Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Nov 1928

Vol. 26 No. 15

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS.

Debate resumed on motion:—

"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 request the Executive Council to prepare and present to the House a report upon such schemes of insurance and estimates of the cost."—(Deputy T. Murphy).

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

It was once said by somebody that when a diplomat says "yes" he means "perhaps"; when he says "perhaps" he means "no"; and when he says "no," then he is no diplomat. About a fortnight ago the Minister for Finance spent about 30 minutes saying "perhaps" to this motion. His speech was an intriguing example of the art of equivocation and evasion. He told us that he had no facts or figures by which he might measure the advisability, the desirability and the practicability of the motion; that all the information he had was mere approximation and conjecture. One cannot see why there is so much evasion and equivocation about this proposal. There is nothing ambiguous about the terms of the motion; there is no hidden meaning in it. The Minister has had some nine months to consider it, as it has been on the Order Paper for that time. Surely, with all the resources of his Department at his disposal, he should have been able to tackle it in that time, and be able to come to the Dáil with some definite statement as to what he thought of the proposal. Even if the motion had never appeared on the Order Paper, surely the Government is conscious of this social canker eating into the body of the nation. If the Minister for Finance had consulted the President on the matter he could have got valuable information, as the President has very valuable information on matters of local government and poor law relief administration. If the Minister consulted him, I daresay he would have come to the Dáil with more information and more facts and figures than he came with a fortnight ago.

The Minister for Agriculture is, of course, notorious for his art in confusing issues. He told us that the question before the Dáil was whether or not it is advisable that he should pay £200 per year to his grandfather. Nobody knows better than the Minister for Agriculture that that is not the question. The question is, whether it is desirable that a certain set of people, who are in need of assistance and support from the State, are entitled to it, and whether or not some estimate should be made of what it would cost and what they should receive. The Minister for Agriculture told us we were exuding charity. I am not demanding charity for anybody; what I am asking for these people is right and justice. If the Minister for Agriculture consulted the people who are paying and the people who are receiving home assistance, and asked the people who are paying it, in particular if they want this particular system of outdoor relief to continue, he would be told that they are not in favour of exposing children to the brand of mendicant and pauper and the mothers to degradation and humiliation.

Deputy Murphy spoke from a plenitude of experience in matters of public administration. My experience goes back some nine years. I hope I have some sense of responsibility; and. conscious of that responsibility, I say deliberately that the poor law relief system, as at present administered, is degrading in principle, humiliating in operation, and ineffectual in results. Is not any humane Deputy entitled to ask that that system should be superseded and that a system more in consonance with justice and humanity should be evolved in its stead? I have experienced feelings of humiliation when people in distress came to me to bring their cases to the notice of public boards, because the inmost secrets of their homes and of their lives are dragged out to be examined and commented upon. Is that a state of affairs that should be allowed to continue? Any humane man would experience feelings of humiliation at having to do that. Yet it is done daily, and we are asked to continue it, and are told that we are exuding charity. The Minister for Agriculture asked us to remember the small ratepayer. If this motion has no other effect than to remind the Minister of the existence of the small ratepayer and the small farmer, it will have done good, because the Minister is notorious for his forgetfulness of that class of the community. I am not, of course, responsible to the Minister or the Dáil for a full and detailed statement as to how this system might be financed. I have not the figures or facts that the Minister for Finance has. If the Minister for Finance, after nine months, failed to collect the figures and facts, I cannot be expected to put a detailed scheme before the Dáil. I suggest to him that we might consider some of the things that have happened across the Border. At present we are paying something like £400,000 or £500,000 in home assistance, and that all comes, as the Minister for Agriculture told us, out of the pockets of the small ratepayer. I do not think anybody will say that the present system of home assistance gives anything like the necessary result—anything like adequate consideration or support to those in need.

I have made a calculation, which I have had verified, that in the County Clare an average of 7d. per day per family is paid in home assistance. I suppose it is fair to assume that about half the people in receipt of relief are widows and orphans. We therefore come down to something like a definite proposition.

In Northern Ireland contributory pensions provide 10/- a week for widows, 5/- for the eldest child under sixteen and 3/- for other children; for orphan children under sixteen without father or mother (if father or mother were insured in Health Insurance) 7/6 each per week; insured men or women at 65 or 70 years of age, 10/- per week. Now what is the cost of that? When that measure was introduced into the Northern Parliament by the Minister for Finance he said it would cost something like £450,000. When we examine it in detail now we find that the estimated cost is £145,000. There is a very big difference between £145,000 and £450,000. Ministers for Finance seem to have a knack of estimating on the wrong side in all cases. The population of Northern Ireland is 1,250,000. The population of the Free State is 3,000,000, and if we are to take it, and I suppose we may fairly assume that it is so, that the proportion of widows and orphans is the same in the Irish Free State as in Northern Ireland, we find the cost of this scheme instead of being £750,000 as the Minister for Finance said, would be something like £350,000 or £348,000, to be quite accurate.

Now as to how this is brought about. In the matter of health insurance and contributory pensions, the total per week that a man pays is ninepence; of this the employer pays fourpence halfpenny and the employe fourpence halfpenny. Women pay a total of fourpence halfpenny, of which the employer pays twopence halfpenny and the woman twopence. But the Health Insurance fund is relieved and contributions are reduced by one halfpenny each from employer and worker. Unemployment insurance contributions are reduced in the case of men to twopence for the employer, and twopence for the worker, and in the case of women, one penny for the employer and the woman herself pays one penny. This means that the contribution which this measure involves in Northern Ireland will be in the case of men, from the employer twopence, from the worker twopence, and in the case of women, from the employer a penny, and from the worker a penny.

I notice there is a rigmarole of an amendment in the name of Deputy Hugh Law—I am not going to discuss it—about the burden on industry if this scheme were adopted, but it is well we should examine what the Northern Minister said in that connection. He said:

If it did anything of the kind it would be a matter which would require very serious attention, but I think I can show, and show quite clearly, that it will not place upon industry an unbearable burden. From a firm in the linen trade employing 600 persons the increased contribution would amount to £145 per annum on a wage bill of fifty to sixty thousand pounds.

There are other sources which I would suggest to the Minister for Finance—and as the Minister for Local Government is here, and as this matter comes directly under his control, perhaps he will consider it too—from which some revenue might be found. In the administration fund of the National Health Insurance up to the 31st December, 1927, there was a surplus of £30,000. Since the National Health Insurance Act, 1912, was passed thousands of people have died who never got any advantage, who never got a bit of benefit, from the contributions they had paid. Surely it is time some examination was made of that position with a view to seeing if anything could be done.

I should be sorry to think that the Government is so bankrupt in policy, so bankrupt in experience, so bankrupt in sincerity towards these people that we must take the statements made by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture as being an indication of the Government's policy. The Minister for Agriculture told us about two boys, whom he knew, who went to America, made fortunes, came home and bought land for their fathers and mothers. I do not know where the relevancy of that story comes in. If the House is willing to listen to me I could tell them of boys who did not go to America at all and who bought land for their fathers and mothers, and I am sure it would be as relevant as the statement of the Minister for Agriculture, except perhaps that the Minister for Agriculture advocates emigration as a policy for the removal of the social evils that beset us to-day. If that is the policy, let it be stated and stated definitely. I should be sorry if this be the policy of the Government. I should be sorry that in regard to this policy of degradation and of humiliation of the widows and children of these people who have gone and are not able to offer succour or assistance to those they left behind, the Government are so bankrupt in consideration for these people as to put forward a non possumus attitude, and one from which they will not move, showing that they wish to continue home assistance as the only relief and that they have no other policy under consideration. If the Minister for Agriculture has no experience so far as local administration is concerned, of the humiliation and degradation, it is not alone to those who receive it, but to those who administer outdoor relief, let him consult members of his own Party who are members of public boards and he will learn from them. Let him consult the President of the Executive Council, or any disinterested person, and he will be told that the continuance of this system is something that is humiliating to the State, humiliating to the persons in receipt of it, and humiliating to those immediately concerned in its ministration.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (General Mulcahy)

And that the whole system of Home Assistance should be scrapped?

Mr. HOGAN

If the Minister wants me to continue I shall do so and answer every question. I do not say that the system of Home Assistance should be scrapped, but I say that the Minister has at his disposal the means by which he can supersede it with a better scheme and one more in consonance with justice and humanity. That is my answer to the Minister.

General MULCAHY

I wish the Deputy would continue and sketch the lines on which such a scheme would run. After all this is a Labour Party motion, and we are entitled to expect some assistance from the members of that party in their speeches.

Mr. HOGAN

If the Minister for Finance has had this motion before him for nine months, with all the resources of his department available, and with all the resources of the Government available, with all the resources of the men who sit on public boards, in this House behind him, and with all these advantages—if he cannot put forward a scheme, and if he cannot put forward anything but equivocation and evasion, surely the Minister does not expect me, with very little at my disposal, to put forward a detailed scheme for his acceptance?

General MULCAHY

Are we to take it that members of the Labour Party consider that their duty is done with regard to any problem when they put down a motion on the Order Paper so that the Ministers can read it?

Mr. MORRISSEY

Not at all.

General MULCAHY

What is Deputy Hogan's plan?

Mr. HOGAN

If the Minister thinks that he cannot prepare a scheme, we are quite prepared to put a man into his place in the morning who can prepare it.

Mr. HUGH LAW

I move as an amendment to Deputy Murphy's motion:

To delete all words after the word "House," and insert the words, "requests the Executive Council to take into special consideration whether, without imposing an excessive burden on productive industry, further provision can be made for widows and orphans bereft of their breadwinners; in what manner (by insurance or otherwise) this can best be achieved; and what may be the net cost of such provision."

There are in this House, I am sure,a great many Deputies who have a much more intimate knowledge of this matter than I can pretend to. There are people who, whether by service on commissions or by reason of membership of public bodies or of association with great charity organisations, have intimate knowledge of this matter that I do not for a moment pretend to.

Therefore, I think I shall myself consult the convenience of the House as well as my own, if I state what I have to say very briefly. I have to explain to the House, however, in what respects the amendment I propose to move differs from the motion on the Paper, and why I thought it necessary to put something of the kind down. I read with great attention and very great interest the debate which occurred here more than a fortnight ago, when this motion was introduced. I was very much impressed by the moderation and good sense displayed by the mover, Deputy Murphy. I also read with great attention the speech made by the Vice-President, the Minister for Finance. Reading and thinking over those speeches very carefully, it appeared to me to be exceedingly unfortunate if the House were left with no alternative between the acceptance or rejection of this particular motion of Deputy Murphy. I thought so for this reason, that it appeared to me in that case a false issue would have arisen. It would be obvious—I do not put this forward as a matter of very great importance—that what the country would understand was that certain people had voted for or against widows' pensions without any regard to the scheme involved or the circumstances. That is not a matter of great importance, but what is a matter of great importance is this that as a result of that a very unfortunate result would accrue, namely that as the matter would then, more or less, have assumed a party aspect there would follow from that a certain hardening of opinion, and both sides of the House would be driven from a small difference of opinion into a much wider and deeper one. Quite frankly, I think that would be very unfortunate, because it would result, if the motion were defeated, as I imagine it will be, in view of the normal position of this House and the speeches of the Minister for Finance, in a set-back to what, I think, would be a desirable thing.

On the other hand, assume the motion will be carried in the terms in which it has been placed on the paper, then this result will follow which also would be extremely unfortunate, namely, the House would, pro tanto, be committed to a particular scheme which, in my judgment, leaves very much indeed to be desired. Let us look for a moment at the motion on the paper. The House is invited to say that "having regard to the inadequacy of the provision at present made for widows and for orphans and to the desirability of removing all stigma of pauperism in such cases."—So far I see nothing to object to it. I think it would be fairly common ground, certainly to anyone who has read the report of the Poor Law Commission, that the present system is in many ways unsatisfactory. I do not think we need go to any report, but know from our own experience that the present system in its uncertainty and in the inequality of relief given to individuals leaves very much to be desired. That is altogether apart from the point stressed by Deputy Hogan as to the stigma of pauperism.

Then the motion asks the House to assert the desirability of establishing a scheme of insurance to provide pensions and allowances for widows. There my quarrel with the motion is that it is too narrow, for this reason, the obvious reason which is pointed out, if I remember right, in the short reference made to this matter in the Poor Law Commission Report. This scheme, if it were carried out, is a scheme based on what obtains in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Obviously the conditions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland differ enormously from those in the Free State. I am talking of social conditions. In Great Britain, and to a great extent also in Northern Ireland, the people who are what we call poor people—poor widows and orphans—belong in the main to what is known as the wage-earning class, to the people whose bread-winners are in receipt of weekly wages. In such countries one has to have regard to large majorities, and it is quite appropriate that you should base any relief on that kind of insurance system because the mass of the people, for whom you are thinking, come quite naturally into an insurance which has its basis in a deduction from, or a contribution to, a weekly wage, but that is not the condition of affairs in this country. I do not know how it is in Deputy Hogan's constituency in Clare, but I should be very much surprised to learn that the majority of the poor women, being widows, or children, being orphans, were people who could easily be brought within any scheme of insurance. I speak for the part of the country I know, and I cannot see how you can bring the bulk of people, say, in Donegal or any of the Western countries, into any such scheme. The bread-winners do not receive a weekly wage. So far as the great majority are concerned they are very small holders, small farmers, or fishermen who fish in their own boats, and I do not see any manner in which you can bring them into a scheme of insurance.

If you are going to do this thing at all, I want to see it done in a way which does not preclude probably the most necessitous class of all from the assistance that is asked for it. That is why I have, in proposing this amendment, omitted any word which would fetter the Oireachtas, if and when it comes to make provision, as to the manner in which provision is to be made. I personally feel strongly if this thing is to be done that it ought to be done in a manner which brings in the general body of poor people and not exclude them. The objection of the Minister for Finance when he spoke was this: Deputy Hogan, I think, spoke of it— he tells me I do not use the right word —as giving an impression that it was quibbling and evasion. It did not appear to me so at all. I thought it was a remarkably honest speech. It was one of the speeches I hear more often in this House than I have heard in another, of which I was a member. On the whole, the speeches here, if they err at all, appear to err in their undiplomatic candour. What the Minister said was: "I could have made a show of accepting this motion and then have found fifty good reasons for not carrying it into effect." He preferred to say to the House that they ought not, first of all, affirm that a certain thing should be done and then afterwards set about inquiring as to how it could be done. I see nothing of quibbling and evasion in that attitude.

Obviously the Minister for Finance has a certain special responsibility, but I do not think we ought to forget that we also have, personally and individually, a certain responsibility. We ought not to put forward in vague and pious resolutions—I am not charging Deputy Murphy with it, I am speaking generally of the House—propositions in a general way without proper inquiry which we do not see our way to carry out. I am probably as big a sinner in this as anyone else, but we are all very apt to alternate, one day demanding economies and the next day demanding reforms which require large expenditure. It is a bad habit. The Minister has told us that according to his calculation—I have no means of checking it any more than Deputies on the Labour Benches—to carry out the proposal of Deputy Murphy, even on the limited basis on which it is framed it would involve an expenditure, in his calculation, of about half a million pounds. That is not to be picked up on the hedgerow, and before even we assert the desirability that we are prepared to do it we ought to see how it is to be done. That is the general observation I make.

One thing I press to the House is: we should not put the cart before the horse. I ask the House to say that this is a thing which merits inquiry. I ask it not to lead the country to suppose that it is committing itself to something which it does not see its way to do, and I ask also the House not to commit itself to a scheme which, in my judgment, would have the effect, if carried out, of excluding from benefit large classes of people who are equally deserving of consideration as those the scheme would embrace.

Mr. CAREY

I wish to second the amendment. It order to tackle this question from its foundation, it is necessary to see how a scheme should be financed for widows and orphans. There has been an accumulation of hundreds of thousands of pounds by the National Health Insurance Societies, and those funds are invested. When they are being invested, it is almost at the dictation of the National Health Insurance Commissioners. Those of us who have been working the Act since 1912 know that when there is a certain amount of money available for investment, we get from the Insurance Commissioners the names of different industries and other enterprises in which we should invest the money. The Government have more or less control of these accumulated amounts. If we are to adopt any scheme of pensions, it should be through the National Health Insurance Societies, which are not there to make money out of the poor. The principle of the Insurance Act is above that, and the widows and orphans of members of the Societies should get the benefit of the deceased men's contributions. You have the machinery in the Insurance Societies for carrying out such a scheme, and you have the names of the members who are dead and who have left widows and children behind them. I suggest that an employee who is insured under the National Health Act should be entitled, at the age of sixty-five, to a grant of 10/- per week from his society until he attains the age of seventy, and then he should be transferred to the State and receive the old age pension. In the event of his death previous to that age, the widow should receive 10/- per week. That would not entail extra expense as far as the working of the Act is concerned. I am speaking now of the widows of insured members, who, to my mind, are really the people who count, as they are the widows of the workers, and, even if the contribution is increased, it will reduce outdoor relief, thereby relieving the ratepayers. Another great factor in the scheme would be that every employee would insist on his card being stamped, as he would be aware of the benefits he would be entitled to. At present the Insurance Act is not worked to its full limits owing to careless stamping of cards.

Mr. CASSIDY

Are we discussing the National Health Insurance Act?

Mr. CAREY

I was just pointing out how money could be got to put a scheme into operation. This scheme would take, at least, a few months to prepare, and if the Minister would bring in such a scheme at the opening of the financial year I, for one, would be agreeable. This scheme will have to be well-thought out. There is no use in rushing it because it is a big problem, a problem that will, I am sure, relieve a lot of destitution throughout the country and the Government which will surmount this difficulty can look back at one Act of legislation on behalf of the poor that will shine like letters of gold amongst the future Acts of any Government of this country. I believe that the difficulty in formulating a scheme to provide pensions for widows, for those of insured members especially, can be got over and that the moneys accumulated and invested by the different societies can be directed to that end. I remember that some years ago we had an agitation to have the moneys spent in building houses for the workers, but we in Cork were defeated on that question at the time. It is, I think, now up to us to endeavour to formulate a scheme by which the money of the employer, the employee and the State can be utilised to great advantage. I remember that, when the Act came out in 1912, there was to be a divide after five years. That divide never came off. I wonder if that part of the Act is in force still. If it is, then the Act has not been carried out in a proper way. I would appeal to the Government to face this issue. It is an issue that will bring credit to themselves and one that we are all interested in. I am very interested in the working of the Insurance Act. I think that some scheme could be formulated for widows and orphans and brought in here under that Act in the way that this motion of Deputy Murphy suggests. I believe with a little thinking out on the part of the Government a scheme could be formulated by which moneys could be got to carry out that particular scheme.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I think that Deputy Carey has made a much better case against Deputy Law's amendment than I could possibly hope to make.

General MULCAHY

He tried to make some case.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I am very glad that Deputy Carey's brief was in favour of the motion.

Mr. DAVIN

Unconsciously.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I am prepared to give Deputy Carey the credit for being absolutely sincere in this matter, and to believe, until such time as he would prove to the contrary by going into the wrong lobby, that he is sincere.

Mr. CAREY

I said the Act will take some time to frame.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I was interested in Deputy Law's speech and in his amendment. I was wondering what explanation could be found for putting down this amendment until Deputy Law, perhaps unconsciously, gave us the exact reason. He said that the Minister for Finance had spoken with undiplomatic candour on this matter. I suppose Deputy Law wanted to speak with diplomatic candour, feeling that unless some red herring could be drawn across the trail that he would be put into the position of having to vote either for or against the principle of pensions for widows and orphans in this country.

Mr. LAW

The principle is common to both.

Mr. MORRISSEY

There is neither principal nor interest in the amendment.

General MULCAHY

A lot of Deputies found a lot of "principal" in it.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The gist of Deputy Law's case seemed to me to amount to this: that he was against the motion because the majority of the widows and orphans are people who are engaged in the fishing or agricultural industry, in a very small way, and, therefore, would not come within any insurance scheme. Does the Deputy mean that if the word "insurance" were deleted from the scheme that he would be in favour of it? If so, does he realise that what that means is that pensions would have to be paid to the people for whom he speaks and whom he describes as being the poorest in the country, without any contribution of theirs to the State. Is he prepared to support that? That is the Deputy's case, and I am prepared to go all the way with him in that.

General MULCAHY

So is Deputy Cassidy.

Mr. MORRISSEY

If the Minister for Local Government was as well acquainted with the position of local government in the country as some members of the House who have been engaged in the administration of the poor law system for a number of years are, I think he also would be in favour of it, because I do not believe for a moment that he is half as hard-hearted as he would have us believe that he is.

General MULCAHY

Scrap home assistance and then scrap local government.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I hope that for the Minister's own sake as well as for the respect due to the House that he is not going to follow the line of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance in this matter. Let the Minister face up to this matter if he is against the principle of providing at least as good social services for the people in this State as are provided in other countries. If he is, then let him say so clearly. The Minister for Finance said: "It would be easy for me to say that I was prepared to accept this motion, but that, according to the best information that I had, it would not prove on examination feasible at the present time to adopt a scheme of the kind suggested." The Minister went on to say that he believed that such a scheme was highly desirable. The motion in the name of Deputy Tadhg Murphy is a motion which the Minister, according to that speech, should support, because the motion in effect only asks the House to say that the provision of pensions for widows and orphans is desirable. The Minister said it was desirable but not practicable. The motion asks the Executive Council to prepare and present to the House a report upon such a scheme and to intimate its cost. I take it when that report is presented, if the House is satisfied that the cost is more than can be borne by the State at the present time, that the House will go no further with the matter. The House is not committed by the passing of this motion to put the scheme into operation. The House is asked to say that such a scheme is desirable. The Government is very properly asked to investigate and to report upon a scheme and its cost. The House will then proceed to say whether it is possible to provide a scheme of insurance for widows and orphans in the present state of the finances of the country. No amount of camouflage nor all the talk which can be put up about this amendment moved by Deputy Law will get away from that fact.

There is no use in the Minister for Local Government telling us that this motion means the scrapping of the whole system of home assistance. I wish it did. I wish that this House was able to provide a scheme of assistance for the people of the country who are in need of assistance that would be somewhat better than the humiliating system that obtains with regard to outdoor relief. The Minister talks about outdoor relief as if adequate provision for widows and orphans and other people in need of assistance was being made at the moment. The Minister must be aware that there are County Boards of Health in this State which at the moment have laid down the scale of 4/- per week for a widow, and 1/6 per week for each child. Does the Minister contend that that is making fair provision for families which have been deprived of their breadwinners? If the Minister were in the position of some members of this House—members from all parties—he would not make any such contention. When these members go home from Dublin at the week-end, in many cases they have queues of people waiting to see them in regard to their grievances. Many of these people come with the complaint that they have been down to the relieving officer and that he has turned them away because he is not allowed to give them any relief without the prior sanction of the County Board of Health. That Board may be meeting at a place twenty or thirty miles distant from where these poor people live. They are not in a position because of the long distances to be travelled, to attend before the meetings of the Board. All that they can do is to write a letter and before outdoor relief is granted to anyone that person's whole position is dragged out, very often in public, and as a consequence is reported in the local papers. I think nobody in the House would suggest that is a desirable state of affairs.

Can anyone blame the Labour Party, as the direct representatives of these poor people, for trying to put an end to that? The Minister asked us to put up a scheme. We are not in a position to do so. The Minister has not been asked on his own to put up a scheme, but the Government are being asked to do so, because they are the Government, and have at their disposal all the machinery in the nation to prepare a scheme. If the Government are not able to prepare a scheme then no individual or party in the nation can. That is the position I want to emphasise. The House is not being asked to commit itself to any particular scheme at the moment, and is not necessarily asked by passing this motion to commit itself to any expenditure whatever, or any change, because before any effect could be given to this motion the Government would have to come to the House with a scheme and with an estimate of its cost, and that scheme would have to be passed before it could be put into operation.

The Minister for Agriculture made a speech which, in my opinion, was unworthy of him—very unworthy. The Minister said this was a business proposition, and he wondered if Deputy Corish was considering any business proposition would he talk in the way in which he talked on this motion. I say this is not a business proposition, and the Labour Party say, without hesitation, that we are not looking at it as a business proposition, and that it could not be so looked at. If it is looked at as a business proposition, why pay outdoor relief and why not let them die? That is a business proposition. This is a national matter, and one of the primary duties of any Government, in my opinion, is to provide for the widows and orphans. The Government that fail in that fail in their most primary duty.

The Minister for Agriculture told us, as Deputy Hogan said, about two men who went to America and came back after having made some money there and bought land for their father.

As a result, he said, of their hard work and their thrift, their father would not get the old age pension. That is not our fault, but the fault of the Minister. It is the fault of the Government, because the Act is so framed as to penalise thrifty men. Might I suggest that in this, as well as in other countries, men who worked perhaps as hard, or even very much harder, than the men who are in a position to buy farms, and who were just as thrifty when they could be thrifty, are to-day in need of assistance from the State. I am glad to notice absent from this debate the cry of economy. If there is any matter in which one might expect the catch-cry of economy to be heard it is in connection with this. The Minister for Finance told the House that a scheme providing pensions for widows and orphans would cost something like £750,000. I am not prepared to accept that figure until I know how it has been arrived at, and until I know whether the Minister in arriving at that figure took into consideration the great savings which would be made in other directions as a result of such a scheme.

The Minister for Agriculture told us not to be exuding charity at other people's expense. He told us to remember that the people who would have to pay for this would be the small farmers and the small shopkeepers. I suggest that the men who are paying more than any other section for the support of the widows and orphans are the small farmers and small shopkeepers, and they are the very classes who would be relieved under a national scheme. In effect, this proposal means that the charge for making provision for widows and orphans would be a national charge and not a local charge placed on the rates. I want Deputies to keep that in mind when they vote for or against the motion. If a scheme were based on a system of insurance the small farmers and the small shopkeepers would, no more than Deputy Law's very small farmer or fisherman in the North, pay insurance, except in so far as they would contribute to that portion of it which would not be put up by the State. The relief which would be given to the small farmers, small shopkeepers, and other people in a small way of business, not only in relief by way of rates, but in the matter of relief of contributions to the St. Vincent de Paul Society and other charitable societies, would be so great as to off-set any extra cost put on them.

Deputy Law and other speakers on this motion have assumed that when we mention a scheme of insurance that must of necessity mean something tacked on to the National Health Insurance scheme. It does not necessarily mean that. The Minister smiles. I happen to know a little about National Health Insurance, and I can conceive the Minister, with the assistance of some of the very able officials in the National Health Insurance Department, bringing forward a completely new scheme of National Health Insurance. I go further and say, and I think the Minister will agree with me, that before we grow very much older the whole scheme of National Health Insurance will have to be re-cast, and the same remark applies to industrial and life assurance. The Minister knows that. What I wanted to emphasise was two outstanding points in the motion. One is that this House would not be committed by its vote now to the acceptance of any scheme.

All that the House is asked to say is that it is desirable, if the country is in a position to do it, to provide a scheme of pensions for widows and orphans. If the Government, having made its report to the House, convinces the House that it is impracticable, then unquestionably the House would not ask it to be done, or would defer it until the finances of the country are in a position to bear the burden, if there is to be a burden at all. The other point is this, that the effect of the motion would be to transfer the charge for the maintenance of widows and orphans from the local rates to national taxation; in other words, that for the future it would be a national charge and not a local charge. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the motion moved by Deputy Murphy and to reject the amendment moved by Deputy Law.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (General Mulcahy)

In fact what Deputy Morrissey asks the House to do is to pass this motion as a pious expression of opinion.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Not at all.

General MULCAHY

Because following the speeches that have been made we have come to the stage at which, in order to get this thing done, we have perhaps to remodel the whole scheme of national health insurance, and even remodel the whole scheme of life and industrial insurance. That is the point to which we have now slipped in this general and very confused discussion. If we are to take this motion in relation to the speeches that were made on the first day by Deputy Murphy, Deputy Corish and Deputy Cassidy, we arrive at this position, that after having this motion on the paper for nine months, the Labour Deputies can give us no clear idea as to what lines anything should be done on to give effect to the motion. Deputy Hogan to-day repudiated the suggestion that if he or the Labour Party put down a motion their duty is done, but in fact that is the way in which the situation is left to us. Deputy Hogan suggested that there is nothing more in this motion than what is on the face of it. But there is, whether it is intended or not, and the speeches that have been made have shown us very clearly that this motion has been moved because with regard to the whole system of home assistance, whether for widows or orphans or for other poor people, the local people are not facing up to its proper administration.

Mr. T. MURPHY

That is one of the reasons.

A DEPUTY

Blame the local people.

General MULCAHY

At any rate, in considering this motion, we come down to this, that the whole scheme of home assistance has to be scrapped and has to be replaced by a national health scheme. The contribution of Deputy Corish to the debate was that this is a terribly callous Government with no concern—good, bad or indifferent—for what he calls the down-trodden poor and the starving widows and children; and Deputy Cassidy's contribution to the discussion was that he wondered that no Deputies on these benches had spoken, in order to cover up the fact that he had nothing to say himself on the matter. Deputy Corish went back to the democratic programme that was adopted by the Dáil in 1919, and he found in it a declaration by the Government of that time that the first duty of the Government would be to look after the widows and the children. Deputy Corish is very far from having recently read that democratic declaration. There is no such statement in it, and Deputies would do well to re-read it——

Mr. CASSIDY

The Minister is running away from it.

General MULCAHY

The Minister is not doing anything like running away from it.

Mr. DAVIN

He ran away from it long ago.

General MULCAHY

Deputies say that the stigma of pauperism is on the present system that deals with the relief of widows and orphans through home assistance. In so far as there was a brand of pauperism in the old Poor Law system, that brand has been taken away by the abolition of the workhouses, and if Deputies insist that the brand of pauperism is on every person who looks for home assistance, they are making no contribution to the improvement on the social system, because Deputies cannot suggest that you can do away with home assistance, and can make it a national matter, in the same way as old age pensions are dealt with, for instance. This is simply a pious resolution, in view of the actual facts of which Deputies are aware. It has its dangers. In the first place, it raises false hopes in the minds of very poor people. In the second place, it invites local bodies that are charged with the distribution of home assistance to be more neglectful in the matter, if, as Deputies say, they are neglectful at present. Deputies say that if I had more experience of the manner in which home assistance is being administered, I would not have anything, good, bad, or indifferent to say for it.

Mr. T. MURPHY

You would not have much, anyhow.

General MULCAHY

If it is not being administered in an effective and Christian way, those at fault are the representatives on local bodies who should deal with it, and the officials appointed by these local bodies to deal with it.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare):

That is the fault of the system.

General MULCAHY

I sometimes read the type of discussion that goes on in local bodies throughout the country, and I say that if a great deal of that discussion did not take place, and if the problem of home assistance and the administration of it in an effective and a Christian way were considered, there might be no necessity for some of the statements that were made here. But the local responsibility and the local problem is run away from, and people come here with motions to relieve further the pressure that local problems bring to bear on the shoulders of local people. After the discussion we are still left with no clear view as to the lines on which a system of insurance should be run. If widows and orphans who are in a necessitous condition are to be relieved, there are roughly three ways in which they can be relieved. In the first place, they can be relieved by a scheme of insurance which, from the point of view of type at any rate, could be on the lines of the present National Health Insurance. Deputy Cassidy has made it clear that that will not suit him, and Deputy Law has made it clear that that will not suit him, Deputy Murphy tells us not to be frightened because there are only 6,000 widows dealt with at present, and that in fact the number of widows being dealt with even in his own district of West Cork is very small. If Deputy Murphy goes carefully into it he will hardly be satisfied that an insurance system that is an extension of the present system would cover the great majority of cases he has in mind in West Cork. The second scheme is a scheme analogous to the old age pensions, whether run centrally or run locally. The third is a home assistance scheme, or some more satisfactory arrangement with regard to it.

The charge made by Deputy Corish and other Deputies is that the Government has done nothing in this matter. As long ago as August, 1925, when it was clear that a scheme for extending the National Health Insurance system in Great Britain to deal with widows and orphans was coming on the horizon, we at once began to see what the possibilities in the matter were, and, after certain correspondence with the actuary for the National Health Insurance, it was decided, about August, 1925, that the figures that were required were not available; that the type of census in 1911, were not such as to be of any use for the purpose. From August, 1925, the matter was dropped until December 2nd, 1927, when the actuary was written to and was informed that the census work was then proceeding at such a rate that we would probably be able to get the necessary information to enable him to carry out his calculations. On the 18th January he replied, giving twenty-one different headings under which he required figures dealing with the census population, National Health Insurance, unemployment and other matters. The figures available were supplied to him by the 6th June last, and in further correspondence with him up to 18th October, all the figures he required were provided, with the exception of those under five of the twenty-one heads asked for. But these figures under the five heads were very elaborate, and the state of the census was not yet such that we were able to provide them. Deputy Carey said that he would be quite satisfied if we could have a scheme by the beginning of the new year. The information we still require in order to investigate a scheme of National Health Insurance is as follows:—

Relative ages of husbands and wives in quinquennial age groups.

Nos. of married men, widows and widowers (in quinquennial age groups), showing numbers with 0, 1, 2, etc, children.

Nos. and age distribution of total occupied population, and also of totals working for employers (separately for men, spinsters, married women and widows).

Nos. and age distribution of (a) farmers, and (b) farmers' sons and daughters, divided according to working for employers and others.

Can any data be obtained regarding the age distribution of children of married men, widows and widowers according to ages of parents, and also of the ages of the youngest children?

That is the information that is required before we can see what could be done under the National Health Insurance scheme to introduce a scheme of widows' and orphans' pensions. But we have not been told whether Deputies stand for increasing the contributions to the National Health Insurance system to the extent that has been done in England. In England and Wales there are 9,800,000 males under National Health Insurance; here we have 290,000. Deputies have not told us as to whether under the National Health Insurance system they would stand for an increase up to ninepence or tenpence in the contributions, or whatever the figure would be. It is not possible to give an indication at present as to what it might be. But at any rate we cannot hope, with our small number of people in National Health Insurance, and the resultant relatively high cost of overhead and administrative charges, to give the same benefits as they give in England, and we have not been told whether, even with the limited number of people that would come in under National Health Insurance, it would be worth it to have an increased contribution.

As I said, Deputy Cassidy realises that an extension of the National Health Insurance scheme would not cover his case. Take the insurance system for Donegal. If we are to look at the figures published in Vol. 2 of the Census, and if we take Donegal we find that 77.5 of the occupied people are engaged in agriculture, and of those 84.1 per cent. are farmers, and their relatives who would not come under an insurance scheme like the National Health Insurance scheme. Are we going to extend the system to these farmers in Donegal or are we going in the case of widows and orphans amongst them, to give pensions on an old age pensions basis? Deputy Cassidy says we must give them on a non-contributory basis. You have 84 per cent. occupied as farmers or their relatives, and the percentage of the total occupied in agriculture is 77. Of the people occupied in agriculture in Donegal, 44.5 per cent. are in holdings under 15 acres, and 68.5 in holdings under 30 acres.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

General MULCAHY

The Cork Census is not published in a form analogous to that of the area represented by Deputy Murphy. If we take Donegal there are 51,000 males entirely occupied there, and only 9,000 in National Health Insurance. These figures are a sample of the position in the Western districts that Deputy Murphy, Deputy Cassidy and Deputy Law have spoken about, so that there is more than a normal actuarial problem of dealing with the National Health Insurance system and its extension in the problem put up. If we turn to an old age pension scheme, there are at present 95,000 women over 70 years of age in the country, and there are 66,000 or 70 per cent. of these women in receipt of the old age pension. There are at present 134,000 widows in the country.

If even fifty per cent. of these were to come in under the pensions relief scheme analogous to the old age pensions the cost of them and their children would probably run to £2,500,000. Seventy per cent. of the women in the country over seventy years of age are drawing the old age pensions. If fifty per cent. of the widows in the country were drawing the old age pensions at, say, the English scale the cost would approximate to two and a half million pounds.

Mr. LAW

Widows?

General MULCAHY

Yes, so that the problem you are given there, in so far as it is a financial problem, is a problem that has a very big business side to it. The figures so far as old age pensions go are such as to drive it home to our minds that in 1929, 1930 or 1931 you are not going, except under some kind of home assistance scheme, to deal with any pressing problem of widows that there is in the country. Even if you deal with those who come under the National Health Insurance scheme you are still going to be left with our main widow problem, because from my own experience I am quite clear that the heart of the widows' problem is not to be found in the classes that are in the National Health Insurance scheme.

Mr. CAREY

It would relieve the situation.

General MULCAHY

The thing that will relieve the situation is a better way of dealing with widows through home assistance. It is the main defect in this particular motion as put down by Deputy Tadhg Murphy that it runs away from that scheme and it invites the local bodies to run away from it, and it stamps that scheme with the brand of pauperism. You are up against the question as to the extent of this problem and the urgency of it. Deputy Tadhg Murphy is a member of the West Cork Board of Health, and he knows the extent and the number of widows and the conditions of the widows who are dealt with by the local Board of Health in West Cork. Yet when he takes the figures of 6,973 that have been recently quoted as the figures upon which he worked, he actually says: "I have mentioned certain figures in order to show that the proposition is not so alarming a proposition as some would imagine"; and then he goes on: "I hope that the Dáil will agree to the principle that five or six thousand people who are now in receipt of home assistance will be taken out of that position and given the status of old age pensioners." I must assume, while not wanting to exaggerate the position, that when Deputy Murphy speaks of the heart of the problem he feels that the heart of the problem is not very much bigger than the figures which he quotes. Speaking from actual experience, if you take the figures in West Cork, where there are 159 widows being assisted—it may be that a bigger number of widows require assistance——

Mr. TADHG MURPHY

Hear, hear.

General MULCAHY

In dealing with this particular matter, if the position were serious, if 159 was a figure seriously below the number that was the home assistance problem in West Cork, I suggest that the Deputy would not have taken the figures given. He would have said they ought to be very considerably increased.

Mr. TADHG MURPHY

Surely the Minister does not suggest that I should not avail of the only figures I had in connection with this matter. The Minister probably would be one of the first to object if I dealt with the matter in a general way without giving some figures, and I would be accused still further of running away from the actualities of the position.

General MULCAHY

I am not saying that. I am saying this—the Deputy has in his possession some figures and he was in a position to use these figures in the light of his actual experience in West Cork, but he did not, to any great extent, warn us that these figures were particularly below what the actual figures would be, and he quoted them to show that the proposition was not as alarming as some people imagined. Let us say that the figures in West Cork are only half what they should be, and that instead of 6,000 there should be 12,000—we have the position that in West Cork there are 159 widows being assisted. They are being assisted at a cost of 3.6d. in the pound. They are actually in receipt of money amounting to 47 per cent. of what they would get under the English scheme per widow and child. The position is this—there are 159 widows at a cost of 3.6d. in the £ on the rates and they are getting 47 per cent. of what they would get under the English system. They would get the full English system payment by a further increase of 4.1d. in the £. So that treating the 159 widows at present in West Cork would only cost the West Cork Board of Health 7.7d. in the £. It is a fact that the number of widows who are actually being dealt with in West Cork is only 6.8 of the total widows under 70 years of age.

I say if the problem were very much more pressing than the figures show that the Deputy would have shown that in his statement. In the same way in Wexford there are 363 widows being assisted. They are being paid between themselves and their families 41 per cent. of what they would get under the full English system at a cost of 3.3d. in the £ on the rates. They would get the whole of the English system at a total cost to the rates of 8.1d. in the £.

Mr. DAVIN

Is the Minister now making a case that the area of charge in the existing circumstances should bear the whole of the responsibility for a reasonable figure for the treatment of widows and orphans?

General MULCAHY

I am telling you how the widows could be dealt with on that basis at the moment.

Mr. DAVIN

That is your case. That is the only way it can be done.

General MULCAHY

I am giving you the facts. In Donegal there are 230 widows being assisted. They are getting at a cost of 2d. in the £ on the rates 26 per cent. of what they would get under the English system, and they could be paid the whole of what they would get under the English contributory system at a cost of 7.6 in the £ on the rates. It is much more easy, I suggest, to deal with the problem that Deputy Cassidy and Deputy Murphy and other Deputies have spoken of—to deal with the problem under home assistance at the present moment—than it is to deal with it in any other way. Decrying the scheme of home assistance and branding it with the name of pauperism is to do harm to the class the Deputies are trying to assist.

Mr. TADHG MURPHY

They have no doubts about it at all.

Mr. CORRY

Carrying on the old game.

General MULCAHY

I have put up these figures to show——

Mr. DAVIN

To frighten the people.

General MULCAHY

——in the first place to show that putting down the motion in this particular way and leaving other people to work it out is not any contribution from the Labour Party to the settlement of this particular question.

There are very big questions that Labour Deputies have to ask themselves and to answer before they can settle this problem. In the meantime, so far as the Executive Council is concerned, no day has been lost since 1925 in examining in the most thorough fashion that side of the problem that can be assisted in any way through the machinery of the National Health Insurance. I would like to hear further arguments on the suggestion that a system analogous to the old age pensions system should be set up to assist widows. I feel very much that Deputies are doing very great dis-service to the very class that they want to help by decrying the present system of home assistance. It is easy to decry it, but Deputies should remember that they are members of local bodies that have to deal with this matter, and if they would fight their corner on these public bodies in order to see that a proper spirit actuates those bodies that are dealing with the matter, and that a proper spirit is required of the people who are carrying out the work under local bodies, a very much greater contribution would be made to the solution of the problem. There would be more happinness brought to the individuals in question if Deputies did that.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

A proper spirit on the part of the Government would be more desirable.

Dr. O'DOWD

I desire to support the motion moved by Deputy Murphy. When I listened to Deputy Law moving his amendment, I must say I felt that his amendment should have been much shorter. If he simply moved to delete the words "of insurance" out of the original motion, I would expect, from the speech that he made, that he would be going into the Lobby in support of the motion. Deputy Morrissey made the point quite clear that he was willing to go the whole way with Deputy Law. Deputy Law gave an assurance to the House that he would accept the motion if the words "of insurance" were deleted.

A lot of talk has taken place during the course of this debate about outdoor relief and home assistance. As one who in his professional capacity has considerable experience of the administration of home help and outdoor relief, I certainly desire to support what Deputy Corish said with reference to outdoor relief. Outdoor relief and home assistance are objectionable, and for two great reasons. The Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Finance, or anybody else acquainted with conditions in rural Ireland, knows perfectly well that there is a stigma attaching to outdoor relief. It is, as it were, placarding your poverty before the world. When the home assistance officers, who may be very efficient and admirable men—and in my area they are—visit a house to give outdoor relief or home assistance, the people in that house feel it is a brand of pauperism publicly placed upon them, and they feel themselves publicly labelled. My personal experience is that there is a great stigma attached to it. The second reason why outdoor relief or home assistance is objectionable is that in many cases it is totally inadequate. In my own dispensary district the breadwinner of a family of six children died suddenly in or about last Christmas. The age of the eldest child is thirteen years, and the ages of the others range down to two-and-a-half years. The six children and the widow, after a bit of a fight, were allowed a sum of 8/- a week from the Roscommon Board of Health. Six weeks ago that amount was reduced to 6/-. You have there a widow and six children existing on 6/- a week. If the Minister contends that the system of home assistance is the best way to cover this problem, I put it to him, how is it possible for the widow and children to keep body and soul together on 6/- a week?

General MULCAHY

Why not ask the Roscommon Board of Health?

Dr. O'DOWD

That is what the Roscommon Board of Health and the Minister's Department have done. What can the widow and children do? They will not get any more, and we cannot make the Board give them any more. The way to solve the whole problem is to take the matter out of the hands of the Board of Health and make it a national problem. Much has been said about the cost of these schemes. Suppose, for instance, these orphans were taken away from the widowed mother and sent to an institution, their cost there would be very considerable. The six children in the institution would cost the State something like six or seven shillings a week each, and in the meantime the mother has to be maintained by home assistance.

The point has been made that the small farmers pay 80 per cent. of the taxation of the country. The small farmer has to pay, and it does not matter whether it is central or local taxation he has to pay into. When home assistance is given it is paid directly out of local taxation. But if the scheme is made national the small farmer for whom so much concern is shown will benefit. As I was saying, if the children were placed in an institution the State would have to pay for them, and the amount involved would be very considerable. Charitable institutions have been mentioned in the course of this debate, and a great amount of money is spent every year by societies such as the St Vincent de Paul, the Sick and Indigent Room-keepers, and other charitable societies. The money these societies spent, plus the money spent on institutions for orphan children in the country, plus the money spent on home assistance, would go a long way towards helping to place this scheme on a national basis.

Another great reason why this motion should be accepted is that there is no more suitable place for the safe and sound upbringing of a child than the home. You take a child away from its mother and send it to an institution and that child will never be the same as if it were reared at home. If some such scheme as this is put into operation in the country you will, to a great extent, preserve the integrity of the home, and that is one of the most important and essential things that any Government or any State should look to. I am sorry the Minister for Defence is not here, because I want, before I conclude, to refer to the case of an ex-corporal of the National Army who was employed at the Haulbowline Dockyard. That man died while in active service. He left a widow with five children. I communicated with the Minister for Defence with a view to getting a pension paid to the widow and children, and was told that the Minister had no funds at his disposal for the purpose. That man died in the service of the State, and his widow and children should be looked after by the State. The death certificate stated that he had uremia for 54 days, and nephritis for ten years. That ten years is, apparently, a mistake for ten weeks.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Deputy now bringing a charge against the Department of Defence? I do not think that is relevant to this debate.

General MULCAHY

I wonder would the Deputy apply that to the Civil Service?

Dr. O'DOWD

I merely wish to make the case that some provision should be made for any widow who is left in the position of this widow. I do not want to say anything irrelevant. I think it is quite in order to say that this man should have been insured in some way by the Army authorities so that his widow and children would benefit under some scheme of insurance. In my opinion the amendment is not meant to be an amendment to the motion. The motion has been on the Order Paper for nine months. The Minister for Local Government told us that they had been inquiring into this question since 1925. It was the duty of the Government, when the motion was put down nine months ago, to speed up their inquiries and have their figures and facts presented to the House.

General MULCAHY

Will the Deputy say if there is any possible way of speeding up and getting the five sets of figures I referred to except to let the statistical department do their work in a proper and systematic way on the census?

Dr. O'DOWD

In 1925, it was said that until there was a new census you could not do it. It took two years to get the machinery ready for the census. There could have been speeding up there.

General MULCAHY

The census was in 1926.

Dr. O'DOWD

Well, even a year. I submit that the amendment should be rejected because it is not an honest one. It is simply meant to shelve the original motion.

Mr. ANTHONY

I rise to support the motion. I realise just as much as the Minister that it is easier to give expression to a pious opinion than it is to translate it into actual fact. The Minister began by saying something like that. I believe that all sections of the House realise the gravity of this problem, and that all sections will lend their aid towards a possible solution of it. The problem created by the death of a bread-winner is a very serious one and I have every hope and confidence that when this motion is put to the House it will be made a non-party matter, particularly in view of the fact that a Deputy from East Cork—Deputy Carey—although seconding the amendment, has done more to convince me of the justice and practicability of the motion than anything I have heard said for it. We of the Labour Party do not pretend to have a monopoly of all the virtues; neither do we say that all the vices are on the other side.

General MULCAHY

Deputy Corish does.

Mr. ANTHONY

There is a tendency on the part of the Government Party to under-estimate the gravity not alone of this very serious problem, but of other very serious social problems brought under their notice from time to time by members of the Labour Party. That attitude of mind has been fairly well expressed by the Minister for Agriculture when he spoke of members of this Party and of the official Opposition Party as exuding charity. I rather dislike that expression on the part of the Minister. I might remark that the Minister himself exuded very little humanitarianism throughout his speech. His rather cynical references and the cynical references of the Minister for Local Government were rather disappointing to me, as one would expect more from the Minister for Agriculture and still more from the Minister for Local Government in the direction of humanitarianism. It is my personal view, and I believe it is the view of my Party, that it would be almost criminal to raise any false hopes in the minds of persons whom we intend to serve by putting down this motion, and I believe that we should not, either by putting down a motion or making declarations from public platforms, lead this most deserving class to expect that we were about to introduce or influence legislation towards bettering their condition.

In that connection the Minister for Local Government suggested that this matter had been engaging his attention and the attention of his department since 1925, a date which synchronises with the introduction of the legislation in Great Britain providing for widows and orphans. It reminds me of the mountain in labour which brought forth a mouse, but the Government Department which has been labouring all this time has not produced any results. They do not offer one now and do not give any promise of one in the near future.

Deputy Murphy's motion merely asks this House to declare it is desirable that these pensions should be instituted for widows and orphans. With other Deputies, I agree that Deputy Law's amendment is a mere red herring draw across the track. It is one of those things that I do not think Deputy Law has lent himself to before. On this occasion, he has been induced to put in this amendment not because he believes it is a solution but because he has been induced to put it down by the Government party in the hope that it may be sufficient to divide opinion in their own party. I ask members of the Cumann na nGaedheal party, who listened to any portion of this debate, not to go behind what they stated on public platforms in the country. Let them not be led astray by this new device in connection with this amendment. I appeal particularly to the County Cork Deputies not to be led astray by this amendment which seeks to shelve the whole question. I am not one of those who would suggest to the Government that they should embark on a scheme of this kind without an actuarial examination of the whole case. We do not suggest that examination should take place at once. We ask the Government simply to subscribe to the desirability of removing the stigma of pauperism from the people whom we want to serve by our motion.

I feel satisfied that an actuarial examination would show, having regard to the amounts paid out at present, in outdoor relief, to industrial schools, and orphanages, and in various other ways to our charitable institutions, that with comparatively little expenditure, so far as the State is concerned, this scheme could be put into operation. If the Minister wants to get figures, I am prepared to give him the results of some researches in Great Britain where the Act is already in operation, that possibly will help him in arriving at a decision. Deputy Hogan read some figures in connection with the administration of the Act in Northern Ireland. He also quoted the opinion of leading industrialists and the opinion of a farmer who is a large employer of labour, and I do not want to occupy the attention of the House in requoting these figures. But there are some figures that may possibly help the Minister and his Department in arriving at a scheme that will prove suitable to the conditions of the State which I will give. I have here the Board of Health accounts in the Free State, and I find that we have paid in home assistance £295,259; for children at nurse and boarded-out, £24,139; maintenance of county homes, £173,112; to boards of guardians, nurse children, £6,903; for out-door relief, £92,599; maintenance, £68,938, making a total of £660,950, roughly £661,000.

We suggest that much of that money could be saved by introducing a system of widows' and orphans' pensions, and old age pensions at 65. But even allowing the old age pensions age to remain at 70, this figure of £660,950 would certainly be a very decent contribution to the scheme suggested in Deputy Murphy's motion. When Deputy Murphy put down this motion he had in mind, as one who has borne a very active part on public boards for many years, the conditions existing not alone in his own district but in other districts of the Saorstát from which he was able to get information in relation to the whole question of the position of widows and orphans. I am not going to make a peroration on the lines of an appeal to the hearts of Deputies. I appeal rather to the heads of the Government Department and the Minister concerned. This can be made a business proposition in this way. In my view, it is a better business proposition in the long run—I do not suggest it is going to have an immediate effect—to build a State founded on the good morals of the people. We must recollect that it is in the homes of the people the constituent parts of the State are to be found. When you contribute to the widows and orphans to enable them to maintain themselves in respectability in their own little homes, and remember that these little homes are the nucleus of your future State, I suggest to the Minister and all concerned that that is a sound business proposition. I commend that to the House and, again, I sincerely hope that no county or city Deputy from Cork will disgrace himself by going into the lobby against Deputy Murphy's motion.

Mr. MOORE

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m., Wednesday, 14th November, 1928.