It is rather a coincidence that since a new Parliamentary Secretary was appointed in connection with old age pensions we find that there is an excessive means test being adopted in connection with old age pensions applications. I will give the Minister three or four cases in which pensions have been refused on the grounds that the applicants did not comply with the statutory regulations as to means. One man is in receipt of 10/- a week pension. His wife is 74 years of age. On compassionate grounds the county manager, rather than see that man in receipt of home assistance, decided to give him employment, but he found that owing to his bad sight he was unable to continue in that employment on public boards. His wife then made a claim for old age pension, but the investigation officer decided that, on account of his 10/- a week pension and the few months' work from the public board, she was not entitled to it. Their income for that particular year was something like £40, but for the previous year they had only £26 and 5/- home help. Another man who was in receipt of 7/6 disablement benefit and 7/6 home assistance, was allowed only a small pension. I could quote numerous cases in the last 12 months where, in the case of fresh applications, appeals were made to the pensions committee, and the pension officer's decision has been upheld in the Department of Local Government. At the present time Deputies are debarred from interviewing the appeals officer. I am not making any complaints about that; the appeals officer always acted fairly whether a Deputy made representations or not. What I am suggesting is that a circular must have been sent to the investigation officers, because in my 22 years' experience I have never previously known investigation officers to put as high a valuation as they are putting at the present day on the perquisites of which applicants are in receipt. We have public bodies passing resolutions appealing to the Government to abolish this means test. At present, people with property can transfer it to their relatives, and after two years they are entitled to draw a pension, but the poor person who receives a small amount from national health or home assistance is immediately debarred. That is reckoned as income. It was never so reckoned prior to last year when the new Parliamentary Secretary was appointed. Since his advent this new means test has been adopted to prevent people from receiving the maximum amount which the Act allows.
Was it the policy of the Revenue Department to send out special instructions last year to increase the valuation of labourers' cottages and plots? These cottages and plots are, in some cases, let at a rent of 1/- a week. The valuation put on them by the investigation officer is 2/6 a week. When the local pensions committees make recommendations in these cases they find that they are of very little avail, because in nine cases out of ten the decision of the investigation officer is upheld by the Department of Local Government. Public bodies throughout the country have unanimously passed resolutions asking the Government, in view of the hardships which are being endured by the poor people in my area and other areas, to abolish this means test. Surely, it is not fair that the investigation officer should reckon as means the 5/-, 6/-, or 7/- a week which some of these people receive in the form of home assistance. I understood that under the Act neither national health insurance nor home assistance was to be reckoned as means, and yet it is calculated as income in this figure of £39 a year. In my own constituency, and I am sure in many other constituencies, there are many complaints in regard to the manner in which claims for old age pensions are being treated. The means test is being applied far too rigidly to prevent deserving people from getting the miserable pension of 10/- a week.
