to which I have referred, let me give an illustration of cases that can occur. Take the case of a man who is a tailor. He has been at the tailoring business all his life-time and reaches, say, the age of 55 or 60 years. He becomes blind to such an extent that it is absolutely impossible for him to carry on his ordinary trade, but in the opinion of the Department's inspector he has still sufficient sight to enable him to shovel, say, mud into a cart. That is the position as it is under the Act at the moment. A man in a position such as that cannot obtain the blind pension. The concession that I am asking for on behalf of blind pensioners is not, I submit, too much. The cost of it will be very small, and I hope the Minister and the House will see their way to agree to it. I hope the Minister will give the matter his favourable consideration, and will embody a proposal in the Bill, on the Committee Stage, to carry into effect the terms of the concession I plead for on behalf of the blind pensioners.

Mr. O'KELLY

The views of this Party were expressed on this subject when it was under discussion in the House a fortnight or so ago. We were anxious that the rights which the old age pensioners and blind pensioners enjoyed before the passing of the 1924 Act should be fully restored to them. That is what we would like to have done, but the Government and the House thought otherwise. A majority decided to accept the amendment proposed at the time by the Minister for Finance. We may take it that the Bill now before us is constructed on the principle of the amendment then passed. We do not take this Bill, or the proposals contained in it, as a satisfactory fulfilment of the things that we would like to have done for, or the rights that we would like to have restored to, the old age pensioners of the country, but in so far as the Bill restores part of their rights we are satisfied with and do not propose to offer any opposition to it.

I would like to add my voice to the appeal made by Deputy Morrissey for more lenient treatment for the blind. In the vast majority of cases, probably, their blindness is an affliction of Providence. Therefore, they are not in a position to help themselves. They are a class in the community that the State, if they can afford to do it at all, ought to treat with more than ordinary generosity. I would like to emphasise the point that it is our view that the request put forward by Deputy Morrissey, if it can be done at all, should be acceded to so far as the blind are concerned.

There is a general feeling, which, I think, is not confined to any Party in the House, that the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act by the officials in the Department of Finance, who are naturally acting under the instructions of the Minister, has been too severe. The difficulties placed in the way of some old age pensioners as regards getting the pension seem to be too difficult and extravagant. Cases have been brought before the House by Deputies from all Parties. Scarcely a day passes that some question is not asked with regard to some old age pensioner in the country whose claim to a pension has been admitted by the local committee, but which has been turned down either by the local inspector or the Department of Finance. Cases have been brought to my own notice where difficulty was experienced by blind persons in securing evidence such as a baptismal certificate on which to base a claim. Such certificates could not be got for one reason or another. Of course, we know there is a difficulty with regard to the census. It is fairly common. Notwithstanding that, some cases have been brought to my notice where no less than three sworn affidavits were submitted to the Department and to the inspector by people of repute in support of claims to pensions made by old people. The persons making the affidavits offered their testimony that the person applying for the pension had reached the age limit required, but even that testimony was not accepted by the Department, although there was no question as to the reliability or respectability of the witnesses who made the affidavits.

My opinion is—and I think it is not alone the opinion of my friends on this side of the House, but that it is fairly general amongst members of the House and in the country—that the screws have been applied too tightly in the administration, and that there should be a relaxation and a little loosening up of the rules governing the admission of evidence of age and also on the question of income. Of course I take it this law will be passed limiting the amount of income, but even within the law unamended as it stands, or amended as it will be, there should be a considerable amount of alleviation of the sufferings of these people if the officials were permitted, under the instructions of the Minister, to exercise a little more leniency in their treatment of applicants. I think in cases of the kind which I mentioned, where there have been three affidavits of people in the neighbourhood, some of whom had good reasons for knowing all the particulars concerning the applicant for a pension, evidence of that kind should be taken. Further than that we on this side have nothing more to say with regard to the Bill. It is not now in our province or in our power to increase the benefits to be given to old age pensioners. If we had that power we would do so, but there is no use in going into that again. We have already expressed our views, but we do take some credit for the fact that one of the first fruits of our coming into this Dáil has been to secure for these old age pensioners some of the rights which were filched from them and which are now being restored, largely, we claim, owing to the fact that we are here.

Mr. MORRISSEY

It is a pity you were not here in 1924 and they would never have been taken from them.

Mr. ALTON

I would like to add my voice to the appeal Deputy Morrissey made. The Minister should consider carefully whether he could not make a further concession in the case of blind pensioners. The tragedy of their situation has been graphically described by Deputy Morrissey. I am not going to add anything to it. Most of us have been in touch with cases of the sort when a worker is struck blind and helpless. Anything that we could do to relieve the situation for them, to give them some help, to remove from them a little of the sense of utter helplessness, I think we should endeavour to do, and I would strongly urge the Minister to consider sympathetically, as I know he will, the appeal of Deputy Morrissey.

Dr. O'DOWD

I would like to add my voice to the plea of Deputies Morrissey, Alton and Sean T. O'Kelly, with reference to the blind. I hope the Minister will take those three thousand blind pensioners into consideration when giving the increase on the 6th April. At the present time, to my mind, speaking as a medical man, the test is too severe. That, of course, cannot be remedied at present, but I hope the Minister, when he is deciding what is to be the actual test for blindness, will take that into consideration. There is a type of pensioner in rural districts of Ireland whose claims have not been considered sufficiently, and I hope that when the Minister is issuing his new books on the 6th April in the first week of the coming financial year, he will consider the old age pensioners in rural Ireland, the old age pensioner who has kept for himself the grass of a cow which he does not own and who is living in an old thatched cottage. The value put on the means of such an old man or old woman has been heretofore too high. I submit that there should now be a revaluation of the means of all these old age pensioners. If their means are re-valued, everyone of them will practically come within the scope of the present Bill. Take, for instance, the case of an old age pensioner living with his son. The old age pensioner has no legal rights in that house except that he is there by virtue of the goodwill of his son. I know of such cases in County Roscommon. If these people were turned out on the road they would then be entitled to the full increase, but at present they will be excluded from the benefits of the Act. It is to ask the Minister to consider the cases of these old age pensioners in rural Ireland when he is issuing the new books in April that I rise on the present occasion.

Mr. DALY

I, too, join with Deputy Morrissey in appealing to the Minister for a further concession for the blind. Personally, I consider that a blind person of any age should be a pensioner, because even where you have a young person blind he or she is a tax on the family to which he or she belongs. There is no ratepayer in the country who would grudge the little that is given to the family who have to maintain and provide for that blind person. These blind persons are not able to do anything for themselves. They are not able to do anything for the household. The household is taxed by caring for them and looking after them, and I think it is the duty of the nation and of the Dáil to help these afflicted people. I think all the family is afflicted by reason of having that blind person amongst them. I am certain nobody in this House representing any constituency need be afraid to go back to his constituents after voting to give some concession like this to the blind people. I am certain the Minister will accede to Deputy Morrissey's request. I would be very glad, indeed, that he would, because it would cost so little.

Mr. MAGUIRE

I do not propose to go into the general question of old age pensions, but there is one aspect of which I have some experience as a member of a sub-committee dealing with old age pensions. It has been a very contentious one and has operated very unfairly to the applicants. That is the means on which the pensions officer bases his calculation of the applicant's income. That applies with particular significance to country people, people living, as Deputy O'Dowd pointed out, on a form of charity with relatives. It is a difficult question to decide, undoubtedly. The extraordinary part of it is that if a person living on a form of charity like that is supplied with ordinary requirements in the way of housing accommodation, perhaps some food and other little allowances on the farm, the calculation of means is worked in a way that is very unjust to the applicant. I have found that the pension officer, who is there as a civil servant, authorised to investigate the various claims on their merits, is somehow hedged in and is not in a position to negotiate with the Committee so as to arrive jointly with the Committee at a calculation on a proper basis. I fail to understand why there should be any form of secrecy on the part of the pension officer, why he should not place his cards on the table before the Sub-Committee, who are the representatives of the people, and who have full knowledge of local requirements and of the means of these applicants. I do not think you could find a better judge of the means of an applicant in a country area than the representative living in that area. They are people mainly drawn from the farming class. They understand to the last degree what the value of farming allowances is.

Notwithstanding that, you have their opinion set aside. The pension officer comes along. He is generally a young man who has very little experience of rural conditions and, if he has experience of rural conditions or agricultural conditions, they apply to a different area to the one he is operating in. I have in mind the conditions in the West where the value of land is infinitely smaller than it would be in other parts of the Saorstát. Those pension officers calculate the means of the applicant and, when asked by the Committee on what basis they have made the calculation, I have, again and again, heard them refuse and state that their refusal was because they were not authorised by their employers, the State, to give away the basis of the calculation on which they make out the means of the applicants. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why that secrecy should be observed by the officials as to disclosing to the Committees the basis on which these means are calculated. The local Committee are the best judge of the means. They are the people who pay for the cost of the old age pensions. Why then should the pension officer be instructed to keep back from them information he has at his disposal? The only logical answer to that is that there is a desire on the part of the Government not to allow the old age pensioners to know the full pension to which he or she is entitled according to law.

No improvement that has taken place towards increasing the old age pension, no improvement in the increase of one shilling a week to the pension, will benefit the applicant. Any possible benefit that may come to him will depend upon an alteration in the system of the valuation of the land held by the applicant or his relative. That is the one pivot upon which the applicants will benefit at all as a result of this increase of one shilling a week to certain old age pensioners. It is quite possible for the officer to gauge the means of every applicant who comes before him as beyond the standard set down, £15 odd, so long as he has the right to keep secret the basis upon which he calculates the means of the applicant. There should be a full and open discussion by the pension officer with the Old Age Pensions Committee and the applicant for the pension. I would ask the Government to consider seriously that very important aspect of the case, and to amend the law, so that in all cases the pension officer will submit to the Committee the basis upon which he is calculating the means.

As to the blind people and their applications for pensions, there are various instances, in my locality, where I know that those people are in a pitiable condition. Any appeal made on their behalf will, I am sure, have the sympathy and assistance of every person in this House.

Major MYLES

I rise to support the plea made to the Minister by Deputy Morrissey, and I do so as a colleague of Deputy Morrissey on the Old Age Pensions Committee. The condition of the blind people in this country was brought home very forcibly to me and to the other members who acted on that Committee. The recommendations made by that Committee to the Minister would, in my opinion, have been of very great service to the old age pensioners throughout the country and especially to the blind. The Minister and his Department have adopted some of those recommendations. I hope they will continue the good work and adopt a great many more of them. I am not going to diverge into the question of the cut in the old age pensions. I am one of the few left in this House who voted against the old age pension cut in 1924, and I think if we had the assistance then of those we have now on the opposite benches that cut would never have taken place.

Dr. WHITE

I should like to add my voice to Deputy Morrissey's and other Deputies who have seen fit to say a few words on the question of blind pensions. There would be, perhaps, only about 3,000 blind people in the Saorstát. That being so, the amount of money required to meet the matter would be relatively very little, and I trust that the Minister for Finance, if he can at all see his way, and if it is at all practicable, will consider the case made for the blind people. I am quite at one with the Deputies who have spoken on the question of the definition of what constitutes a blind person. It is rather a difficult matter to give a clear definition of what constitutes a blind person. I consider that the definition as it stands is too severe. I would, respectfully, ask the Minister for Finance to reconsider this matter. I understand that he has made a partial promise that he will do so. For myself, as a medical man, I think that any person whose vision cannot be improved by suitable glasses, or whose blindness is due to some disease, should be considered as within the Blind Pensions Act. I consider that that should constitute a fair definition of blindness. Some people are practically blind. You get very few people who are absolutely blind. There is always some degree of vision there. But, at the same time, these people would not be able to follow their usual pursuits. They could not, for instance, go up heights and they could not deal with any small objects such as, say, a tailor would have to deal with in the course of his work. People of that kind whose vision cannot be corrected by suitable glasses might be defined as within the term "blind." It is very hard lines to say to a man "We will not give you a blind pension, although you are not able to follow your ordinary calling." I do not think that is fair and I certainly think that the definition of blindness should be reconsidered, and, if possible, revised. I think it was Deputy O'Kelly who said that one of the fruits of the Fianna Fáil Deputies coming into the Dáil was the motion in the Dáil recently.

I make bold to say that I do not think the advent of the Fianna Fáil Deputies made the slightest change at all. All of us on the Government side were very much grieved and very much put about when the cut took place in 1924, but, for reasons that I will not go into now, and because of things that took place all over the country, I say the cut had to be made. I say further that were it not for the fact that this cut was made that many of those who to-day are being paid old age pensions and blind pensions would not have been paid any pension at all during the last couple of years. I join with the other Deputies in asking the Minister to reconsider this whole question and, if possible, to revise his definition of blindness.

Dr. TUBRIDY

As Deputies have already pointed out, there are a lot of blind people in the country. I want to ask the Minister to consider the difficulties that are placed before blind people when they come to make application for a pension. There are very few eye specialists outside of Dublin; we have only one or two in Connaught. It means that generally the information required by the Minister is so minute and detailed that the people prefer to see a specialist and get his opinion and his certificate. That puts them, of course, to a lot of expense. I just want to point out to the House a particular case about which I was speaking to the Minister. It just shows the difficulty and the amount of trouble that there is in securing a blind pension. There was a man from Connemara who had to come thirty or forty miles to see an eye specialist. I have here a certificate which that man got. The doctor who gave the certificate is professor of ophthalmology in the University College, Galway. His certificate reads:

Eimhear Árd,

Gaillimh,

29/10/'27.

Dearbhughadh é seo gur sgruduigheas Peadar O Droighneáin as Dubhachta, Cor na Mona, go bhfuil pearlai ar a dha shúil agus nách bhfuil leargus ar rudai aige acht go ri-dhona.

Is e mo bharamhail nách feidir leis slighe bheathadh a bhaint amach le congnamh na sul.

(Sighnithe) Sean P. MacEnri,

M.D., B.Ch., etc.

Ollamh re Suil-eolas i

gCol. na hOilsgoile i

nGaillimh.

That is very definite, and it comes from a Professor of Ophthalmology in the National University. I think it should be sufficient. I ask the Minister to deal more leniently with the blind people, and in cases where a certificate is so definite as that, there should not be any further objections in their way.

Mr. O'KELLY

Was that case refused?

Mr. FLINN

May I ask what the previous definition was which Deputy Morrissey wants us to get back to?

Mr. MORRISSEY

I presume the Deputy means a definition of blindness?

Mr. FLINN

Yes.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The present definition is the same as the old definition. So far as the degree of blindness is concerned, we want the Minister to amend the old Act. I ask the Minister to restore the old conditions as to the means of qualification in respect of the blind person. Nearly twelve months ago the Minister promised to amend the Act as regards the degree of blindness.

Mr. HOLT

I would like to ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health some questions. When appeals are made to the Local Government Department, is it by a Board set up by the Department that those appeals are heard, or is it merely an officer appointed by the Department who hears those appeals and judges them? There is a second point. Considering the decrease in the price of live-stock which has taken place since the amending Act passed in 1924, will the Minister consider the advisability of revising the regulations issued by the Revenue Department to the Pension Officers when considering the question of the pensioners' means?

Mr. COLE

I am one of the half-dozen Deputies of the House at the present time who opposed the reduction of the old age pension.

Mr. CASSIDY

And voted this time for it.

Mr. COLE

I voted this time with the Government. I agree that the medical examination for blindness is entirely too severe, and it does not give applicants a reasonable chance. The proper test should be whether or not they are fit to carry on their own work. For instance, if a tailor is able to carry on his work he is not sufficiently blind to get a pension; but if he is not able to carry on, he should be entitled to a pension. I do not think the medical officer's test is sufficient. He goes out on the street, let us say, and asks an applicant for a pension whether the animal on the street is a cow or a horse. If it is a cow and the applicant says so, that is not sufficient evidence that he is not entitled to get a pension. There should be more leniency in those examinations.

As regards means, I still agree with some Deputies that very often applicants for pensions are maintained by their children or relatives at considerable expense. These people have to be looked after, and probably they often suffer from illness. They really are a considerable expense. I have come across cases where old persons are retained by their relatives. Instead of the relative sending the old person to the County Home he looks after him, and in a case like that there should be some leniency. I desire to support the statements made by other Deputies on this matter.

General MULCAHY

In reply to Deputy Holt, the appeals come before a section of the Local Government Department, and when it is a question of plain fact the officers in charge or the clerks dealing with it are quite capable of saying that these facts being so the appeal must be turned down because of the statutory limitations. Where it is a question of whether or not the facts are correct, it is usually the custom to send a Departmental Inspector actually to examine and verify the facts to see whether they are as stated. The question of setting up another board to deal with appeals is not a practicable suggestion at all.

With regard to the assessment of means, the assessment of stock, etc., for the purpose of seeing what the income of the person is, that is a matter that is kept constantly under review. As late as three months ago the position was reviewed between the officials of the Local Government Department and the Department of Agriculture with the object of seeing an excess value was not placed on things.

Deputy Tubridy points out certain matters. He suggests the description of a case of blindness that he read out is a clear definition. I submit it is not too much to ask ophthalmologists that they will have a clear idea as to the degree of blindness that would qualify for a blind pension. That can be stated in strict technical terms, and, instead of being stated in strict technical terms, it is put in general terms, so that there is or there might reasonably be a tendency to say, "Well, if this is a real case of blindness, it would be stated in the technical terms that a proper description should be enshrined in." If a person who is blind goes to an ophthalmologist and pays for an examination, and gets a certificate in general terms he is not getting the value of his money and he is not helping himself to be dealt with properly under the Act. Personally, I would say that if a doctor fully qualified to give a clear statement in definite technical terms gives a general description of it, I would be prejudiced against that case of blindness.

Dr. TUBRIDY

If he states that the blindness is so great that the man's eyesight is of no use to him in earning his living?

General MULCAHY

Then I would say that in the absence of a clear setting down of the technical state, in terms that he ought to be perfectly capable of stating, he would be giving simply a kind of general opinion, a kind of ex gratia opinion.

Mr. CARNEY

Will the Minister consider a particular case that I have in mind? A doctor certified that a person was suffering from double cataract and was unable to carry out any form of work. Would that be sufficient to allow of him receiving a pension?

General MULCAHY

I do not claim to be technically qualified to be able to say whether a case of double cataract would involve blindness. I do not say that if a man went to a doctor qualified to describe blindness he ought to get a description in technical terms and not simply be described as having double cataract. I simply state that now as an answer to Deputy Tubridy. Where there is doubt the Medical Inspector of the Department of Local Government, proper to deal with the matter, carries out an examination on the spot.

Mr. CARNEY

If in the case I mentioned the person had only that certificate and appealed, will the Department have the person inspected by one of their eye specialists?

General MULCAHY

If it appeared that there was a reasonable doubt, then the person would be duly inspected by a departmental medical officer.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE.

We are drifting into hypothetical questions relating to the administration of the Blind Persons Act and the Old Age Pensions Acts which do not arise under this particular Bill.

Mr. S. JORDAN

I am sorry, sir, you did not let us drift a little further. I rise to support the suggestion put forward by Deputy Morrissey that the Minister should give special consideration to the blind people. I have a few particular cases in mind which prompt me to participate in the debate. We are all trying to do what we can for our own constituents. As a matter of fact every Deputy got up to say that there were some blind people in his district. There are a few blind people in my constituency, and I hope they will come under whatever benefits the Minister will give. When asked a question a few moments ago relative to a case, the Minister said that if there was any doubt as to the information furnished they would send an Inspector, but if the facts were plain the matter was decided in the Department. I have before me an answer of the Minister to a question I put about an old age pension in Galway. I asked on what grounds the pension was refused, and the answer was that the applicant's yearly means exceeded the statutory limit of £39 5s. I should like to know how these means were arrived at. He was also asked by other Deputies, but he did not say how they were arrived at. In this particular case the man has no means, because he is living with his brother who could put him out in the morning if he wanted. I suggest that the Minister should bear in mind this particular case of John Lardiner, Carnmore, Oranmore, Co. Galway, and send an Inspector down.

As regards the suggestion of Deputy Morrissey, I should be very glad if the Minister would give careful consideration to it, and do something for these particular cases, because they deserve consideration. With the rest of my Party, I did my utmost to get the shilling back for every pensioner. We failed, because we were out-voted. I think it was Deputy White made reference to the fact that only for certain things that occurred there would be plenty of money. I will not say anything to the Deputy, there was enough said about him.

Mr. FLINN

I wish to support the suggestion of Deputy Morrissey and to suggest that possibly it might be put in a form which would enable it to be accepted. This debate, I think, has been unique in the history of the House. There has been no party division in this matter. There is a consensus of opinion on all sides of the House, apparently, in favour of this thing being done. From the Labour Benches, the Fianna Fáil Benches, the Independent Benches, the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches there has been a request to the Minister to do something. This is probably the first entirely non-party request for the expenditure of money which has been offered to the Minister, and, as far as I understand it, in so far as the alteration of conditions would involve a payment, neither at this stage nor at any later stage would it be possible for an ordinary Deputy to introduce an amendment. It has to be done by the will and co-operation and on the initiative of the Front Bench opposite. Where the whole House is of one opinion in relation to the alteration of a measure, it does seem rather absurd —at least it would seem absurd to the public—that we should pass a Bill which everybody desired to have altered in a certain direction in a form in which it was not altered. What I am suggesting is that we have no power. In the ordinary way we would divide against this Bill to disapprove of its contents, but in so doing we would be taking away benefits which every party in the House, without any discrimination of party complexion or affiliation, desires to have. Every party, without any relation to party division, is in favour of an alteration in this Bill in a direction in which we have no power to alter it without the consent and on the initiative of the Minister for Finance. I think I am speaking for every party in the House, and any Deputy who speaks will be in exactly the same position. No one is asking for party advantage out of this. No one is going to say. "We scored or you scored"; "We have taken it away from you or succeeded in doing it." As far as this particular concession is concerned, it is a concession asked of the Minister for Finance by the whole House. The request which we make is that on the Committee Stage he shall insert an amendment which will enable this small extra expenditure for this purpose, universally approved by the House, to be met.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think that if the scales for pensions to blind persons are to be differentiated from the scales operating for old age pensioners, the matter should be given a good deal more consideration than Deputy Morrissey or any of us have had an opportunity of giving it. It is proposed, and a Bill is at present in preparation, to alter the definition of blindness. I have recognised for some time that the present definition is too strict. It was something like this: that a person shall be so blind as to be incapable of performing any work for which eyesight is essential. That is regarded as being too rigid, and it is proposed to alter it. The Bill which is in preparation will substantially increase the number of persons receiving blind pensions. I do not know, and perhaps nobody can know even during the passage of the Bill, how much it will increase the number of persons receiving blind pensions. It may increase them by one-third, or even double it. Consequently, nobody can say what the cost would be of anything we would do in the way of complying with Deputy Morrissey's suggestion. There are other matters. There are people whose cases are as pitiable and who are as much a burden on their families, if they are assisted by their families, as the blind persons. There are old age pensioners absolutely crippled, and as good a case could be made out for dealing specially with them as dealing specially with the blind. As a matter of fact, if we introduce a new definition of blindness, it may be that people will be receiving blind pensions who will be much less helpless than a good many of the old age pensioners. I do not think the case is made out. I admit that blind people deserve special consideration, that they are a most pitiable case, speaking generally, but I do not think that a case is made out for the particular thing that Deputy Morrissey suggests. Deputy Daly drew attention to another aspect of the whole matter. At present the old age pension may be obtained at seventy years of age and the blind pensions at fifty years of age. If we were going to give more money to the blind persons, instead of doing what Deputy Morrissey suggests, making a special scale for blind persons, it might be better to lower the age limit, and make it forty instead of fifty. Then turn round and take an entirely different way. It might be that in certain cases of complete blindness there would be a case for going beyond the ten shilling limit rather than what Deputy Morrissey suggests, that is, if once we are going to depart from the ordinary old age pensions scale. I suggest that this particular matter of the blind is a matter complex enough to be dealt with separately. I do not think we should do what has not yet been done, and make a separate scale for the blind by, as it were, a side wing, such as an amendment introduced into a Bill dealing with a different matter.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I am not asking the Minister to do anything original; I am asking him to put blind persons into the position that they were in prior to the passing of the Act of 1924.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputy is asking to set up a second scale. Hitherto there was one scale and it was applied especially to blind persons as well as other pensioners.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Except that under my motion they would be all in the one position.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputy's motion was not accepted. I suggest that his motion not having been accepted, and taking the view the Dáil accepted, that we cannot restore in their entirety the pensions and conditions in existence before the 1924 Act, if we are going to do something special for the blind it would require more consideration than has been given to it here. If we are going to spend thirty, forty or fifty thousand pounds on the blind, as might easily be the case, we ought to consider the matter. As I say, the new Bill is certainly going to bring a considerable number of persons into the category of blind persons who are at present unable to obtain pensions, and we ought to consider what would be the best way we could spend any extra money voted.

With regard to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts, I do not think it strictly arises here, but as it has been discussed perhaps I may say something about it. What the Department does is to try and take an even course. As a matter of fact, there is no instruction to officers to try and keep down pensions. The only instruction I am aware of given to any officer of the State in connection with the matter was that in case of extreme doubt he should err on the side of agreeing with the pensioner. But it is often very difficult to get certainty. Deputy O'Kelly talked about affidavits. I do not know whether he saw the affidavits himself, but if he did he probably would realise why they could not be accepted. If a definite affidavit stating the reasons on which the opinions of the person making the affidavit are based, is put in it will be accepted. But an affidavit saying that John Smith was seventy years of age will not be accepted. An affidavit saying "I am seventy years of age, and I was at school with John Smith; we were in the one class," will be accepted. Definite affidavits containing the particulars on which the opinion of the person making them are based are accepted. You cannot rely upon any evidence absolutely. As Deputies are aware from a question asked some time ago there were cases where even birth certificates were faked. In one district over £15,000 was taken from the Exchequer by a systematic conspiracy for the faking of affidavits.

You hear complaints in this House that persons entitled to old age pensions are unable to get them. Outside the House you hear a great many complaints that persons who have means or are otherwise not entitled to the pension have nevertheless got it. We know these cases slip through in spite of all precaution. A horrible murder was committed in the County Wicklow some months ago. In the evidence at the trial of the murderer it appeared that the murdered woman, who was an old age pensioner, had a farm of land and in addition an annuity of £100 a year. She was one of the people who slipped through. The duty of an officer administering the Old Age Pensions Act is to let people in who are entitled to the pension and to keep those out who are not entitled to the pension. Mistakes will happen in both directions occasionally. Sometimes people not entitled will get pensions, and occasionally a person who is entitled may fail to prove a case, but the whole effort is to administer the Act absolutely fairly. And as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health said, the question of the value to be allowed for stock and crops and so forth, in calculating means is periodically revised and has recently been revised, and I think on the whole it is as fair as it can possibly be made. On this Bill I would just say this: It will give immediate benefit to the whole of the poorest section of the people receiving old age pensions. It will give it to the people who most need it, and most deserve it. I believe, absolutely, and any examination I have made of revenue returns or anything like that confirms me in the view that what is in this Bill is as much as can be afforded at the present time, and that further extension should wait until there is some improvement in conditions.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a second time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, March 20th.