Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 May 1930

Vol. 35 No. 2

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 7—Old Age Pensions.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,845,000 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1931, chun íoc Pinseann Sean-Aoise (8 Edw. 7, c. 40; 1 agus 2 Geo. 5, c.16; 9 agus 10 Geo. 5, c. 102; Uimh. 19 de 1924 agus Uimh. 1 de 1928); chun Pinseanna fén Blind Persons Act, 1920 (10 agus 11 Geo. 5, c. 49, a. 1); agus chun Costaisí Riaracháin áirithe bhaineann leo san.

That a sum not exceeding £1,845,000 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, 1931, for the payment of Old Age Pensions (8 Edw. 7, c. 40; 1 and 2 Geo. 5, c. 16; 9 and 10 Geo. 5, c. 102; No. 19 of 1924 and No. 1 of 1928); for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 49, s. 1); and for certain administrative Expenses in connection therewith.

The increase of £25,200 which is shown in this Vote is due to allowances for a certain small increase in the number of pensions and for a slight increase in the average rate of pension paid. For instance, in the past year the average rate of pension was 9s. 3d. as compared with 9s. the year before. There is also another factor which causes it to be necessary to provide an extra sum. It is that in Dublin the pensions are paid on a Tuesday, and in the present year there will be fifty-three Tuesdays.

I note that the Minister, when submitting this Vote to the House, referred to the fact that some part of the increase was due to a slight increase in the number of pensions and a slight increase as well in the amount of the pensions. I would be glad if the Minister would give us any explanation of the increase in the number of pensions. I think it is rather remarkable and interesting. Is it due to the fact that the percentage of old people in our population is increasing, that the tendency which was manifested in the census and which was so fully set before us in one of the publications by the Department of Industry and Commerce, instead of diminishing was, if anything, becoming more acute? If so, it would seem to indicate that, notwithstanding the good qualities which the Government so consciously possess, there has not been under their regime that increase in prosperity and in national wellbeing for which they take credit. I think the same might be said also as to the increase in the amount of the pension, because these pensions are based upon the destitution and poverty of the recipient, and it is to be assumed if the country were growing richer that, as a general rule, the average means of the applicant for a pension would increase, so that the pensions instead of tending to increase, as the Minister has admitted they are now doing, would tend to decrease. I presume, in view of other cases, particularly those relating to the income tax returns, in which I endeavoured to secure figures from the Minister, figures which would be useful and would assist us in forming an accurate view of the real economic position of the country, if I were to ask the Minister to state the actual increase in the number of pensioners which he anticipates and the actual increase in the average amount of pension paid to them that I should be asking for the information in vain. If the Minister can give it, I should be very grateful if he would do so.

In regard to the administration of pensions, I think there is a general feeling that the pensions officers interpret the regulations too stringently and with too little sympathy for the applicants. I know cases where people who apparently, as far as I could judge, as a result of their appearance and as a result of inquiries which I made and of evidence which they furnished, were entitled to the pension, had to wait three or four months before the pension was granted to them. At the same time I do not wish to stress that point too much, because the present economic circumstances of the country are such that we must be careful not to pay pensions to those who are not entitled to them. On the other hand, there are the ordinary considerations of human sympathy and human charity, and if persons at the age of 69 or 69½ years are in very poor circumstances it does seem a real hardship that the inquiries in regard to them should be so meticulously carried out that the payment of the pension to them is deferred often for six or seven months, during which time they may be in real need. In that connection I should like to know what are the instructions that are issued to the pensions officers. This matter becomes of importance when we remember that in the discussion upon the Bill to amend the Old Age Pension Acts, a Bill introduced from these Benches, the Minister for Finance stated that in calculating the means of an applicant, who resided in a working-class home the value of his or her board and lodging, of food and shelter, were not taken into consideration. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I am informed that it is not true: that as a matter of fact these things are taken into consideration and that the pensions officers have instructions to consider them when reporting as to the means of the applicant.

Again, there is a feeling—I do not share it, but I know that some people have it—that in practice the pensions officers tend to over-estimate means to the disadvantage of the claimant. Small farmers are hard hit by the method adopted for valuing land and farm produce. I have heard it stated that, owing to the way the Act is administered at present, thrifty clean people who maintain an appearance of comfort on means far below the limit which would entitle them to the maximum pension, are likely to be penalised. Of course, there is a great difference between just administration and unsympathetic administration, but I think if an inquiry into the means of an applicant is made, and if at first sight the general appearance of the applicant's home and of his surroundings appear to indicate that his means are such as to exclude him from the benefits of the Act, there should be a very searching inquiry made on the part of the officer to assure himself that the appearance of comfort was not due to causes other than plentiful means.

I think that the point which I have made has been mentioned year after year on this Vote. Possibly, one would think that the Minister had been impressed by it, and would have had some revision made in the instructions issued to his officers. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but again I am informed by those who do know, that there has been very little improvement in the manner in which these inquiries are carried out, and that the things which were complained of years ago under this head are still taking place. Another question that has come under my notice is the manner in which the age of applicants is being determined. Many of us know that parish records and parish registers were kept in a very unsatisfactory way 60 or 70 years ago, for the reason that in many cases those who were responsible for them were almost illiterate, and often, possibly, those who should have seen that their names were entered in those registers did not attach any importance to the matter, and neglected it. Therefore, the question of determining the age of an applicant becomes a very difficult one, I think.

I admit also that the position of the pensions officer who has to decide this question, bearing in mind his responsibilities to the State as well as the necessities of the applicant, is bound to be a difficult one. When I turn to the Report of the Old Age Pensions Commission of Inquiry, however, I find there that those who examined this question very carefully recommended that, so far as the age given in marriage certificates is concerned, "that the pension authorities, more particularly in the case of women, should exercise great caution in placing reliance on such certificates when there is anything pointing to the possibility of their being inaccurate."

That brings to my mind one or two cases which came under my notice in which the age of the applicant was in doubt and in which the pensions officers, so far as I could see, in determining the age, relied solely on these marriage certificates. Now I think that is not right. I suppose we all, male and female, have our share of vanity, and one form of vanity is that people believe they are younger than they are. That applies particularly to the ladies. No doubt it is a delicate matter for some people to be asked to state their actual age at the time of marriage. Investigation has shown that they have been in the habit of understanding their actual age. Since that is the case, and since it is common knowledge that it is the case, surely it is not right, when there is a doubt in the matter, that one of the deciding factors against an applicant should be the age she entered on the marriage register? I should say that if you were to add possibly five years, or maybe ten years, you would be nearer to the poor woman's exact age at the present day. I do not think that the Department or the officers allow for that. I have known cases where one of the points made against an applicant was that the age mentioned in the marriage register was such as not to entitle her to the pension.

Again, there is the question of the blind pensions. I think the standard laid down in regard to them is that a person must be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential. I do not think that is quite a fair standard. I think a better standard could be fixed. That where a man's normal occupation is of such a nature that he requires rather better than the average eyesight, and that where his eyesight now is such that he is unable to work at that occupation he should be entitled to a pension. That is not putting it too high. It means that special consideration should be given to those cases where good eyesight is essential to enable a man to earn his livelihood. A man may have bad sight and yet be able to do a number of things, but if a man has spent his time doing work of a nature where good eyesight is required, in nine cases out of ten his physique, general character and disposition will be such that he will be unable to do any other work than the particular type of work in which he had been engaged. If through defective eyesight he is unable to earn his livelihood in that way, then I think he is entitled to an adequate pension. On behalf of Deputy Ward I move:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

I intend to vote for the motion to refer the Estimate back. Some reasons for doing so have been mentioned by Deputy MacEntee, but I want to mention at least one particular reason for not voting for the Estimate. I have had brought under my notice within the last couple of years many cases which in my view, and in the view of many persons who are qualified to judge as to the age of the applicants, the method of calculating or appraising means was rather questionable. I would like to have some information from the Minister as to the method of calculation of means. Many very deserving applicants for a pension have been turned down on the grounds that they are being maintained by a son or daughter, or in many cases by both. It does seem strange that because a man or woman may rear a decent son or daughter who would not like to throw one or other of the parents on the street, and because of the sense of duty and filial affection, call it what you like, that son or daughter maintains in a decent and respectable way a mother or father, the calculation of maintenance is such as to preclude that applicant from getting the old age pension.

In my view that is an encouragement to a certain class in the community to forget the filial duty they owe to their parents. I have found that where absolute neglect of the parent was shown the parent was able to get the pension. It is very poor encouragement to the man or woman who has a sense of responsibility and of duty as regards his parents, to find that perhaps in the same locality another man who has not had that sense of responsibility and duty is able to get that pension and comfort for his parents. Another point I would like to raise on this occasion is the order given by the Minister with regard to making personal representations on behalf of applicants for pensions.

The Minister for?

The Minister for Local Government was the Minister who made the order. I quite understand it is the Minister for Finance who is responsible for Vote No. 7, but that order was given by the Minister for Local Government.

Was not that order debated on the Vote of the Minister for Local Government?

Yes, but I think it is appropriate to mention it here again, as it seriously affects applicants for old age pensions.

It does not affect the Minister for Finance. It affects appeals. We had a discussion on appeals generally on the Estimate of the Minister for Local Government. The question of appeals in the Department of the Minister for Local Government, and the order mentioned by the Deputy, were alluded to pretty freely on the Vote of the Minister for Local Government, and they cannot come up here now again.

The reason I mentioned that is that in the case of illiterates we frequently get notice from the Department that their cases have been refused and that there are so many days allowed for appeal. In many cases the number of days allowed for appeal has elapsed before they bring the notice to some person who can read it for them, and then they find they are too late to make an appeal. I suggest to the Minister that some better arrangement should be made for the purpose of calculating the means of applicants for pensions, and we should have something definite from the Minister as to the instructions given to the pensions officers as to how they are to calculate these means. Deputy MacEntee mentioned the case of applicants who because they were in decent surroundings were refused old age pensions. That again is no encouragement towards thrift, and it is one of the things the Minister should look into.

I think that some years ago there were grounds for urging a more sympathetic administration of the old age pensions, but I do not think that to-day the same forces are at work against the sympathetic administration of the Act as there were four or five years ago, That, at least, is my experience. For instance, a very large number of people came to me some years ago, I might say every week, about their pensions, and now only very rarely does anybody come to me on the matter of a pension. Speaking of my own district, I do not hear any dissatisfaction in regard to the administration of the Act. Of course, pensions officers have great difficulties to contend with. In the first instance, it was a well-known fact that a large number of people at the beginning of the operations of the Act got pensions they were really not entitled to get. That was common knowledge, and once they were on they remained on, because it was very difficult to remove them, and to do so was a very unpleasant task for anybody to have to undertake. Deputy MacEntee said he was afraid that an appearance of comfort militated against an old person getting a pension. I do not know what it might have been in the beginning, but I do not think that is so now. I will give a case in point.

A man I know something about asked me to interest myself in getting a pension for him. He struck me as being in too good circumstances. He turned himself out well and his place seemed to be kept in very good order. I was not sympathetic, I am sorry to say, about his case, and I confess I was quite wrong in that. The pensions officer who investigated his case found that it was one of those cases where the very best is made of a very tiny income. When I heard the entire case I came to the conclusion that the pensions officer had gone to a very great deal of trouble to find out the facts of the case, and the man, rightly and justly, got his pension. I am sure there are many other cases of that kind. Whatever may have occurred at the beginning, I do not think that the pensions officers set out now to prevent people getting pensions. They are only too anxious that those justly entitled to get pensions should get them. Of course, one talks from one's own experience, and that is mine. The pensioners are given every chance of making a good case for their pensions.

Deputy MacEntee seemed to regard the increased number of pensioners as being evidence of increasing poverty. I think that is a mistake. I think it is simply that for five or six years past it has been very much easier to get the true ages of applicants; that the registers from the end of the 'fifties were kept in proper order, which they were not before, and that it is now becoming a fairly easy matter to get the true age of an applicant, whether by means of a birth certificate or a marriage certificate. Previous to the end of the 'fifties it was common knowledge that the registers were kept in the most shameful way. They were kept in the vestries of churches in many cases and were very indifferently looked after, if looked after at all. That is not the case now and it cannot be for the future. All these particulars are recognised to be of the greatest importance and are most carefully kept. I think that in every way the Act is working well and is being appreciated thoroughly by old people. In fact no other Act of Parliament has been more appreciated by the people than the Old Age Pensions Act. There is probably no Act that has done more good or that has reached more worthy people. I am glad to think that everywhere, as far as I can judge, the Act is being administered honestly and well and is bringing forth, and will continue to bring forth, very good fruit to the State.

I have nothing but approval for the Old Age Pensions Act and the way in which it is carried out in general, but there is one case that I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. An old man of 78 years of age, whom I had known about twenty years ago, came to me in the first week of April to say that he had received notice that his old age pension was being stopped. He had been received into a home which provided him with housing, clothing and food, in addition to which he gets eightpence per week to supply him with tobacco. That eightpence would not go very far. I do not think he would suffer from nicotine poisoning as a result of the three-quarters of an ounce of tobacco per week which he would get for it. He is, however, left without anything for tram fares or other small things like that. He appealed to me to go to the chairman of the pensions committee on his behalf. I said that I could not ask for a restoration of his pension as he was now in receipt of all the things that a pension would provide for, except that he had not got much money. I said I would write to the chairman of the pensions committee and suggest that he should get a small sum, because I felt it was a pity that an old man like that should be left with only eightpence per week to provide for all the little necessaries he mentioned. I wrote to the chairman of the pensions committee suggesting that a very small amount should be given to him, but I received no answer. I should like to know whether the Minister thinks that is a case in which I was entitled to ask that the man should receive a small pension. I do not think it was quite fair to cut off all the pension which he had been receiving.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

From time to time I have received complaints from members of old age pensions committees that recommendations made by them are very often not entertained by the Old Age Pensions Department. Members of old age pensions committees are sometimes very hard worked. They meet fairly often, and in thickly populated districts have a large number of cases to go through. It is not very popular at times to be a member of one of these committees. I know that the members of the committees in many parts of Mayo are very conscientious, and do their best as far as the calculation of means and going into the circumstances and age of claimants are concerned. When they make a unanimous recommendation that a pension of a certain amount should be allowed, very often their decision is opposed by the pensions officer, and the case is appealed. The result is that they sometimes feel—and rightly so—that they are slighted when some of their decisions do not carry more weight with the Department. I know that pensions officers are very hard worked. They have a large number of cases to inquire into, and the work does not seem to be very popular. In fact, there is an impression abroad, which I believe myself is a wrong impression, that pensions officers are simply out to deprive as many old people as possible of the pension. I do not hold that view at all, but it shows the atmosphere that they have to work in. I think, however, I would be right in saying, in spite of the fact that pensions officers do work hard and conscientiously, that many of the officers sent down the country are young and entirely inexperienced. I know that some of them who are put in charge of districts and who are supposed to value the stock and produce and everything else of claimants for pensions, have no experience whatever of farming, and know nothing as to the value of land, stock, crops and houses. It is unfair to these pensions officers to place them in such a position. I am convinced from what I know of the working of the Act that very often these young pensions officers make returns of claimants' means which are entirely too high.

The amount paid out in old age pensions is very large, and when such an amount of money is involved and such a large number of deserving cases come forward, it should not be impossible to discover some means of improving the administration of the Act. A committee of inquiry was set up some years ago to go into the working of the Act, and very valuable and helpful information was given by people in different parts of the country. I think that the report of that committee has not been attended to by the Department. I know that some of the recommendations were impossible, but I think that information was given to that committee which would be very helpful to the Department in having the Act administered in a better and more sympathetic manner. It is true that if a claimant keeps his dwelling-house neatly it has a lot to do with the calculation of means. For instance, in the West of Ireland, you may take it that £7 is the average valuation in any part of the country, but I have had cases of people of only £7 valuation who found it impossible to get the old age pension. That is because they have neat dwellings, and because they were industrious in the past. They have no large means at present, but the moment there is found the appearance of industry and neatness about a person's place, I have known it to be impossible for such persons, with farms of only £7 valuation, to get a pension to the value of ten or nine shillings per week. I think the greatest drawback we have under the Act at present is the method adopted in the calculation of a person's means. For instance, if, during the present month, means are calculated for the claimant of the old age pension, you will find that they take into account the value of an acre or two of meadow, an acre or two of oats, and an acre of potatoes, and then they will value the amount of stock which has to be reared upon that farm for a year. They never take into consideration that the stocks bring with them the produce of the acre of potatoes and the two acres of oats and the two acres of meadow. They value it twice over—the cattle that have eaten the produce and the produce itself. That is one method. I know they value things in that way, and I think it is wrong and unfair to the applicant for the old age pension.

I was glad to hear Deputy Sir James Craig mention a case in his experience where a person who was taken into a county home or some charitable institution was deprived of his pension. It is unfortunate that he and other Deputies did not express their views some time ago when an attempt was made to remedy that difficulty in the Act. It is a very great hardship that an old person who is so helpless as to have to go into the county home should thereby be deprived of his pension. It was attempted by the Old Age Pension Bill recently to remedy that, but the Government opposed it. I think they should endeavour to have that clause remedied, and if they did they would be doing a great deal to help a number of people throughout the country, and particularly in the West of Ireland.

It has been said that this Old Age Pension Act is probably one of the most beneficent of all the Acts that are in force at the present time. In fact, I know that where there are two old people in a house in the West drawing 18/- or 20/- a week between them, that sum practically goes to support the whole family of seven or eight or nine, supplemented with whatever little they get from the farm. It certainly is an Act that is appreciated by the people, and I think it should not be impossible for the Department, having the experience they have now after a number of years through their Inspectors going through the country, to improve the working of the Act in some little way. When appeals are made, it takes a very long time before a decision is given. I know cases where six months elapsed from the date of the appeal to the decision.

There is one other method I think by which a good deal of expense could be saved. If a case was decided, say, last week on appeal against a claimant, it will be admitted by the Department that in connection with that appeal certain information is placed in their hands. In the same district, perhaps in a remote end of the West, within the next three weeks, there are other appeals and it is decided to send an Inspector down. The Inspector is sent down to investigate two or three cases in a remote district. The journey is a long one and it costs a good deal. It may be that in that same district four or five applicants have been turned down by the Department, and simply because their cases are not before the Department at the moment, the Inspector has no power to go into these cases and thereby save the time, trouble and expense of having again to go into these cases in two or three months.

I know what I suggest is against the rule. The Inspectors know the working of the Act and are so efficient in carrying out the provisions of the Act that there is no danger they will allow their sympathy to carry them too far in the direction of the claimant. When these people wrote to the Department, they were informed that their cases were decided and that nothing could be done until these cases came up again. That is quite reasonable enough. But I suggest that in cases where an Inspector is going to the same district he should look up the list for the last three months and see the number of cases that were turned down on appeal; then when down in the district he could easily inspect the ten cases that were turned down as well as the three or four cases that he is sent down to investigate. I throw that out simply as a suggestion.

As regards the Department, I must say that they do deal swiftly and efficiently with any communications sent by Deputies. Sometimes, I object myself when I get letters from the Department acknowledging anything sent them. A lot of time must be taken up in the Department simply acknowledging letters from Deputies. There is certainly no necessity, in my view, to acknowledge everything that is sent. I would much prefer if they paid greater attention to what was stated in the communication than in acknowledging letters by return of post, which they usually do and for which I feel grateful at times. As to the Committee that I mentioned already, if it did not make any recommendations which the Minister or his Department would think useful for the improvement of the Act, I think something should be done in the way of setting up some Committee of Inquiry. With the help of Deputies, many of whom have wider experience now of the methods of calculating means than they had some years ago, I am sure very valuable information and assistance would be given to the Department in securing better administration of the Act.

I do not suppose any Estimate will be passed more readily than that for old age pensions. It has been widely discussed in the present year and I do not wish to take up time in repeating any of the things that have been said.

One thing I would like to stress, and that is a more liberal interpretation of the Act. There is a feeling in the country, not alone amongst applicants for the old age pension, but also amongst others who never expect to be applicants, that a drastic change has taken place since the introduction of the Act, and that they are dealt with rather severely, perhaps not with intent, but it works out that way. At the time the Act was passed in 1908 a great many of us took an interest in it and examined its provisions. It was clearly pointed out at that time that it purported to benefit a class that the poor law did not benefit—that, in fact, to get the old age pension was to put the hall-mark of decency on the person who got it. There is a feeling in the country now which, I think, in a great many cases is well founded, that applicants for the old age pension are taken on the lowest ground and examined as closely and on as low a level as if they were being examined for outdoor relief. The irony of the situation is this, that in considering cases one comes into contact with, it is found that when persons who have made no provision for old age or who squandered what they earned as it came along, apply for the old age pension they get it easily, whereas persons who have been industrious and who had to struggle to keep themselves in decency, and their homes tidy, are examined very closely and perhaps turned down.

In common with others I would ask that border-line cases, which would not be very many, might be given a more liberal interpretation than that given at present. I have never understood by what method pensions officers calculate the means of old age pension applicants. I have a fair knowledge of conditions in the country, and I know what a farm might yield if it were worked by the owner, or if it were let. In examining a few cases that came within my knowledge, I could not get the income anywhere near that which the pensions officer arrive at for elimination. It would be interesting to know how it is arrived at, or what is the basis of calculation. A great many places are let by public auction or privately for a season, and it is found that there is a very small margin after paying the rent and the rates. That margin may be all the person has to live upon, and yet in calculating the means a much higher rate is fixed. The number that are affected in this way is not great, and if, as was said in another connection to-day, those people who live with relatives and have just the bare means of subsistence were allowed a few shillings for pocket money, something that they might call their own, it would be all to the good. We will never ruin the State by extravagance of that kind to our old people, and the money will be spent in the country. Anything we can do towards being charitable or considerate to our aged poor will have the sympathy of the whole community.

With regard to blind pensions, I consider that doctors sent down by the Department are altogether too strict with the applicants. I know cases in West Kerry where the local doctor certified that claimants were unable to do their work because of defective sight, yet none of these cases was passed by the inspector from the Department. I consider that the value put on a Kerry cow is altogether too high. I do not think any discrimination is made between claimants who are able to move about and claimants who are unable to do any work. In the case of an applicant unable to do any work the value of a cow should be a little over the grazing value, or what a man would obtain from people who had cattle grazing on the land. In the case of an applicant able to move around, the entire emoluments derived from a Kerry cow could not exceed £6 per annum. The valuation that has been put on a Kerry cow by the pensions officers is much higher than that. I have nothing to say against the pension officers in my district. Of course, they are bound by the regulations of the Department for which they work.

I wish to draw attention to another matter to which Deputy Clery referred, with regard to the appearance of the houses of applicants for the pension. It is altogether wrong to calculate the means on the appearance of the houses. If that system is pursued, the more claimants improve their houses and the surroundings the more they will injure their chance of getting pensions. The surroundings of a house should not militate against an applicant's claim to a pension. As far as my experience of the inspectors who are sent down to investigate these cases is concerned, I think they are waste of money. One inspector who came down to my part never saw the cattle on the farm he came to inspect. He asked a couple of questions and went away, and of course confirmed the officer's appeal. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what I have said about Kerry cows, and that a proper valuation will be put on them, so that the old people will have a better chance of availing of the Old Age Pensions Act.

As some Deputies are aware, there are about 27,000 claims and questions to be dealt with every year. That is, there are 27,000 cases that have to be investigated and examined. Of the 27,000 cases a great number are bound to be more or less border-line cases, and a certain number must be cases in which there will be some grounds for dissatisfaction with the decisions. It is impossible to help that. Supposing that of the 27,000 cases there are 8,000 border-line cases that are difficult to determine, then it is absolutely bound to happen that in a certain number of these there will be decisions in which persons other than those who decide them would say a mistake was made. I can only assure the Dáil that the Acts are being sympathetically administered. When the old age pensions were reduced in 1924 action was then taken, in view of the reduction in the amount of the pensions, to impress upon those charged with the administration of the Acts the necessity for taking as sympathetic a view of the cases as was possible. No change has been made in that general direction, and I am satisfied that the officers who are concerned in administering the old age pensions are acting on that principle.

Of course, the individual outlook of the officer will affect the treatment of a case. You will meet one officer who may be rather easygoing, more inclined to be generous and more sympathetie than another. You will meet officers who are, perhaps, stricter than the general rule, whose outlook is to follow rules rigidly and to examine into evidence. So long as you are dealing with individuals you cannot get absolutely uniform treatment. If you have a particular officer in a district there may be complete satisfaction, but if he is succeeded by another officer you may have a number of complaints, although both officers were simply trying to do their duty with absolute impartiality, and to treat applicants fairly. The outlook, as everybody knows, of individual men dealing with these cases, will be somewhat different. But in spite of that fact I am satisfied, from everything I have been able to ascertain in following up representations that have been made to me, that the Acts are being sympathetically administered.

Deputy MacEntee asked by what number pensioners had increased. The increase is very small. We are estimating for a possible increase in the present year of 250. Whether that increase will be realised or not we do not know. At least six or seven years ago those who were dealing with old age pensions administration in the Revenue warned us that the decline which had been taking place so rapidly in the number of old age pensioners had come to an end and that it was quite possible that within a year or two we would have an increase. Such a thing as greater ease in proving age, as mentioned by Deputy Wolfe, might be one factor. Another factor is that there has been a slight increase in the average age. Measures that have been taken for improving public health, or other factors, have caused the prospects of life to increase slightly, and of course a very slight increase in that way brings about an appreciable increase in the number of pensioners. Maintenance in a working class home is not estimated at such a value as to render an applicant ineligible for a pension.

Ineligible for the full pension?

Of course there may be cases in which it would render a person ineligible for the full pension, but in the great mass of, say, the working-class homes of Dublin, maintenance would still leave a person eligible for a full pension. The value of farm produce is calculated by the old age pensions officers on a basis that has been arrived at as a result of consultations which have taken place more than once with officers of the Department of Agriculture. But of course in dealing with the actual value of a farm which is being worked there are so many factors to be taken into account that there, more than anywhere else, the judgment of the individual officer comes in. You can base nothing much on the valuation of a farm, and you can base very little on the acreage of a farm, as so many factors come into account. A farm may have a high valuation and still the value may be very low. A farm may be large but may be of such a character as to be of little value, and on the other hand, a very small farm of a particular quality of land and in a particularly favourable situation may be of a relatively high value.

Many things have to be taken into account, and there the individual judgment of the officer comes in a great deal. But the officer is always in consultation with his immediate superior, the surveyor, and while occasionally pensions officers are relatively young and inexperienced, one cannot help that, because new men have to be taken into the service and put on the work. But the surveyor has always a considerable number of years service and is always a man of wide experience. There is close consultation between the officer and the surveyor, and in the case of a young and inexperienced officer the surveyor will take particular care to give assistance. Everything that can be done has been done to ensure that the calculations of the value of farms are fair.

I do not think that the appearance of a house is taken into account. I would not like to say that it has never happened, and I would not like to say that the appearance of a house may not create some prejudice or prepossession in the mind of the officer, but an officer always knows that a place may be clean and well tended although the people are very poor, and he also knows—he would have very little experience of the country if he did not—that a house may be the opposite of clean and well tended, although the people may not be too badly off. I do not think people have their means assessed high because their houses are clean and well kept. You have, however, to take into account the fact that people who tend their houses well have probably worked their farms well, and it is absolutely at the basis of the Old Age Pensions Acts that means are what count. One person may be needy because, as some Deputy said, he has squandered his money as it came into his hands; he may have drunk it, or he may have spent it in any foolish way that he liked. Nevertheless, if he is in need and is without means he is entitled to a pension. It may happen that some other person, who has just enough means to be ineligible for a pension, has those means because of extraordinary industry and as a result of practising economy during his entire life, and yet because need is the basis of the claim for a pension he is ruled out. It is at the basis of our pensions code, and the only way we can get over that, which on the face of it does seem unfair, would be to remove the means qualification altogether. But the removal of the means qualification would, I think, more than double our old age pensions bill, so that we cannot contemplate doing it, and we must be prepared to suffer the apparent unfairness of the person who has been thrifty and hardworking being penalised because of his thrift and hard work.

I was glad to hear Deputy Wolfe say that the administration of the Act is more sympathetic than it was a few years ago. That bears out my statement that the instructions which we gave some years ago have been carried out in practice. Deputy Sir James Craig asked me a question about a man who was 78 years of age, and who had gone to a home where he had housing, clothing, food and a small allowance. The Deputy asked me if that man could be given anything. Whether he could be given anything really depends on the value of his maintenance. If the housing, clothing and food that he gets are of such a quality as to bring his means above the amount allowed in the Act, then he cannot get anything. It is really a matter of fact and the determining of the value of what he has.

From the beginning of old age pension legislation, maintenance has been taken into account as means. Suggestions were made that the counting of maintenance was something that began since the Free State was established. That is not so. Maintenance at all times was taken into account, and, of course, maintenance in an institution is to be taken into account, just the same as maintenance in the house of a relative or others. Deputy Clery said members of old age pensions committees felt that it was a slight on them to have their decisons challenged, questioned or over-ruled. I do not think that they need feel that. The pensions officer also has many of his appeals refused, and he has no grounds for regarding himself as slighted because the appeals officer refuses to uphold the appeal. The pensions officer has a duty, and if he is not satisfied with the decision of the committee his duty is to appeal. I should say he is just as likely himself to be turned down as he is to get the decision of the committee reversed. I do know that the appeals officer pays a great deal of attention in considering appeals to the decisions of a committee which has got a reputation for doing its work well and carefully. I know that there are committees which the appeals officer thinks less of than of others. There are committees which he regards as doing their work somewhat carelessly, and, in those cases, he would not pay a great deal of attention to their decisions; that is, if he were in doubt. If he were in doubt about the facts before him, he would not give their decisions much weight. On the other hand, there are committees which would influence him very much by what they had decided; he would be influenced by the result of their investigations.

I am informed, and I am positive about it, that the system of valuing things doubly which Deputy Clery suggests exists, does not in fact exist. Officers are sufficiently well coached in their business not to fall into that particular sort of error.

As regards blind pensions, I had at one time in mind an amendment of the definition of blindness, but although a great many efforts were made to find a new definition, it was found impossible to devise a formula that would not be open to great objection. It was decided to let the words in the existing Act stand. It was decided, however, to deal with applications, for blind pensions especially, very sympathetically. I think that has been done. I do not believe that doctors who are sent as inspectors by the Department of Local Government are too strict in the matter. There is no doubt that before the system of inspection was introduced, and when pensions were given on the certificates of local inspectors, large numbers of persons received blind pensions who were not at all blind. In fact, hundreds of them received pensions to which they were not entitled. I remember hearing, when the system of inspection began, that in one of the very early cases the medical officer, when he went to the house, found the "blind pensioner" with a newspaper spread out before him, picking winners. A great many of them were able to live on their pensions, and tried to supplement that by selecting winners. I know that there is no attempt to confine the blind pensions to people who are stone blind or nearly stone blind. There is no rigid adherence to the very narrow definition of the Act.

On the other hand, what Deputy MacEntee asked me is going very far. The Act says that no person shall be entitled to a blind pension who has eyesight sufficient to do any work. That is adhered to; but, on the other hand, to say that a person is entitled to a blind pension because he could not do the particular sort of work he was doing before is going very far to the other side. It might mean that a person with quite good eyesight, better than many people who never put in a claim for a blind pension, would be entitled to receive that assistance. I think that nothing can be done except to administer the Blind Pensions Act as it has been administered during the last few years.

If a shoemaker who is over 70 years has his sight impaired, would he be qualified for the old age pension when he is not able to continue his work?

A person over 70 is entitled to the old age pension.

Mr. O'Reilly

I mean a person over 60 years.

That would be a case for investigation.

Would the Minister consider the case of a watchmaker whose sight has so far failed that he could not follow that occupation?

There would be things a watchmaker could do. There might be classes of work which he could do, although his sight might not enable him to follow the trade to which he was accustomed. That is the sort of matter that is really taken into account to a considerable extent at present in administering the Act; but it would be wrong to give a pension to a man who might not be able to do the particular job to which he was accustomed, but who might have, perhaps, much better sight than quite a lot of his neighbours who never put in for a blind pension. The only thing that can be done is to look as sympathetically as possible at each individual case, giving, where there is doubt in the matter, the benefit of that doubt to the pensioner.

Many suggestions are made from time to time in regard to the administration of old age pensions, and a great deal of thought has been given by Ministers and officials to meeting the wishes of Deputies and others in the matter. I think as much as can reasonably be done is being done. It has to be borne in mind that if a pension is granted it means an outlay of anything from £150 to £200 or more to the State. A proposition that is going to cost the State £150 or £200 has to be examined with a good deal of care. If it was the business of officers to grant pensions we might have the pensions bill swollen, while we might not be giving any great assistance to people in particular need of it. There is no other way of dealing with the matter except to have the officers deal with the proposals impartially, as they have been doing. Deputies, I think, could remember in that instance that there is no blame or discredit attaching to an officer for granting pensions or for letting pensions through, and he obtains no credit for stopping pensions. It is simply part of the ordinary duty which he has to do in an impersonal way.

Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."
The Committee divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 62.

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • O'Leary, William.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).

Níl

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, John.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Killilea and S. Jordan; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Motion declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn