Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Oct 1928

Vol. 26 No. 4

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - PROVISION FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS.

I move:—

That this House is of opinion, having regard to the inadequacy of the provision at present made for widows and for orphans bereft of their breadwinners, and to the desirability of removing all stigma of pauperism in such cases, that the establishment of a scheme of insurance to provide pensions and allowances for widows and orphans would be desirable, and accordingly requests the Executive Council to prepare and present to the House a report upon such schemes of insurance and estimates of the cost.

I know of no subject with which the time of the Dáil could be better occupied. This subject is one which has been considered and dealt with in many countries, and I think it would be desirable that the House should have an opportunity of hearing some of the history of schemes of this kind in many other countries where they have been the subject of consideration and where legislation in their favour has been enacted for a number of years. As long ago as 1919 forty of the United States had schemes of this kind passed into law. The State of Missouri led the way in that work by establishing a committee to control the boarding out of children with their own mothers, and this is true of many other countries also. During the last four or five years we have had, very often, comparisons made between Denmark and this country. Denmark is a small country, largely agricultural, and has been very often compared with Ireland in the matter of necessity for legislation. Denmark has had a scheme of this kind since 1914, showing that a small country can be very often a pioneer in schemes of great national importance. In Denmark a woman with four children, even having property to the value of £350, comes within the terms of the State scheme that has been prepared for dealing with such cases. They have aimed in that country at preventing destitution rather than tackling destitution when it has occurred, as is shown by the provision that people with a certain amount of property are entitled to benefit under this scheme.

In that country, the cost of the scheme is shared between the State and the local authority equally. Similar schemes have been prepared and carried into law in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These countries have the great benefit of such schemes for many years. The same thing applies to many other countries such as British Columbia, New Zealand and Hungary. In one country, Western Australia, no direct legislation has been enacted for this purpose but the matter is provided for in another fashion. This extract from a report by the officers in charge of the Children's Department will show that: "It is considered by the officers of the State Children's Department that the system that they have provided as an alternative has a beneficial effect on social conditions in Western Australia and, as a consequence, there are few delinquent children in industrial schools." In England, and the northern portion of this country, a similar scheme was enacted in 1926 and since that time provision has been made for the payment of ten shillings per week for the widow, five shillings for the eldest child, and three shillings for each younger child. For some years a number of people in this city, and in other portions of the country, have been seeking to attract attention to the need for a scheme of this kind and, though they have not got very far in the matter of attracting general support, with a view to having the issue raised in an assembly like this, up to the present, they have had practical sympathy with their proposals demonstrated in various directions all over the country. As long ago as 1919 the following resolution was passed by several public bodies in this country:

"That the time has arrived when the burden imposed by the poor law system should be lightened by the establishment of adequate State pensions for widows and orphans and calls for immediate action to this effect."

The provincial press, at that time, favourably commented on the proposals and a meeting in Limerick city presided over by the Mayor endorsed the proposal as well as a similar meeting in Cork. Some years ago the matter was discussed at the international Labour conference at Berne and the Irish Labour representatives were prominent in putting forward demands in this direction at that assembly.

The idea of this motion is to bring up this matter for consideration by the responsible national authority. There are very many reasons that could be advanced why this matter was not attended to up to the present, but there is, in my opinion, a very clear case for asking the Executive Council to go into this matter very fully and examine the whole question with a view to seeing what suitable schemes could be adopted for the benefit of the most deserving section of the people of this country. When the motion was originally tabled the press suggested that it was a matter on which the party which I belong to should take the initiative, that it was our duty to prepare a scheme of this kind and to submit it to the House.

Unfortunately, we have not the opportunity of getting the details and the information that would be necessary for submitting a scheme and, as is well known, no private member of this House has any right to submit a Bill involving financial considerations. The whole matter would be ruled out on the grounds that no provision was made for power of that kind being exercised by private Deputies. This, then, is the alternative, and it suggests that the whole question should be examined with a view to seeing what could be done in that direction.

We have some information as to how many people the scheme would affect. In August, 1919, we had 3,233 widows with two or more children getting outdoor relief. The poor law administration in 1916 cost £1,400,000, and widows and orphans were responsible for a big proportion of that expenditure. We had at that time 4,000 children in Irish work houses and 2,500 boarded out; we had 1,000 in poor law schools. Industrial schools cost £176,000 and reformatories £19,000. The figures are altered somewhat, and recently we had information conveyed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, in answer to a question by Deputy Byrne. That question was put last week, and the Minister said that from the returns supplied by the local authorities concerned the answer to the first part of the question was 6,973, and the total amount paid during the year ended 31st March, 1928, was £118,600. I mention these figures in order to show that there are very large numbers in the country who would be affected by this scheme. It is most desirable that everything possible should be done by the national authority to remove the taint of pauperism and give dignity and decency to unfortunate people bereft of their breadwinners as a result of the visitation of death to the home.

Some little provision has been made under the Workmen's Compensation Act for widows and orphans whose breadwinners have been taken away, but that Act affects only a small number of people. The number of breadwinners killed in the course of their duties is small in comparison with the number who die in their homes and who leave large numbers of women and children dependents quartered on the local funds. I speak with some knowledge on this subject because, as a member of a local authority, I know of no more unhappy position than that of the unfortunate women and children who have to seek assistance from a local authority. I know of no more degrading or demoralising system, and I would like very much if some alternative could be found. I desire to direct attention to the large number of people who have put up with poverty in its worst form rather than look for outdoor relief or charity in other forms. We have made provision for dealing with the welfare of the people in many respects; we have considered many matters that will tend to improve the position of the people in one direction or another. Now the time has come when the biggest blot that we have upon our social system ought to be removed.

I have mentioned certain figures in order to show that this proposition is not as alarming as some people would imagine. I realise that the financial aspect of the question, the provision of funds, will present some difficulty, but I submit that when the present charges in the matter of home assistance, the maintenance of large numbers in county homes, maintenance in industrial schools, and the amount paid out by charitable organisations are considered, you will have a very big set-off against any charges that this proposed scheme will entail. You will have in addition a position created in which you will have lifted a great number of respectable people out of the rut of pauperism, and you will have given them a dignified status that another House many years ago conferred on our old age pensioners.

I have had experience for some years of the hopelessness of doing anything useful for children who are reared in institutions like county homes. Occasionally people go out of such institutions and do well, but generally the environment in institutions like that is calculated, in my opinion, to injure the future of a child. The children are kept in an atmosphere that is not at all good for them, and very often they become the failures that we see in different walks of life in this country. I agree that often industrial schools do very good work, but we have an alarming number of failures amongst the children turned out by industrial schools. I suggest that this whole scheme would show its good effects in every phase of the life of this country if it were tackled by responsible authorities.

As long ago as 1919-20 very prominent members of this House gave their support to a similar demand. The democratic programme of the First Dáil has special application to this whole question. The principle article of that programme has been often quoted in this House in support of arguments advanced for the benefit of the poor. It has particular application to this motion, because it says that it shall be the duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical and mental and spiritual well being of the children. This is really a matter affecting the children, because it is the future generation of this country that will have to be looked to if the progress and development that are hoped for, and that are indicated along the lines of our recent legislation, are going to materialise. At the 1918 General Election forty-five candidates holding different political views accorded their support to the demand, and a large number of public bodies also supported the case.

We have recently had an endorsement of this proposal from the Poor Law Commission. The Poor Law Commission went into the whole question of poor law reform in this country and they said in their report that the information that was made available to them in connection with the people who were concerned caused them to stand definitely for it and that they were entirely in favour of a scheme of this kind. I feel that there is an unanswerable case for this motion and that a preliminary to the establishment of a scheme of this kind is to get an examination into the costs and that the fit and proper authority to make that examination with the information at its disposal is the Executive Council of the Saorstát. The sympathy for the proposal has come from various quarters and that sympathy has been shown time and again. It can be demonstrated properly by a full discussion of this motion and by the desire to hammer out a scheme as a result of this motion.

We have provided for the improvement of livestock in this country. We have provided for the development of industrial power in the country. We have provided for better educational facilities but we have forgotten entirely up to the present the large number of people who are victims of the unhappy poor law system that obtains in the country at the moment. Nothing that we can do in any direction will be more deserving than the work that this motion deals with. It is laying the foundations of a population that will be self-respecting, dignified and decent, in so far as this State can make them so—providing for the health of the people as well as their welfare generally. We have, at the present time, the unhappy position that as a result of poverty in the homes, as a result of the natural reluctance of the people to avail themselves of the charity that the local public bodies very often grudgingly give them, we have a large number of people whose health and well-being suffer considerably.

I would submit that this country would be capable of bearing the cost of the scheme. I submit that the set off that will be provided by a reduction in what is paid in other directions will largely make up the expense of a scheme of this kind. I hope that the Dáil will agree to the principle that the time has arrived when the five or six thousand people who are now in receipt of home assistance can be taken out of that position and be given the status that the old age pensioners have enjoyed for a number of years. I do not want to discuss the merits of a particular scheme. In most countries, the central authority is the tax-bearing authority in a scheme of this kind. In England and in the North of Ireland, the scheme provided for under the Act of 1926 has been a contributory one.

While I am not anxious to discuss the merits or demerits of a particular scheme, I am anxious that this matter should be dealt with practically, and that we should have consideration from the responsible authority for some scheme tending to bring about the tremendous improvement that can be brought about as a result of it. After all, we are concerned altogether with the people of this country, and nothing that we can do towards enacting laws for the regulation of affairs in this country will go as far as the laws that will be calculated to bring a certain measure of comfort into the homes of the people. A measure of this kind will bring a certain measure of self-reliance and a certain amount of contentment as a result of the fact that the people are regarded as the care of the State, and that the State is concerning itself with improving the lot of each person who is in the position of being dependent on some other avenue— some undesirable avenue—at the present moment for her maintenance. The Dáil, in my opinion, can do no bigger work, and no more important work than giving their careful consideration to this matter. If the result of it will be that this matter becomes one of practical politics, then it will have advanced tremendously, and the results that will follow from it will be demonstrated very clearly in a short time.

It is very fortunate, I think, that we have here now representatives of all the parties who were concerned in the democratic programme of the first Dáil. This matter will have a particular interest for them all. Certain expressions of opinion that prominent members of this House gave voice to a few years ago will, I think, ensure that this motion will be very fully considered by this House. I submit the case for this motion, conscious of the fact that it is one of tremendous importance, if not of tremendous urgency. A huge number of people in the State are looking forward to this matter with considerable interest. I am satisfied that the Dáil can do no better work than consider the matter carefully. I feel sure that if this motion leads to the establishment of a scheme of this kind it will be a monument to the work of the Dáil and will live long after this Dáil and the memory of it have passed away.

took the Chair.

I desire to second the motion moved by Deputy Murphy on behalf of the Labour Party. At the same time I wish to reserve the right to speak on the motion at a later stage.

On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, I have to express the hope that this motion will meet with the general acceptance of the House. It seems impossible to deny that the provision made at the present time for widows and orphans is inadequate. I am sure that no one who concedes that will question that it is the duty of the State to redress that inadequacy, and in doing so not to do violence to the self-respect and the feelings of those whose necessity or poverty compels them to have recourse to public relief. We support this motion because it merely asks, in the first place, to have an investigation made into one of the principal recommendations of the Commission on the relief of the destitute and sick poor. That Commission was set up under the aegis of this House by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in March, 1925. In their report on this matter, the Commission said:—

"We have received a considerable amount of evidence in favour of removing destitute widows and children from the purview of the poor law. It is urged that the present system of poor relief for widows, even when administered sympathetically, is altogether inadequate, that the assistance allowed varies considerably, and that, except in Dublin, there does not seem to be a regular scale, that it is hurtful to the self-respect of these women who have been reduced to destitution through the deaths of their husbands to be compelled to parade their poverty every week at the office of the home assistance officer."

Further on, on page 126, the report again refers to this matter as follows:—

"We are satisfied that the boards of health, whilst acting with more liberality than their predecessors, still fall short of discharging their full obligations in regard to persons eligible for relief who cannot be sent to institutions, and this applies particularly to the cases of widows with children and able-bodied men with dependent families."

"We are in favour," the Commission goes on to say, "of the scheme of mothers' pensions payable by the State." One thing that is noteworthy in connection with this motion is that the principle of it was accepted, I think, so far back as 1847, when the Poor Law Relief Act of that year imposed on guardians of the poor the duty of relieving destitute widows with two or more legitimate children. The operation of the principle was extended further by the Act of 1923, which laid it down that no person eligible for relief shall be relieved in any institution provided and maintained under the scheme unless he can be relieved effectively in such institution at less cost than in any other lawful way. It is obvious, therefore, that the principle of the motion has been accepted by the Government, and that the only question that remains for us to consider is whether the relief afforded in the Act of 1923 has been adequate and whether it is given in the best way. As to the adequacy of the relief, I do not think it is possible for us to reject the specific findings of the Commission to which I have referred. On page 56 of the report the Commission says:—

"We are satisfied from the statistics placed before us, and from the evidence that boards of health, while perhaps acting with more liberality than their predecessors, still fall short of discharging their full obligations in regard to persons eligible for relief who cannot be sent to institutions and this applies particularly to the cases of widows with children and able bodied males with dependent families."

In paragraph 174 the Commission gives figures abstracted from the home assistance and outdoor relief registers of the weekly sums awarded by the different boards of health and boards of guardians to widows. These figures deal with widows in varying circumstances, some of them without children, the slight majority of them with children varying up to the number of five, and the amounts allowed varied from 2/6 in very few cases up to between 5/- and 10/- in the majority, with above 10/- in a small number. As Deputy Murphy has informed the House, the Commission shows that something like 6,924 such widows were relieved in one week in 1926, and that the number of cases of home assistance in that year was 20,153. With regard to the amount of relief afforded to all the cases in general, the Commission states—and I would like this expression of opinion to be considered in relation to the question of adequacy—"An analysis of the amount allowed shows that the assistance granted can only be looked on"— and these are very significant words—"as a supplement to other means, or to what can be got by begging and from charitable sources." The implication clearly is this, that the State, so far, has not sufficiently recognised its duty to these widows. If they are entitled to such relief, I submit that they are entitled to such relief as will save them from the humiliation of having to beg their bread, and the mere fact that, in the opinion of this Commission, the allowance made to them is insufficient and has to be eked out in that manner is a proof that hitherto the provision made for cases of this kind has not been commensurate with their necessities.

The Commission, however, I think, only touched the fringe of the problem. I should not like the House to be misled by the figures which were given by the Minister in reply to Deputy Byrne. I should not like the House to believe that in the Saorstát at the present moment there are only something like 7,000 widows requiring assistance. I think the problem is a very much wider one than that. It is true that in dealing with the matter the Commission considered conditions prevailing in 1925 and compared them with the conditions which prevailed in 1913. The only thing that emerges from that comparison is not a measure and not an estimate of the extent to which poverty does prevail here, but is a conclusion that at least poverty was as prevalent in 1925, if not more so, as it was in 1913. The question we have to deal with three years later is, I submit, upon the basis that poverty is as general in 1928 as it was in 1913, and in saying that I do not want to be taken as speaking in any partisan way. This is a motion to which, as Deputy Murphy has already pointed out, most of us on both sides of the House and on the Labour Benches are already committed by public declarations, which we made over eight years ago—public declarations which I hope we all regard as binding and which we will take at least the first step to honour.

One of the difficulties which Deputies on this side had in considering this question was to form some adequate idea of the problem. When they made preliminary investigations they found it impossible to obtain statistics. Strange to say, they could not even obtain statistics as to the exact number of widows and orphans in An Saorstát. We know that these figures happen to be at the present moment in one of the Government offices, but I believe, for the reason that they have not yet been officially published, they have not been made available, even to serious investigators. As I said, in dealing with the problem, one of the difficulties was to get reliable statistics. So far as I know, no independent investigator has carried out in Ireland investigations into the existence of poverty in the same way as Booth, Roantree or Boley carried out investigations in England, but an examination of the results of the researches made by those investigators leads one to the conclusion that almost twenty per cent. of the population of An Saorstát is living either on the poverty line or below it, because, as I said, we have, first of all, the opinion of the Commission that poverty and destitution were as prevalent here in 1925 as they were in 1913. We have had the opinion of the investigators to whom I have referred that in England, in the large towns at any rate, at least 16 per cent. of the population were living in conditions of primary poverty, and I think that as 1913 was a year of industrial prosperity in England, we will be entitled to say that poverty was more generally prevalent in Ireland in 1913 than it was in England in 1913 and that, therefore, the figure of 16 per cent. which was applied to industrial conditions in England might be extended, and extended by at least 20 per cent., if we are going to apply that figure to the Free State. As I said, we were unable to obtain official statistics as to the number of widows in An Saorstát, but some of us at any rate—and we are not like Sam Weller—have come to the conclusion that 135,000 might be a fair figure at which to put the number of widows.

If we take twenty per cent. of that number we have a fair idea of the number of people, naturally to a varying extent, who require to be dealt with under a scheme of this kind In the same way, if you examine that figure, you will find that, though the boards of public assistance dealt with approximately 7,000 widows, and afforded very inadequate relief to 7,000 widows, there are still left outside the scope of their activities something like 26,000 persons. Therefore the present poor law only touches the fringe of the problem, and therefore, because of the fact that there are 33,000 people living on the poverty line, or below the poverty line, living in such a condition that they are unable to provide themselves with the means to maintain themselves physically fit, living in such a condition that they are obviously unable to bring up their families in decency, the case which has been made for an inquiry into the question and a report is, I submit, unanswerable.

It cannot be said that our failure to deal with it by means of local relief has been in any way compensated for by an increased national expenditure upon social assistance. The amount expended by the Dáil in the year 1924-5 upon social services was £4,129,513. The amount estimated for those same services in the year 1928-9 is only £3,431,000. That is not very creditable. I do not think it is justifiable, and it is not a thing that we can possibly contemplate with equanimity. It is a position that is almost unique. Austria, France, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden— practically every important country in Europe—have increased their national expenditure upon social services within the past three or four years. I am sure that nobody in this House will advocate that we should have less care for our citizens than those States have. No one will state that our citizens are less deserving. The standard of living in this State must equal—and it should be our pride and our first duty, if we can, to make it surpass—the standard of living reached by the commonalty in other States. For reasons of the highest policy social conditions here should not be permitted to compare unfavourably with social conditions in the North of Ireland, and for that reason, as already a scheme for widows' and mothers' pensions has been introduced into Northern Ireland, I hope this House will endorse the terms of this motion, and that the Government will concede the inquiry asked for.

It would be easy for me to say that I was prepared to accept this motion but that, according to the best of the information that I had, it would not prove on examination feasible at the present time to adopt a scheme of the kind suggested. I do not propose, however, to do that, because I do not think that the House should begin by practically voting in favour of a scheme of insurance, and that it should afterwards consider whether or not such a scheme was practicable. As presumably, from the speeches we have heard, a large number of Deputies wish to have the matter investigated and to have it thoroughly discussed, I think it would be a good thing for the Executive Council to examine the matter, to get out such figures as could be got out, to prepare the best estimates that could be prepared of the cost of applying to the Saorstát the scheme which is in operation in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, and to examine what modifications, if any, would be necessary to make that scheme properly applicable here, having regard to the fact, for instance, that the proportion of people in health insurance is less here than in the north. I think it would be, as I say, quite proper that the Executive Council should conduct that examination and should lay the results of it before the House so that a motion or a Bill dealing with this matter could be more satisfactorily discussed by the House.

It is true that a Private Member's Bill cannot go beyond the Second Stage unless it is adopted by the Government, but it would be possible for a Private Member's Bill on this question, involving expenditure, to be introduced and to have its principle accepted by the House. Consequently, if the information the Government could obtain were before the House one of the most satisfactory ways perhaps of discussing this would be for some private Deputy to prepare a Bill embodying a definite scheme, and to allow the House to vote on that definite scheme one way or another. As I say I would have no objection to having the matter examined by the appropriate civil servants, and such information as was available obtained and set out in proper form, having estimates prepared and explained and the whole matter laid before the House in a White Paper. But I would have to oppose, before the House had this information and before it could give the sort of examination to this scheme that it requires, adopting a motion which goes very close at any rate to accepting the idea of such a scheme. Deputy MacEntee, I think, made a suggestion that there would be something like 26,000 widows who would require the type of assistance that this scheme contemplates. I think that figure is somewhat too high.

Since this motion was put down a little consideration was given to the matter in my Department and in other departments. A very rough figure was suggested to me of the annual cost of adopting the British scheme for widows' and children's pensions in the Saorstát. The figure given indicated that the amount annually required would be about £750,000. I have not had time to examine it, but I am inclined to think that even this sum of £750,000 is somewhat higher than the amount would actually be. If the numbers were to be as great as Deputy MacEntee suggests I think the amount would be about £1,000,000 per annum; but I do not think it would be as costly as Deputy MacEntee anticipates.

I said that 26,000 would be affected in varying degrees. Some would receive the maximum pension and others the minimum. The average pension, I think, would not work out at more than 7/6 per person.

Would the Minister state whether his figure of £750,000 includes the cost of administration?

No; the cost of benefit only and that is a very rough figure. From the cursory examination that I have been able to give it, I think that perhaps £650,000 would be nearer to it. I do not think that even those who prepared the figures, with the amount of time that was available, would give it as more than a very rough approximation. I only want to put it in that way to the House for the purpose of indicating that before the House commits itself to the adoption of this system of insurance, even to the extent that it would by passing Deputy O Murchadha's motion, we ought to have some figures placed before the House which Deputies could use as the basis for further examination on their own part, and which Deputies could proceed to criticise and test in such ways as might be available to them. Deputies who could not, perhaps, prepare an estimate and who would not have the data for making and setting down a figure themselves would be able to find some ways of checking roughly any estimate that might be prepared, and the House therefore could discuss the scheme in a much more precise and real way.

I take the very rough figure that I have got of £750,000. As regards doubling National Health stamps, in the year 1927 the 7d. contributed in National Health stamps by employers and employees jointly amounted to about £503,000. Doubling the stamps, therefore, would only give an additional £503,000, and that, on the estimate I have, would not be nearly sufficient to provide benefit for widows and children on the British scale, let alone do anything towards providing old age pensions at 65. I do not think that for the purpose of enabling those widows' and children's benefit to be paid it would be a practicable thing to double the present National Health contributions. I think that would be felt to be very severe, and in consequence I cannot see how we could avoid a very big sum being required from the Exchequer. It seems to me that it is quite likely that, say, half a million pounds per annum would be required from the Exchequer in order to enable us to give benefits to widows and children in the Saorstát on the scale at present being paid in Great Britain. I think that if we bound the scheme up with the National Health Insurance system that it would leave out great numbers of widows and orphans in this country whose claim to assistance would be as great as that of those enveloped in the National Health system. Consequently, it is quite probable that in order to make the scheme for widows and children acceptable here, it would have to be extended in some way and made to bring in classes that are not brought in in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

The giving of additional social services is, of course, a thing that anybody can say is desirable. It really all comes to the consequences. When a country is in a particular economic state necessitating the imposition of the taxation required to provide the benefits. I think that it is quite possible to so postpone any sort of economic growth by giving new social services before the country is able to support them as to do to the whole bulk of the population more harm than good. If a substantial new burden is imposed for social services it will help people who deserve help, but it will also inevitably, in economic conditions like the present, injure people who cannot afford any new burden. It is likely to cause some increase in the existing measure of unemployment, and generally it is a thing that needs to be looked at from every possible angle before any decision is taken. Some Deputy said that the system of affording relief by way of home assistance was degrading and demoralising. I do not see why it need necessarily be a degrading and a demoralising system.

You have no experience of how it is paid.

I do not see why, among other things, we should not consider whether the method of paying relief in a particular class of cases should not be reconsidered and altered. The question of giving relief to widows and children is on a somewhat different footing. From the mere administrative point of view, it is on a different footing from other classes of home assistance, for it is possible to ascertain that the need will exist for a very considerable period, and it should not be too hard to devise a method of dealing with that problem that would make it very much less objectionable than it is said to be at present. At any rate, all that should be looked into. Deputies will remember that whatever may be the case with regard to the collection of the estimated revenue for the present year there are elements in this year's revenue which will not be available next year, and consequently before we commit ourselves to any extent to a scheme that conceivably might cost the Exchequer £500,000 a year—and I would say that very likely it would cost £400,000 a year—we should first try to get some figures. When we have got such figures as can be obtained—a good deal of information can be obtained—and when the House has seen these figures, then it will know better than it can now know whether it should nail its flag to this particular mast at present, or whether instead of deciding that the system of pensions was the way to deal with it, it should not seek some other method of mending the present position.

There is, undoubtedly, this to be said in favour of home assistance in a country which is poor, that there can be some measure of discrimination, and if one could only arrange to have that discrimination sympathetically exercised and remove objectionable features which are not necessary in the case of the sort of assistance which must be permanent, at any rate which must continue for a period of years, we might be able to do a great deal of good along those lines, and we might continue to have the benefits. In the matter of actual expenditure we cannot afford to ignore what is done in other countries, and we must try, as far as our resources permit, to march along with other countries. I am not in favour of simply being satisfied to say that we cannot afford these things, or to say that another country is richer and there is no use in our considering their methods. I think we must look at what other people are doing, and we must try, as far as possible, either to do for our people what they are doing, or, if we cannot do that quite, to see whether we can bring improvements about which are within our means.

I think, on the other hand, it is not a sufficient argument to say that this, that or the other country has adopted a particular scheme and we should adopt it, as the advantages to the whole community in certain cases might lie in postponing heavier expenditure. I have said several times to the House I thought that in our present circumstances, having regard to everything I have said about the need for keeping march with other countries in the matter of social services, the first consideration in the circumstances existing here was to find some means of increasing production, some means of extending industry. If we could do that, we would produce good results in other spheres equal to the good results we could get by an immediate increase in social services, and we would also provide the community with the means of giving increased social services later on. I think, therefore, the motion that has been put to us by Deputy O Murchadha ought not to be accepted by the Dáil, at any rate in the form in which it is at present.

I think the first thing I ought to do is to congratulate the Minister for Finance in preserving carefully the secret of the attitude of the Executive Council on this particular matter. He has dealt with the question so far, I consider, on fictitious figures. He says the Dáil should not consider this matter unless it had been examined from the financial point of view by the Executive Council, or by civil servants in some of his departments. I do not think that should be the answer of the Minister for Finance to this. The motion has been on the Order Paper for practically twelve months, and I think and Executive Council composed of men like the Minister for Finance and the President, who were members of the First Dáil Eireann who made a proclamation in January, 1919, that their first duty was to look after the widows and orphans of this country, should be able in this year 1928 to say to the House that they had made up their minds as to what their policy is as regards the starving women and children of the country. It is all very well to talk of the burden of taxation. It is all very well for the Minister for Finance to talk about this putting a substantial new burden on the taxpayers.

I submit that the people who would have to pay this substantial new burden, as the Minister might call it, are in a better position to bear it than these unfortunate people who have had to bear the burden of demoralisation, degradation and hunger for a number of years in this country. How often do we see a position in which the breadwinner is snatched from his family? Before he is taken by Almighty God he is in a comparatively good position and is earning sufficient money to keep his wife and children in comfort. He is snatched away suddenly, and two or three weeks afterwards we see his wife outside the relieving officer's door with a young baby in her arms looking for relief. The Minister says that he does not see any degradation or demoralisation so far as outdoor relief is concerned, but he knows very little about it, or about the conditions in many parts of Ireland, where you see queues of women and children every Saturday waiting at the doors of the relieving officers' houses for relief. I do not think that it is too much to ask that the Executive Council should make up their minds quickly in regard to this matter and to say that this kind of thing should cease. In moving this motion Deputy Murphy has, I think, shown that a system of pensions for widows and orphans has been adopted by practically every civilised country. In Northern Ireland, at our very door, such a system prevails, and it is very poor compensation for some widows and orphans in the Free State to know that though they have a kind of freedom they are in an infinitely worse position than people who are still under English control.

It is a disgrace to any government which claims to rule this part of Ireland. It should be one of the first duties of the present Government to devote their attention to trying to remedy this very sad state of affairs. The Minister states that he considers, from an examination made by his Department along with the Local Government Department, that this scheme, if adopted, would cost three quarters of a million. He estimated that if the National Health Insurance contributions were doubled it would mean an increased revenue from that source of £503,000, and he states that that is not nearly enough. I suggest that if he were to add the amount of outdoor relief paid to widows and orphans to that amount he would not be very far short of what is required to put this scheme into operation. If he did that he would remove the stigma of pauperism which prevails. As I said, I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister for Finance in saying that the Executive Council have not considered this problem. To be candid, it is very hard to believe that in regard to a motion which has been on the Order Paper long before last Christmas the Executive Council have not made up their minds. If that is so I do not hesitate to say that their minds have become callous and that they are paying very little attention to the downtrodden poor of this country.

I gathered from what the Minister for Finance stated that he is not unsympathetic to widows and orphans, and I do not think that any Deputy can claim to have a monopoly of that sympathy. I understood from the Minister that it was his view that the matter should be postponed for a short time until he had the necessary figures available. Could the Minister say how long it would take to get these figures?

In order to have figures that would be worth anything it would certainly take a couple or three months—longer perhaps, but certainly two or three months.

I must say that, so far as the statement and speech made by the Minister for Finance in regard to this motion are concerned, I was somewhat surprised at the attitude he has adopted here. He seemed to imply by his remarks that if this motion were passed pensions for widows and orphans would automatically become an accomplished fact in the Saorstát. I would point out, however, that so far as the motion is concerned, it only requests the Executive Council to prepare and present to the House a report in regard to such a scheme of insurance and the estimate of the cost. The Minister stated that he had no objection to having the matter inquired into by civil servants and to lay their report before the House in the form of a White Paper. If that is so, I am surprised that he should put forward any opposition to this motion. He has suggested that it might be desirable or advisable if a private member introduced a Bill to give effect to such legislation in regard to widows' and orphans' pensions, but at the same time, he pointed out that a Bill, being a Private Member's Bill, could not get beyond Second Stage. Surely the Minister is not trying to throw the onus and responsibility on to Deputies who have not got the same access to statistics and to figures and information which government departments have.

The Minister for Finance further stated that it might be all right to say that ultimately we will adopt the scheme, but he suggested that we had better postpone it. It seems to me that the Minister is endeavouring to deal with this situation in the same way that the Minister for Lands and Fisheries is dealing with the Gaeltacht Commission, namely, "dilly-dally; leave it over; something will crop up, but we are not going to tackle it at present." The Minister further states that so far as this country is concerned the question would have to arise whether a contributory or non-contributory scheme should be adopted. I quite agree in regard to that. I realise that if you are going to have a contributory scheme, based on the National Health Insurance Act, there are a large number of widows of small farmers and fishermen who would not come under this scheme and who should be entitled to come under it, because the Gaeltacht is one of the worst parts of the country as regards poverty amongst widows and orphans. As the mover of the motion pointed out, the present poor law system is inadequate to deal with this situation and, as Deputy MacEntee mentioned, it only touches the fringe of the problem.

As stated at a meeting in Dublin last night, Dublin is a city of charity. I realise that. We have charitable institutions like the Vincent de Paul and other bodies doing work which the State should do, because we of the Labour Party believe that the first duty of any Government in any country is to look after the welfare of the people. We believe that as long as the present system obtains widows and children will remain in starvation and if they are not able to provide for their daily wants they have to go and beg. We here have passed laws by which women and children are summoned for begging, but, at the same time, we are not prepared to pass legislation in regard to this particular problem. Deputy Murphy referred to the democratic programme of the First Dáil in which it was stated—the Minister for Finance agreed with it but apparently he has changed his mind since—that the first call on the resources of the nation should be the women and children. Deputy Murphy referred to Northern Ireland but "Northern Ireland" is a misnomer to me. I happen to represent the most northern constituency in Ireland. I should say that Deputy Murphy mentioned that in the Six Counties a widow was entitled to 10/- a week with 5/- for the eldest child and 3/-for each of her other children. Picture a widow with a family in Donegal living on the border of the Six Counties but not entitled to any pension as there is no such scheme in operation in the Saorstát. She and her children are in a state of starvation.

The Minister pointed out that she is provided for under the poor law system; but, as I say, that system touches only the fringe of the situation. If she and her children were living 100 yards across the Border she would be entitled to a pension. We hear a lot of talk about unity. We, of the Labour Party, want to bring about unity and believe that one of the ways of doing so is to improve our social services. Do you expect that you can bring about unity by having those services in the Free State on a lower level than those in the Six Counties? Deputy Murphy pointed out that we have passed legislation to improve livestock, to endeavour to improve local administration, to improve the supplies of electricity, but up to the present we have not tackled this important problem. I agree with the mover of the motion when he says that that is a blot on our social system. We have failed to deal with this problem. I was surprised that the only voice we heard from the Government Benches was that of the Minister for Finance who, according to his own statement, was against the provision of pensions for widows and orphans. No other voice has been heard from the Government Benches and I take it that so far as they are concerned they are against this scheme. If, however, I misinterpret their thoughts it is up to them to express their opinion and, when it comes to a division, to vote in favour of this motion which we hope will be passed by the House.

I really cannot understand the statement of the Minister for Finance on this question. Apparently, he wishes to suggest to the House that he personally regards it as desirable that pensions should be paid to widows and orphans, and that they should be paid under a scheme somewhat on the lines, perhaps, of the British scheme. If he does not suggest that, I do not know what he meant by his speech. I cannot understand what his opposition to the resolution is. He suggests that there is pending an inquiry by the Executive Council. All this motion does is to ask definitely for such an inquiry, a full inquiry into all the statistics concerned, and yet he will not accept the motion. So far as I can see, what he objects to is accepting in principle what is in the motion, namely that the establishment of a scheme of this kind would be desirable. He apparently is against that. He regards it as not being desirable, and this House is going to vote on that issue, on that principle whether it is desirable or whether it is not. Otherwise, if his words are to be taken in the ordinary course of understanding, the Executive Council are at present inquiring into it or are going to inquire into it. Therefore, it must be on the principle involved in the motion that the House is going to divide, unless the Government changes its mind before the end of the debate and decides to accept this particular principle and allow an inquiry to proceed.

Deputy Little is too innocent for anything. There is no use in trying to state a false issue. The question whether pensions for widows and orphans are desirable means nothing, as Labour Deputies know, and even, as I suspect, Deputy Little knows. The position of the Minister for Finance is clear. He wants to know, not whether it is desirable, but whether it is practicable. We do not all live in the clouds. We must consider the question of not only whether it is desirable, but whether it is practicable. If the Deputy were considering any business proposition he would consider it in that light. If Deputy Corish were considering any business proposition he would consider it in that light. I would like to make an arrangement, say, for my grandfather by which I could give him £200 a year instead of £100, but can I afford it? I think as much about him—of course, I am taking a suppositious case—as anybody, but can I afford to do that? That is the question. Can the taxpayer afford it? We are all exuding charity, every one of us, at the taxpayer's expense. I would like if all this charity were really sincere. Deputies should not get up and present us with the false dilemma: "Are you in favour of pensions for widows, double wages for every workman, of making better provision for the children of working men, or of making provision for the neighbour's children, which is better still?" Of course we are, so far as we can afford it. But in an assembly like this we ought not to discuss a question like that, as some Deputies here have discussed it. I do not say they all discussed it like that, but Deputy Little was a notorious example, and to a lesser extent Deputy Cassidy. They got up and discussed this as if we had unlimited facilities and unlimited money to do everything we wanted to do, and that you had sitting opposite you a hard-hearted, malevolent Executive Council who were insisting on hoarding all the money and who would not spend it. That is not the position, and Deputies know that quite well.

May I say that that is a complete misrepresentation of my case?

You need not say it; it is obvious.

A suppositious case.

Mr. HOGAN

It is a fact that this money will have to come out of some person's pocket. It will have to come out of the taxpayer's pocket. It is a fact that not all the people whom the Deputy calls poor are deserving poor. I know that there are deserving poor, but there are plenty of people who are called poor who are not deserving poor. I put that point of view in an extreme way because the other point of view has been put in an extreme way. It is a fact that it is the people who will pay for all this vicarious benevolence, the small farmer and the small shopkeeper, who find it hard to make provision for their own children. That has to be remembered, and we cannot talk in the air about pensions for widows and orphans without any reference to economic conditions. It is simply hypocrisy for Deputies in the opposite benches constantly to exude charity without any reference to the person who has to find the money for all the charity. I do not know, of course, as much about foreign affairs as Deputy MacEntee, but I suspect that his information is just a little bit inaccurate. I am unaware that there are any great social services, for instance, in France or Southern Germany.

I do not know whether it is worth while correcting the Minister.

Mr. HOGAN

I merely said that in view of his statements. That is neither here nor there. Analogies are always misleading.

Does the Minister deny that in Germany as a whole social services are far in advance of those here?

Mr. HOGAN

I do not know and the Deputy does not know.

Why do you get up, then, and make a categorical statement?

Is the Minister prepared to give figures for France and Germany? I have given figures and they are official and reliable ones.

Mr. HOGAN

Does the Deputy think that I am going to bother to root through blue books to see whether his figures are correct? I have something else to do.

Deputies must allow the Minister to make his speech.

Mr. HOGAN

About twenty per cent., I think Deputy MacEntee said, are living in poverty. What about the other eighty per cent.? Who are they? Mainly small farmers and shopkeepers, as I said. Who are the producers of the country? Is it not out of production that this £500,000 or £600,000 will have to come? Deputy Corish said that we could double the National Health Insurance payments, and add the present outdoor relief, and that we could find the money that way. He suggested that as one way of finding the money. He quoted something that the Minister for Finance said about doubling the National Health Insurance payments that would find £500,000, and said: "Add to that the present outdoor relief and you will get the money." Does the Deputy advocate the doubling of the National Health Insurance? Are the workers in favour of it, and are the employers? Can they afford it? Is not that a very relevant question? Must it not be taken into account? I think these are the real questions to be discussed, not any question of whether we would like or would not like to give pensions to widows. Of course we would all like to see widows and orphans comfortable, but we must consider how far we could afford to make them comfortable.

Why not have the inquiry?

Mr. HOGAN

I am told that Deputy Murphy said that we have endeavoured to improve live stock. I take it his argument is: having endeavoured to do that, why should we not think more about human beings? Surely we do not improve live stock, we do not endeavour to provide the country with cheap power and electricity merely for the sake of doing it. We do it for the sake of the people, because it will bring them more money in the long run. The Deputy must know that that argument is fallacious.

That was not my argument.

Mr. HOGAN

I was not here, and I am quite ready to accept that. It was the way the Deputy's argument was put.

Mr. MURPHY

I suggest that we ought to keep on improving.

What about .96?

Mr. HOGAN

I do not understand that interruption, and I do not want to.

You do not understand it?

The Deputy should not use the second person constantly.

Mr. HOGAN

When listening to the debate the following experience occurred to me. It will be misunderstood and misquoted of course, but I will give it for what it worth. In a certain county in Ireland I met a man whom I know very well who has two brothers. They were born in very poor circumstances in the smallest holding in the district. The brothers went to America and returned after five years. One of them bought a farm and another bought a shop in the town. Between them they bought a bit of extra land for their father and mother. In that district I happen to know officially that there was a huge estate divided and not one of them got a perch. Why? Because they had earned money and bought land. In that district practically all the other tenants' fathers and mothers have the old age pension and have the benefit of the social services of the State. Their father and mother could not get the old age pension. Why? Because these men had earned money and bought a holding for them. Yet they were the poorest people in the district; their father had the smallest holding, worked on that holding very hard, and made a good bit of money out of it. They went away for some years, came back and bought a holding. They are now in a good holding and they are probably better off to-day than the people who have the benefit of these social services. They might have been lucky but what was their position? They could not get any of the benefits of the social services that the State provides because they had been more enterprising and hardworking than their neighbours. I do not want for a moment to extend that argument to absurdity, but I do say that there is a moral there. I say it is a moral that Deputies must take into account. If it is put to me that I am going to be saved from poverty by a pension, why should I work myself for it? That is a consideration which must be taken into account. When I look around in counties that I know well and see the people who are getting the benefit of social services and the people who are not getting the benefit of them, because they have been more enterprising, have worked harder, and happen to be, entirely at their own expense, and as a result of their hard work, better off, I think you can press that point of view of public charity and social services too far. Deputies know well that it is being pressed too far.

Is the moral there that a young widow with a young son should work?

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy knows that that is not the moral. Equally, the Deputy cannot deny what I have said, that there are plenty of people in poverty through their own fault, and that you ought to be careful that you are not putting a premium on that class of people. Moreover, you ought to think not only of the people who are getting the money, but of the people who are paying for it and, perhaps, are earning it hard, and who are as deserving in their own way, and even more deserving, than others on whom there is so much sympathy wasted.

Some of these widows' husbands helped to accumulate it for them.

It being now 8.30 p.m., the debate stood adjourned.

Top
Share