I have a few points to make which I think are relevant to this motion. In the constituency of Meath there are a number of parishes where the records of births have been destroyed, and claimants for old age pensions find the greatest difficulty in satisfying the authorities that they are of the requisite age, with the result that personal interviews in a number of these cases are found to be absolutely necessary and the cutting off of the approach of Deputies to the Department is often a very great hardship and entails an undue amount of correspondence both on Deputies and claimants. I do not see that it is necessary that the Minister should put up this barrier. I know that after we entered the Dáil the pressure on the Department was extreme owing to a number of applicants not understanding how to procure an old age pension. Some of them refrained altogether from making application. As a result of that I admit that the Minister may have been inundated with visits from Deputies, but at the present time these requests have become normal, and I think it is hardly reasonable that this Department should be different from other Departments in that respect, as personal interviews are in a good many instances absolutely necessary. A number of these claimants for old age pensions have not friends that they can depend upon. I have found even in a number of cases that they have been misled. Therefore, it is necessary that somebody should represent them personally and generally the only person they can get is a Deputy. I admit that a number of visits paid hitherto were to a certain extent superfluous and unnecessary. I do not think the Minister can put me in that category, as the constituency of Meath does not contain old age pensioners to a very great number. I know that other districts are not in that position, that there are a great number of applicants from them and that Deputies are constantly approached with the view, not of writing to the Minister or the Department, but of seeing the Minister and explaining their case personally. The necessity for that personal interview is because of the difficulty these people have in proving their age. In a great number of cases the records have been destroyed and in other cases there never were any records. Deputies are often in a position to be able to prove that people who made affidavits are people of standing. The Minister is generally not in a position to be able to discover that fact, with the result that the pensioners are often left two or three years without a pension. I have known cases where they have been left three years without a pension. It is true that after waiting for a pension for, say, three years, the pension, when granted, is made retrospective for nine months or a year, but not for the whole period. These are the principal reasons why I think the approach to this Department should not be cut off. I do not think it is necessary now to cut off that approach, because the visits are not anything like as numerous as they were hitherto, and therefore I support the motion proposed by Deputy Ward.
Private Deputies' Business. - Administration of Old Age Pensions Acts.
I admit that the privilege accorded to Deputies to appear in person on behalf of claimants for old age pensions before the deciding officer could be abused. I think we all admit that it could. The question, however, is whether the possibility of abuse is such that the privilege should be altogether denied. Every Deputy knows that the claimants for old age pensions who want to have their cases presented are not always in a position to present them in writing, and, consequently, that it would mean a great deal for them if the local Deputies who knew the circumstances of the case were to be permitted to appear as advocates, just as if they were lawyers and were allowed, as advocates, to state the position. I do not think that the deciding officer would be unduly influenced by their statements. At the start he would recognise that they were the statements of advocates, and hearing their statements would simply mean hearing the other side of the case. Now, why the person who is to give judgment should be denied the opportunity of hearing the case put in that way by a Deputy as an advocate is difficult for me to understand. The Deputy should, of course, only be permitted to present it as an advocate, and not attempt to use what would be regarded as influence. To deal with the matter otherwise than the manner in which an advocate would be allowed to present a case in court would be altogether, to my mind, a wrong proceeding. I take it that the motion here simply means that the Minister would permit the practice which obtains in the case of other Departments—that is, would permit Deputies who know the circumstances of the case to come forward and represent the case of the claimant.
Would the Deputy suggest what other Department is analogous in this matter?
Representations are constantly being made, I know, to the Land Commission, but I admit that there is a judicial procedure employed in the final determination of a case by the Land Commission. But that is very expensive and it would be unfair to the old age pensioner to have to fee a solicitor or other lawyer to present his case as if it was coming before a strictly legal tribunal. What we are doing is—we are trying to have a semi-judicial procedure—allowing Deputies who know the case to present the case on behalf of the claimant. I take it that although the motion mentions both sides, still what is in view, for the most part, is the case of the claimant. That is how I look at it and while I admit quite frankly that it is a system that could be open to abuse, at the same time, I think, it would be most unwise, because of the possibility of that abuse, to cut it off altogether.
The Minister could safeguard against possible abuse by giving the officers to understand clearly that they are not to be influenced by statements made by Deputies other than in so far as the arguments or facts are presented before them. In other words, they should clearly understand that they are in the position of judges and that the Deputies are presenting one side of the case, and, of course, as officers in a judicial position, they ought to be well able to realise that there is probably another side to the case and that they have an opportunity of examining that other side. All that is claimed by Deputies who put down this motion is that the claimants should have an opportunity of having their cases presented and their side heard before the final court of appeal, so to speak. I think that is a fair claim. Although Deputy Wolfe talked about interference and so on, after all, this is purely a matter of regulation. Any head of a Department should understand that he is independent and that no Deputy could browbeat him or anything else. If the officer does not know that he ought to know it and take up the attitude of a judge and say to the Deputy: "I am judging this case. You are at liberty to present the main facts concerning this case, and I shall take them into consideration when deciding, but I shall not allow you to go one step beyond that."
I think that is fair. It is a matter of regulation and I think the Minister should approach it by way of regulation and instruction to his own Department rather than by cutting out Deputies and depriving claimants for old age pensions of having somebody to present their cases in person.
The Deputy who moved this motion is well acquainted with the subject. He has raised it time after time in the last few years until he has made himself the special advocate of the old age pensioners. But I noticed, in presenting this case the other evening, he did not display the usual vehemence against the Minister for Local Government that he generally does in presenting his case. I think his attitude was rather apologetic. It amounted to this: That the privilege of appearing in the Custom House before the deciding officer was a reasonable one in the interests of the old age pensioners.
The Deputy who has just spoken has displayed, as he usually does, the best intentions, but his knowledge of the procedure is not very exact. The gist of Deputy de Valera's remarks is this: That Deputies interested in old age pensioners should act as advocates, and that as such they should be entitled to go before the deciding officer on the appeal to the Local Government Department. I entirely dissent from that. The Deputy who moved this motion, in some of the remarks he made, also agreed with that, though he said it was known to members of the Minister's staff that in presenting the case of the old age pensioners he not only put forward the case that the applicant was entitled to have put forward, but also the case where the applicant was not so entitled. That does not show that he believes that Deputies should be advocates. Neither do I. I may tell the House that ever since I became a member eight years ago I have had more to do probably than any other Deputy with matters connected with old age pensions.
I know the procedure very well, The practice which I followed, and which I found most successful, in presenting cases for old age pensioners who were unable to present the cases themselves, was to take up the cases at the source. As a Peace Commissioner when far away from the pensions officer, I went out and found the evidence, and put it up, not to the Appeal Board, but to the pension officer and the sub-committee. I do not know whether Deputies are aware of the fact that the Department of Local Government has nothing whatever to do with the granting of pensions. They are simply an appeal board. According to the Act the local committees selected by the county councils are the persons entitled to allocate pensions, subject of course, to the local pension officers. While I have no complaint against a single pension officer in the country —and I know most of them—I find that the committee before whom the cases go, are mostly to blame for any delay or lack of attention that arises. The pension committees are composed largely of shop keepers who bring the claims forward. They put forward cases, as Deputy de Valera would say, as advocates, but they put forward no grounds or evidence on the questions of age or means. The cases are then passed to the pension officer, whose duty it is to investigate, and when he finds that as regards age or means these people are not eligible, he is bound to appeal. I see nothing wrong in that. From my experience I must say, with possibly two or three exceptions, I have found all the officials absolutely fair, and absolutely painstaking in the interests of the old age pensioners.
With regard to the subject matter of this motion, that Deputies are deprived of a privilege, I am delighted that that privilege was removed, because it enables me, after the initial trouble that I have taken, to place any further evidence required in writing before the Board. I have done so, and I would certainly advise Deputies—even Deputy Ward, who seems to have strong feelings on this matter—that the Minister has done a great service, and saved Deputies a great deal of trouble, by announcing that they could not be received at the Custom House. I could not support the motion.
I did not like to interrupt the Deputy while he was speaking. By "advocating" I did not mean that Deputies would take up a case, as if they were feed like a lawyer, or that they would take up and press a case that they would not think fair or just. By "advocating" I meant that they were not to be considered as having influence as Deputies; in other words, it was not to be a case so to speak of putting a word in the Judge's ear. I simply regarded them as advocates in the sense that they would present a case and, of course, would present all the facts.
I am glad the Deputy has given that explanation.
The Minister for Finance, speaking yesterday on a matter pertinent to the motion before the House, said that political capital had often been made out of securing old age pensions for claimants. I think that is regrettable. I would like to have all Departments of Government so efficient, and all claims so well made, in the Land Commission or anywhere else, that no Deputies on any side would or should claim credit for securing what is due to the public in the matter of land or old age pensions. I might say personally that I have never written a letter to the local or daily Press regarding my success in advocating the claims of anybody looking for a pension. We are told that some of these officers are impudent and rough with the public. That has not been my experience. Deputy Wolfe spoke of their efficiency and of their courtesy when dealing with the public. I had one experience—I do not know if I referred to it in the House before— with a pension officer, who was extremely courteous. I believe this particular officer was born within a very few miles of Blarney Castle. Two brothers, aged men, lived in a cottage. They had a sister who married a small farmer. One of the brothers had the old age pension. On reaching the age his claim was put in. Meanwhile the sister's husband died, and the pensioner was asked to go to the widow's place to settle up her affairs. He was there for a few weeks and met the pension officer, who did not disclose his identity. When asked where he was living the pensioner said that he was living with his sister, that he was fed there, and that he got a few shillings for tobacco. It was on that statement that an assessment of means was made in that case. That officer was very courteous. I might say that the man got the pension when his case was fully considered by the Appeals Board.
Deputy J. Wolfe blames Deputy Ward for searching for evidence against claimants for the old age pension. Of course Deputy Ward never said that. Neither did he put up cases where the claimants were not entitled to the pension. Deputy Ward did what I did on at least two occasions when allowed to interview the officers at the Custom House. If I knew definitely that any statements were false I would point out that they were false. I think every Deputy should do so, because the granting of a pension to a person who is not entitled to it means depriving people of pensions who are perfectly entitled. I think that should be done. I would do it. If I found a bogus claim I would say that it was a bogus claim. I think there is particular need for allowing Deputies to do the best they can by way of a personal interview in connection with claims for the old age pension. The claimants are very helpless and very poor, and, as has been pointed out by Deputy Haslett and by Deputy Doherty, local committees are often negligent and rather lax in presenting evidence on behalf of such claimants.
I do not think there is any fear of any undue pressure being put on the officials. They are wide awake and they take the representations that are put forward for what they are worth. Certainly when we were allowed to make representations these were given full weight but no more. The officials would discuss the matter and if there were affidavits in a case Deputies could say if the persons who made them were people that could be relied upon. I do not think there would be undue pressure upon the officials. As to waste of time, if two or three letters are written they have to be noted, replies have to be prepared and the correspondence filed. More could be accomplished in five minutes by an interview than by ten letters. In my view, the case can be put much better at an interview.
As to Deputy Ward's introductory speech on this motion it is said that he showed no vehemence against the Minister for Local Government. I do not think we should. This privilege is granted in the Land Commission, in the other Government Departments and in connection with drainage, and I do not see why it should be denied in the case of old age pensions. I have been successful in some of my representations on behalf of claimants and in others I quite agreed with the pension officer's report that the persons were not entitled. I think we might accomplish good work on behalf of these poor people by being allowed to appear before the Board. There will be no waste of time and no undue pressure on the officials. I deprecate any political capital being made by any Deputy for his success in obtaining pensions for these old people.
I intend to vote against this motion. Like Deputy Doherty, I think it was a privilege that, though largely availed of, was seldom of any advantage to Deputies. Deputy de Valera said that it was a privilege that could be abused. What could be, generally is, and was, I believe——
Will the Deputy tell the House how it was abused?
If the Deputy allows me to proceed I might. I must say that though I have been in the pension offices I have never achieved any success by personal interviews that I could not have achieved by letter. Long before I was a Deputy, in my capacity as a private individual it was my business sometimes to write on behalf of claimants for the old age pension. Looking back I must say that I met with just as large a measure of success then as I did since I became a Deputy. I agree with what Deputy Haslett said, and also with what Deputy Fahy said, that all Departments ought to be so administered that the intervention of Deputies or anybody else should not be necessary. I believe personally that this particular Department dealing with old age pensions is administered inside the definite limitations of the regulations which the pension board are bound to keep.
For my part I will admit that these regulations are very stringent. If I had any complaint to make it would be that they are too stringent. Inside the regulations I think any Deputy will achieve as much by a letter as by a personal interview. In a letter you can put the relevant points concisely, whereas in an interview one is generally carried away by too zealously advocating the claim and bringing in a lot of irrelevant matters which do not concern the pension and which most people would not take into account. The conversation very often runs on irrelevant matters, so much so that possibly the relevant one is lost in the course of the argument.
When Deputy Murphy interrupted me I was about to say that the privilege was abused. I believe it was. It is not my purpose to interfere unduly with the officers in any department. I generally send the particulars, and while I am not always successful with cases I believe the measure of my success is just as great by writing as it would be by an interview. On a few occasions, when I had to appear at the Custom House to meet the deciding officials, I must say that I did not achieve any greater success than I would have achieved by letter. On these visits I found six or eight Deputies similarly situated to myself waiting to interview one of the officers who had to decide according to the regulations. I believe the privilege was abused. I believe that many Deputies went unnecessarily to the Custom House when they could have as easily submitted the claims in writing.
For that reason I am more or less glad that the motion has been put down, and that we have had an opportunity of backing up the Minister in his decision to cut out this privilege altogether, because it was a privilege that was availed of by some Deputies, and not by others, who, perhaps, do their duty as well as those men who pester the officials in their offices. Certainly I can see no hardship on any Deputy putting the facts plainly on paper, and I believe that the officials sympathetically receive such representations, as far as the limits of the regulations allow them.
This motion opens up a very important question, the question of the rights and privileges of Deputies. If Deputies have certain privileges and rights they are entitled to use them. I do not know that they have the right and privilege of approaching Departments. It is a matter that I often wished to see cleared up. If they have those rights where did they get them, and are they statutory rights? A Deputy, as we all know, is a Parliamentary representative. When he comes here clothed with that representation, does he come as a person entitled to go into a Department, swagger around there with a hundred per cent. American style and say to everybody there, "I am a Deputy, I am a Parliamentary representative and you have got to hear me. When I make my case you have got to give a decision in my favour because I know what I am talking about. I am a Parliamentary representative."
Is not that rather a non sequitur?
I would like to have the position cleared up because I have often been very timid in approaching Government Departments. I am glad that Deputy Ward has put down this motion in order that it may help to clear the air with regard to the rights and privileges of Deputies. If, as Deputies, we carry those rights and privileges then I take it the Minister has no power or authority to refuse us the right to exercise them. That is an aspect of the case that requires to be cleared up. Is the Minister taking on some powers that he has no right to take on with regard to the position of Deputies in this House?
It is for the purpose of having our position defined as Parliamentary representatives that I have got up to speak. Personally I do not desire to approach any Government Department even though I have these rights. Deputies from time to time approach the Land Commission, the Department of Local Government, the Revenue Commissioners and so on. Is that a waste of time? I often think it is. A civil servant must know his job or he will not be kept in his position. A Deputy approaches a civil servant, but surely he cannot make the boast that he knows all about the case and that he is 100 per cent. correct. A Deputy is as liable to be incorrect in his evidence or in his knowledge of affairs as perhaps any other person. To my mind, when Deputies approach Departments I think it means that they are wasting a good deal of valuable time. The place, to my mind, for Deputies to ventilate their grievances, if they have any, is in this House. If Deputies feel that their constituents, whether they are applicants for the old age pension, for land or anything else, are not being properly treated by the Department or by Departmental officers, then they should bring forward their cases in the House. They should tell the House what the position is like and how the Minister and the Department had treated them. They are neglecting their important functions. Instead of raising these matters in the House they go round from Department to Department. I am not a bit sorry that we have been precluded by the Minister from approaching this branch of the Local Government Department. I think that as Deputies we would be better employed by utilising our efforts to change the whole system of dealing with old age pension applicants.
There is some confusion as between the Local Government Department and the Revenue Commissioners. I really do not know where an old age pension applicant stands as between the two Departments, or where the responsibility begins and ends. I will give an illustration.
Last year I went to my constituency and two people, representing separate families, approached me. One of them pointed out to me that his father had made an application for a pension eight months before. No reply had been received and the family was in a starving, helpless condition. I said I was sorry I had not been approached before as I could have made inquiries. I wrote to the Local Government Department and I was amazed to hear that, although the case had been heard by the local pensions committee eight months earlier, the papers had not been forwarded to the appeal board in the Local Government Department. I asked the Department to fix responsibility on the person who negligently or deliberately held up the papers while these unfortunate people were starving. I was referred then to the Revenue Commissioners whom I asked to fix responsibility. In the course of time I was referred by the Revenue Commissioners back again to the Local Government Department. I was so disgusted I did not pursue the matter further. One applicant died before any decision was come to about his pension and the other man, who was entitled to a pension eight months earlier, lived only two or three weeks after he received it. There certainly is confusion as between the two Departments.
We are told the local committees have certain powers and functions. I do not believe they have either the one or the other. I believe they are merely there to waste time.
The Deputy is wandering from the motion.
Instead of kicking up a shindy regarding the question whether we should be permitted to approach the Department, we should be spending our valuable time dealing with the whole matter and endeavouring to change the system in the interests of the applicants.
That is not before the House.
I did not catch the Deputy's remark as to what part of the machinery was intended to waste time.
We had better keep to the motion.
I hope this motion will serve the purpose of clearing up to the satisfaction of every Deputy what are his rights and privileges as a Parliamentary representative.
Does Deputy Hennessy suggest that, instead of writing letters to the circumlocution office he has so carefully described, he ought to come in direct contact with that office? If the Deputy used the ordinary energy which he would use in relation to one of his own affairs in pursuing the question, does he suggest that he would have allowed himself to be put off in the way he alleges he was put off? I never heard a better case put by Cumann na nGaedheal for the inefficiency of Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies when they come in contact with the Department. Deputy Beckett tells us that when he goes to interview a public official his statement is full of zeal and irrelevancy. Deputy Hennessy tells us that when he goes there he swaggers.
I never go there.
He tells us that somebody else swaggers. If people who go to the Department make statements that are full of zeal and irrelevancy and if they are full of swagger, then it is perfectly right, in the interests of old age pensioners, that Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies should not be allowed to have contact with the officials. That is no reason why Deputies who do not go there full of zeal and irrelevancy and who do not swagger should not be allowed to put cases before the court of appeal. Why should not all cases in courts of appeal be tried on letters?
Will the Deputy say why we, as public representatives, do not swagger before the Supreme Court as advocates of one particular Party or another?
God help us! Just think that the electors have sent that Deputy here. They will not again. There is one type of advocacy, and there is advocacy of the type which you would expect from the speeches we have heard from Deputy Hennessy and from Deputy Beckett. You have advocacy of the type that you would get from Deputy Doherty, who told us he was grateful to the Minister because he had saved him the trouble of doing the work that his constituents desire him to do. That sort of advocacy is no good. Nor is the advocacy of men who go continuously to overstate a case any good. Where men come continually in contact with a department or a court a great deal depends upon their method of advocacy. Where a man comes to a department of this kind and puts before them statements which they know from experience are balanced statements, their advocacy would be very effective.
The suggestion has been put in Deputy de Valera's mouth that men were going to the Department simply and solely as feed lawyers to get their clients all that could be got whether or not they would be entitled to it. That is bad advocacy. There are two principles: "Do right though the sky falls," is the first principle. The second principle is "Honesty is the best policy." That is an entirely secondary principle. I contend, and everybody with experience of business will know, that while honesty is the best policy is the principle upon which they work, the mere carrying out of that policy does keep the average business man far straighter than the average moralist would be able to keep him. Deputies who make contact with Departments will learn from experience that a balanced statement of fact is the most useful.
I think it was Deputy Beckett who said that the system had been abused. He may have abused it. He may have that evidence in his possession of abuse due to the fact that he abused it. He has produced no evidence to the House that anyone else has abused the system, nor has the Minister produced evidence that his Department has allowed the system to be abused. I do not want Departmental officers interfered with. Where a Deputy thinks a case can be fairly stated for an applicant, where he thinks there is some material which could be put forward by means of personal representation, no question of principle is involved in preventing him from making personal representation. It is going to make it more convenient for us if we can get word sent out that in future no Deputy will be allowed to have contact with the Department. It will make things very easy for us if none of us is allowed to ask for a grant for a drainage scheme or facilities for a housing scheme.
A Deputy should ask that here.
We are not to waste the time of the officials. We are not to go to one of them and discuss the case of John Moriarty, aged 79. We are to come and waste the time of 153 members of the Dáil by doing it here. That is a fair example of the sort of intelligence that sits high up on the back benches of Cumann na nGaedheal and that is reflected on the front bench which they support.
It would be amusing, if the matter were not serious, to listen to Deputy Flinn making, with his wonderful fluency, the worse case appear the better case. As Deputy de Valera said, if this motion were passed it would open avenues for abuse. It is evident to everybody that it would open an avenue of abuse that regulations or theories that might be put forward by Deputy de Valera could not counteract. I think the present system is working satisfactorily. My experience of it is that where old age pensioners apply for a pension they have friends in the locality who know all the circumstances of the case. There is the parish priest, the curate, and the local shopkeeper. Where genuine cases have been turned down, and where I have been approached to get them re-opened and given further examination, I found that invariably a letter to the old age pensions office met with immediate consideration. I cannot remember a single instance of a genuine application for a pension being turned down. I can visualise the difficulties Deputies would have in getting accurate local information from places forty or sixty miles away—out-of-the-way places.
If this motion were passed there can be no advantage gained over the existing position, because a Deputy writing to the old age pensions office gets an immediate acknowledgment and, by correspondence, can get that claim re-opened and reinvestigated and dealt with on a perfectly satisfactory basis. It would be very easy to see the office of the Old Age Pensions Department crowded with Deputies and with applications from all over the country. I think in the working of any Government Department that simplicity should be aimed at. Complexities and entanglements should be avoided. I can see nothing but confusion and entanglement arising out of a motion such as this. For my part I do not think it is possible to improve on the present situation. At all events the passing of this motion will only make for the creation of confusion that does not exist at present.
Deputy Egan seems to think that he can make as good representation in writing as by personal interview. He stated one could have a case re-opened. Perhaps that is his experience. But it is not mine. As far as I know when a Deputy makes representation on behalf of a claimant in writing what happens is that you get an acknowledgment of your letter and the next you hear about it is the decision.
There is no prospect, as far as my experience goes, of having cases re-opened, except the applicant makes another application. In that way he may be done out of a pension over a period of twelve months. I do not think the Minister or anybody else has stated that this practice has been abused. I did not hear the case made that there has been abuse. I do not think there has been. I often had to go on behalf of my constituents, and they resent the fact that I cannot go now. I would like to know why the procedure followed before we came into the House was allowed to continue for only eighteen months afterwards. That practice was dropped for some peculiar reason. It is alleged that the Fianna Fáil Party abused the system, or was it due to the fact that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party were too lazy, and when they found another Party in the House taking advantage of the machinery provided for dealing with these cases, they got rather uneasy? Perhaps it was that Cumann na nGaedheal felt that Fianna Fáil were taking too much advantage of the machinery provided, and that they were, perhaps, gaining a little political advantage by doing the work the Cumann na nGaedheal representatives were supposed to do. It might bear that interpretation. There may have been laziness and neglect on the part of the people who were in the Dáil four years before we came. They found that we were doing the work our constituents wanted us to do, and we were doing it apparently with some success. I suggest the Minister was not altogether unmindful of that when he made the new order.
If a case can be re-opened in writing as Deputy Egan states, I would be glad to know how it is done. He may have some information about the matter that we on this side of the House have not. I rather thought there should be no difference in the methods adopted in regard to this matter, but there may be some way of getting information, and certainly we have not got it.
On the other hand, if we were allowed to go there, we would be satisfied that anything that was to be said on behalf of the applicant would be said and if the decision went against him we would have no cause for complaint. But if there is some private way of reopening cases, I think we ought to be told about it and every Deputy put on an equal footing.
I think Deputy Boland has touched the gravamen of the charge that underlies this motion. I gather that he is of opinion that when a Deputy makes a statement in writing of relevant facts the deciding officer comes to a decision without taking that statement into account. Is that so?
Mr. Boland
Perhaps the Deputy would permit me to explain. I was taking up the point made by Deputy Egan, who said that a case could be reopened by correspondence. My experience is that it cannot. You get a letter acknowledging your letter and the next communication you get is the decision. I do not suggest that the deciding officer does not consider the letter sent to him but there is no such thing as reopening a case. I understood from Deputy Egan that a case could be reopened if additional information came in in the meantime. I do not know how that can be done under the present arrangement, though it could be done before.
I confess I am somewhat in the dark yet.
Mr. Boland
I am afraid the Deputy has no experience of this Department. That is why he does not understand the position. I cannot explain it to him any more clearly.
I agree with Deputy Boland that it would be very serious if the deciding officer were to come to a decision without taking into account all relevant facts, but I cannot see why the facts cannot be put before him as effectively in writing as they could be put to him personally. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the deciding officer as a judge, this is a question of fact and I think it would be better not to embarrass him or to occupy his time too much by interference, in which possibly a lot of extraneous and irrelevant considerations would be brought to his attention. I happen to be in the position of examiner and I am continually pestered with applications by candidates who think—perfectly naturally—that they would be the best persons to mark and examine their papers. A conscientious official will be glad to take all relevant facts into consideration. If you want to make him an effective officer, you should not trouble him with interference that will occupy his time and which will be fruitless so far as ascertaining facts which have a bearing on the case under consideration is concerned.
The only argument I have heard used by the Minister against allowed personal representation was about twelve months ago, in this House, when he said that the Department would be placed at a decided disadvantage, and the officials would be inconvenienced. If we are to take that as the principal reason, I do not think it will bear investigation. We have a great deal of machinery set up to deal with the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. If the service available for the administration of the Act is not sufficient, and if the staff have of necessity to be increased, then it is clearly the duty of the Department to increase the staff to the capacity required to enable the fullest investigation to be made. The argument used by the Minister can bear only one interpretation—that the machinery required for the administration of the Act at present is pretty elaborate, and for the purpose of economy he must close some channels if the staff is not to be enlarged. In doing that, he has not borne in mind that in closing that avenue of representation to Deputies he has deprived the applicants of means that were necessary for the full investigation of their claims, and for the just application of the Old Age Pensions Acts. I do not think that that can be justified. I do not think that Deputies will say that applicants should be prevented from having the full facts placed before the final court of appeal. It was insinuated from other quarters in the House—I did not take it seriously—that personal representation was likely to result in unfair decisions, that Deputies approaching these officials would influence them in giving pensions where pensions could not strictly be given within the limits of the Act. That is not fair to the deciding officers. The officers I met on various occasions told me that they were very pleased that Deputies should go before them and assist them in arriving at proper decisions. Again and again, they have expressed the opinion that we have helped them considerably. They have never declared that we caused them any inconvenience. From my experience of them, they are men well fitted for their jobs, and would not be influenced by any Deputy who approached them in regard to a particular case. I think it is unfair to insinuate that personal representations would influence them in an unfair way. I repudiate that suggestion on behalf of the officers whom I met, who were capable and honest men. I also repudiate it on behalf of Deputies who have interested themselves in old age pensions cases. We did not go to these officers with a view to getting applicants anything to which they were not entitled. We simply went to them with the facts which we had received as the local representatives of these people—facts which were within our knowledge, or which were furnished from sources upon which we could rely. To prevent the people having the full facts placed before the deciding officers, is to deprive them of some of the rights of citizenship, and that is, to my mind, quite wrong, quite undemocratic, and should not have the sanction of any person in this House who thinks democratically, or who is interested in these old people. The motive behind this suggestion is very difficult to understand. Deputy Boland made a statement which may seem far-fetched, but I believe there is a good deal in it— that there was a good deal of prejudice in the minds of those who sanctioned the order preventing Deputies making representation in that Department. There were other reasons put forward in justification of this order, but they would not bear investigation. The only substantial argument advanced was that by the Minister, to which I have referred.
I had been making representations for over a year prior to that order, and the officials there never told me that they caused them any inconvenience. As a matter of fact, they expressed their satisfaction, and stated that I had given valuable assistance, and that they were quite pleased to meet me and discuss the matter there from a particular viewpoint with whatever information I could place at their disposal. Deputy Wolfe stated here on the last day that the order made was made at the instigation of the Independents. What motive they could have in having such an order applied it is difficult to understand. I think whoever the responsible party was, the Government must take the responsibility for it, and up to the present they have put forward no justifiable explanation for that course. It is an arbitrary action, an unjust and an unfair action, and should not find approval amongst Deputies who are closely in touch with the people of the country. I would like also to say that no similar order was made in connection with other Departments. If a rigid rule of that kind were applied all round we could understand at least that it was a general policy, but to single out one class of people, the aged poor, and to close the door against representations by Deputies who have knowledge of the cases, and wish to put these representations before the higher officials who can deal with the matter, is decidedly unfair. I do not think that it is at all justifiable. If there is to be fair play for all parties and all interests according to this rule Deputies should not have the right of representation to any Department. They have those rights in the case of every other Department with this one exception. Why is this Department singled out for special treatment? Let us have an answer to that question. Perhaps we would hear from the Minister now a further explanation other than that which he has already given, which is quite unsatisfactory and which convinces nobody. Perhaps he would find a further explanation that would justify his action.
Up to now none has been put forward, and I do not think that the Minister could justifiably ask Deputies to give this rule their sanction. Let us at least be as fair to the aged people as we are to the well-to-do people and to various other interests in the State. Let us see that their cases will be dealt with in a fair manner and above board, that all the courts in this State are open to the people in the usual way, that they will not be excluded from the different Departments and that these people will be entitled to the same rights as every other class in the State is receiving. That is not asking too much. Let us withdraw an insinuation which is a reflection on the officers of the Department who deal with these cases. Let us repudiate the charge made against Deputies of the House that they go before these officials with the idea of influencing them in departing from strict right and justice. Let us be fair to ourselves and repudiate that charge. Let us be fair to the officials whose characters are besmirched by this order. Let us, above all, be fair to those we represent, the plain people, and let us be sure that no mere order will prevent them having the Departments of the State open to them to the fullest degree. Let us see that no decision will be arrived at behind closed doors. Let us show those people who believe in secrecy, the Independents, who, as Deputy Wolfe stated, dictated the policy of the Government—let us, representing the plain people of the State, show Deputy Wolfe that secrecy is no part of our programme, that the rights of the people are our care, that it is our duty to stand by them and that we will stand by them.
I rise to support the motion, because I agree entirely with the object which it seeks to attain. That is to say, personal representations made by us to the Department of Local Government and Public Health on behalf of old age pensioners are really the best and most effective way of presenting the case on behalf of these pensioners. After all, old age pensioners are a different class of people to any others in the community. They have not the same opportunities or the same ability to put their case that people in other walks of life have. They are largely deprived, owing to their age of their natural senses, and they require help in many respects that people in different circumstances in life would not require. Deputy Hennessy, in putting his case that we should not be permitted to approach the Department on behalf of old age pensioners, stated that he doubts if we have a right to approach any of the Departments. Speaking for myself, I may say that I would scruple, and have scrupled, to put a question in this House on the old age pension issue, because one can get by letter from the Old Age Pension Department a reply in similar terms to that which the Minister could give us in the House if we put down a question. We are informed that the expense of putting a question on the Order Paper is £2 or upwards on the average. That is the reason that I disapprove of putting a question in that way to the Minister and having it entered on the Order Paper. There is no necessity whatever for such expense as that and, in my opinion, it should not be incurred. I have never done it myself and I think that Deputy Hennessy was very much at sea on that issue when he put his case in that way.
I know of one case down the country, for instance—and this is one reason why I support the demand that representations by us to the Department should be permitted—of a woman the registration of whose birth could not be found. Her age, however, was found on an old school register. The registration of the birth of another member of the family, however, who was the second next child born after the woman to whom I refer, was found, and it shows that this latter woman is 67 years of age. There was another child between her and the woman who is looking for the old age pension. According to the rule of the Department, there is a two years' interval allowed for each birth, and it is quite clear, therefore, that the woman applying for the old age pension was over 70 years of age. Notwithstanding the fact, however, that her school register showed that she was over 70 years of age and that there would be four years difference in age between herself and her next surviving sister, the old age pension officer, the local representative of the Local Government Department, brought up that case on appeal here.
The old age pension officer is not a local representative of the Department of Local Government.
Perhaps my description is not strictly correct, but, after all, he is an official of the Department.
No. He is on the Department of Finance side, and the Local Government Department only comes in at the point of appeal and when he and the committee have finished their discussions.
I daresay that is correct, but that does not influence the point I am making in the sense that what I am stating is the case which is so glaringly clear, that an appeal by the old age pension officer is a thing that should not happen. When cases such as that occur, I think there is very good reason why we should be permitted to visit the Old Age Pensions Department and explain cases such as that. It could be much more effectively done by a personal appeal in the Department than by letter. Some of us would much prefer to do that. We consider we would be more effective.
A few other cases have come under my notice of old people who have spent some few years in America. Their case for a pension, in my opinion, is very strong for the reason that while in America they assisted in supporting the family in this country. The Department takes it that those people, because of the fact that they had emigrated and lived a few years out of the country, are not entitled to a pension until a certain number of years has elapsed. I think that is very unfair. That also could be put right in a short time if we were allowed to make personal representations on behalf of those people in the Department. I think these are very strong reasons why the Minister should reconsider his decision in this matter and give us the opportunity that, as public representatives, I consider we are entitled to.
I must say that I never attempted to abuse the advantages that I have been given in that respect. I would be very sorry to do so, and I do not know of anybody who has done so. I think it would be very unfair on the part of anybody who would attempt it. I think that the Minister need not fear anything from Deputies who might be permitted to make these personal representations on behalf of members of the community who are not able to put their own cases. Most of them do not know exactly what to do or what party to approach in order to get assistance to put their cases through.
Let me say at the start that on any occasion on which I visited the Department of Local Government in connection with appeals I met with courtesy and consideration, and any statements that have been made by other Deputies as regards that part of it cannot find an echo so far as I am concerned. This question of the withdrawal of the facilities afforded to Deputies is a matter which can be looked at from two angles, firstly, from the lack of facilities which it now inflicts on Deputies and, from the Minister's point of view I presume, the advantage which it is to the officials of the Local Government Department and the time which it saves them in getting on with their work. However, I doubt if the advantages which accrue through the smooth running of the local government machine are offset by the time that it saves in respect of Deputies' visits to that Department. The position created by the withdrawal of these facilities may be summarised as leading up to a feeling of uneasiness in the minds of a considerable number of old people throughout the country. Whilst I agree that a case can be made to a certain extent for the withdrawal of facilities on the grounds that it would ensure the smoother working of the machine, I do not at all agree that that withdrawal is to the advantage either of the Local Government Department or of the people of the country. Old people who are faced with the position that most people claiming old age pensions are faced with look to their public representatives to do something for them when all other methods have failed and when their public representatives find themselves in a position that the only court of appeal which they can approach is closed to them, except by correspondence, it undoubtedly leads to a feeling in the minds of the people in the first place of uneasiness, and also a feeling that public representatives up here are of very little use.
Of course the Deputy is mis-stating the entire position when he says he is depending on correspondence. Does he deny that all that happens at the present moment is that Deputies are prevented from going in and interviewing personally the deciding officer? Does he deny that we put a suitable officer into the Department at the disposal of Deputies who takes a verbatim account of whatever statement, whether it be long or short, that Deputies desire to make?
That is all very well.
Does the Deputy deny that when he says he is reduced to correspondence in these matters?
No.
Does the officer who is placed at the disposal of Deputies have the file of evidence for and against the claim that a Deputy can read?
It is not intended that he should have the file. Deputies can come into the Department with a statement of facts and put it before some one in the spirit of advocacy that Deputy de Valera spoke about. Do I understand that it is no use except the Deputy can get to the file when he comes in without facts?
An advocate likes to know the other side. If he does not see the file I suggest the officer doesn't know the other side.
Now we are getting it.
There is very little difference between the statements made by the Minister and the statement made by me.
Words have some responsibility.
Suggestions that can be given to the officer who is prepared to take a verbatim report can be conveyed by correspondence to the authorities concerned. He is not in a position to argue the case. He has not before him the information that would enable him to discuss the matter with the Deputy concerned and, therefore, what difference is there between meeting him in the Department of Local Government and in writing a letter to the Minister concerned? The amount of satisfaction to be got from each is very little. The inability on the part of Deputies to approach the officer concerned and to discuss with him the full facts of the case puts them in a very awkward position. Whether it is the intention of the Government to create that impression in the minds of the people or not I do not know. I imagine that the creation of an impression that this Dáil is ineffective and that the representatives of the people are ineffective would be a matter that the Minister for Defence should consider very seriously after his action last Sunday. I move the adjournment of the debate.