I cannot see any reasonable cause for the interdict of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health on Deputies having access to the deciding officers in cases of appeal on old age pensions. I do say that there is something to be said possibly in preventing offices from being disorganised and business being delayed, but I do not think that there is any real cause why the Minister for Local Government and Public Health should put his foot down absolutely and say that no Deputy is to have access to these deciding officers in these cases. Let us endeavour to trace the history of an application for an old age pension. Let us see what happens from its initiation until there is a decision by the deciding officers in the Local Government Department. There is an application by the particular person seeking an old age pension, there is a visit from the pension officer, there are a certain number of questions asked by the pensions officer of the old person, and I am not at all quite certain in my mind that enough explanation is given by the pension officers in asking these questions of the old people. That is a matter possibly which does not concern the Minister for Local Government so intimately as it would concern the Department of Finance. In the majority of cases the old age pension is granted when it comes before the Pension Committee and the reason why it is granted is because the members of the Pension Committee have local intimate knowledge of the conditions of the old persons seeking the pensions.
The Pension Committees are composed of public men, whether they are elected public men or nominated public men, and they are public men who are intimately acquainted with the lives and conditions of the people seeking these old age pensions. I do know what information some of these men on the Committee can give to their colleagues on these bodies. I am a member of a Pension Committee in Clare and I attend as often as I can. I do know in helping us in Mid-Clare to come to a decision in a case in West Clare, the County Councillor in West Clare would give us his intimate knowledge of the conditions of the applicant in that case. The Committee would decide the case on that information. But the pension officer goes on some information that he has tabulated, something which he has filled in on his form and he makes an appeal to the Local Government Department. Here is where we come against the crux, that a Deputy is not allowed to go to the Department and to amplify and explain what is the position as regards those people.
I wonder does the Minister think that there is not more in five minutes' conversation with a person on any matter in the way of explaining any difficulty than could be put in any number of sheets of writing. It is not so much what the Deputy says when he comes to the deciding officer, not so much at all what the Deputy says offhand. It is because of the points that are troubling the deciding officer. Let me, in passing, pay a tribute to the deciding officers. I want to say that as far as I know wherever there was a reasonable case made by the Deputies up to now, when I had recourse to these deciding officers, I always found that they were prepared to do what was just for the people receiving the pensions. But the particular points that are troubling the deciding officers, the very points that they want to have cleared up, are not put to anybody who can clear them up. If these points were known to those people who were sponsoring those claims for a pension, the deciding officers might very easily be put easy in their minds and the matter investigated.
I do not say that I should go down to the Custom House and go in and say that so-and-so from my County should get a pension without these matters being investigated by the Local Government Department afterwards, if the deciding officer considers they are worthy of investigation. But I do say that they should be in a position to endeavour to set at ease all doubts that they may have in their minds. These matters should be investigated by the Senior Inspectors of the Local Government Department. Here is where the great injustice is done when a case is decided against an applicant: The applicant applies again in six months' time and in nine out of ten cases the very same case goes up from the pension officer as went up six months previously. The old age pension claimant is not in a position to put his case as clearly as the pensions officer who sends up the appeal is able to make the case against it. The pensions officer sends up his old file and that file goes to the Local Government Department again. In nine out of ten cases it is decided on the first case made by the pensions officer, with out any advertence to the fact that the person making the application has no means of knowing definitely why the appeal for a pension has been turned down. The person is told that it is turned down on the grounds of means or on the grounds of age or of not satisfying statutory conditions. There are, however, particular points in all these things which could be met. There are things which could be cleared up. There are many things that could be investigated. There are points which are obscure in affidavits which could be made clear and these things could be made clear by a Deputy having recourse to the deciding officer.
I want to give one case to illustrate what I have in mind. It was a most glaring instance of what I mean and has remained in my mind. I was interested in the case of the wife of a neighbour of mine who was looking for a blind pension. Her husband was interrogated by the pensions officer, who asked him what his weekly wages were and he said so much. Whatever income he said he had would accrue to him if he had constant work, but the man had not constant work. As a matter of fact, he had only about six or eight weeks' work in the year. I said to the man that there would be no difficulty in his wife getting the pension—that there was no case against her getting it, as she was totally blind. What did I find? In about two months' time that man came to me and said the application had been turned down by the Local Government Department. I could not believe it. I got a further claim made, as, of course, once a case has been decided they have to make a further application. An appeal was made against the second application on the pensions officer's file without further investigation. I had an opportunity of going to the deciding officer and putting the case to him showing him where the fallacy lay and the woman got the pension. That is only one instance. I am sure there are many other instances which could be quoted. For a Deputy to say, "I know such a person is 70 years of age," or "I know such a person has not the means," possibly would not make the case for the applicant. There are certain things operating in the mind of the deciding officer, certain doubts operating in his mind, genuinely operating and troubling the mind of the deciding officer, who is endeavouring to be fair, and if a Deputy had five minutes' conversation with the deciding officer, and the pensions officer put his queries and points, the Deputy could meet these queries and points. The Department need not take the Deputy's word. The Department could investigate the matter on the basis of the information given by the Deputy, and then there would be an opportunity of giving these people justice. I think there is no case for the interdict of the Minister, and I hope he will see his way to allow Deputies to have an opportunity of meeting the difficulties of the deciding officer in reaching a fair decision on appeals from pensions officers.