Before Mr. Murphy concludes, there is a point of personal explanation that I want to make. It was suggested here by more than one Deputy, in the course of the previous discussion on this motion, that I had put down my amendment on the paper at the instance of the Government. I think it is only fair, both to the Government and to myself, to say that that is not so. I put it down on my own initiative entirely, and simply for the purpose of getting something that I thought the House would agree on, and something that would give a larger basis for the inquiry.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS. MOTION BY DEPUTY TADHG O MURCHADHA.
"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."—(Deputy Murphy.)
Amendment (resumed)
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 burthen 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."— (Deputy Law.)
I think it was Deputy O'Hanlon who said, in his practical and sympathetic statement, that the merits of this debate were entirely in favour of this motion. That being so—and I agree with that statement—it will lighten the task that falls to me in closing this debate. If there is one fact that emerges from the whole debate that was regrettable and surprising it was the fact that in the speeches against this motion by the members of the Executive Council there was no indication whatever of what their policy was or is on this important question. As a matter of fact, the three Ministers who contributed to this debate spoke with different voices on the whole question, and nowhere could we see any indication of a considered policy, or even agreement, on this question. The speech of the Minister for Finance was one of neutrality, benevolent neutrality one might call it. He was in favour of this question being examined, but he was reluctant to commit the House to the principle of the motion. I am at one with the Minister for Finance in urging that this question should be examined. And, as has been pointed out here during the course of the debate, any subsequent action in connection with this whole question will to a great extent depend on the examination that the question gets and that this motion asks for. The Minister for Agriculture, in a very unworthy speech, asked us to come down from the clouds and to consider practical things. This motion deals with a very practical issue. It deals with a very material and important issue, and has all the fundamentals of a question that is both practical and urgent for a large section of the people of this country to-day. He devoted a great portion of his speech to the question of the burden that a scheme of this kind would impose on the small farmers of the country. The aim of the motion, or at least one of the results of the adoption of a scheme of this kind, would be to lighten considerably the burden imposed on the small farmers of the country in the matter of local taxation, and to spread the burdens evenly over the country as a whole. It will be some comfort for him to know that at the present moment a scheme of this kind is being put through in Switzerland, that it is made obligatory on the people to participate in the scheme, and that it is being framed with the view of benefiting the small holders there as well as other sections of the people.
The speech of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health was about as deplorable a speech as one could expect to read or as one could expect to hear on a question of this kind. If there was one member of the Executive Council, by reason of his office, and by reason of the duties pertaining to this office, who ought to have gone into this matter sympathetically and with a great deal more knowledge than the speech he delivered on this debate shows, it was the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I propose to go back later on in the course of my reply and to deal with the many points made by him in the course of his speech. The Minister for Finance, in dealing with this motion, mentioned a sum of £750,000 as approximating to the cost of the scheme. We have given some examination to this question, and it has been pointed out, I think, by Deputy Hogan (Clare), and it is our opinion that a scheme of this kind based on an insurance system would not cost anything like that figure. We have some evidence to support us in that contention, and we got that from another portion of the country, where a scheme of that kind is in force at the present time. The cost of a scheme of this kind in the Six Counties is estimated at £145,000. The population of Northern Ireland is round about 1,250,000. The population of the Saorstát is about 3,000,000. If the widows and orphans in the Saorstát are in the same proportion as persons in a similar class in Northern Ireland, the cost of a scheme of pensions for widows and orphans, and including old age pensions at 65 years of age, would be something like £348,000, a figure very much less than the figure indicated by the Minister, to say nothing at all of the very alarming figures given us by the Minister for Local Government in his speech on this question. To return for a moment to the speech of the Minister for Agriculture, I want to say that one can get helpful information from what happened in the North of Ireland in that connection, when the Minister speaks of the burden that a scheme of this kind would place on the backs of the people. The Minister for Labour in Northern Ireland, who is himself associated with big industrial concerns there, said during the course of the debate on the Bill to provide pensions for widows and orphans in Northern Ireland:—"If it did anything of this kind," that is, did anything to impose unbearable burdens on industry, "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." We have some figures in that connection. A firm in the linen industry in Northern Ireland employing 600 persons have had a sum of £145 per annum as a result of a scheme of this kind added to a wages bill of between £50,000 and £60,000. A firm employing 10,000 men would have an additional charge of £4,000 per annum on a wages bill of £1,500,000. As to the small-holders that the Minister for Agriculture spoke about, the additional charge on farmers employing three men would amount to one shilling per week.
It would be well, if it were possible, to have this matter considered altogether apart from the question of home assistance—to have it considered on its merits and from the point of view of what the duty of the State is to the people referred to in this motion. In our opinion the duty of the State ought to be as clear on this question as it is in connection with any of the principal services in the country. Our view is that, as the resources of the State are devoted to maintaining an Army, a police force and other necessary services, such as must be maintained in any civilised country, the women and children referred to in this motion should be treated as a first charge on the resources of the State. I agree that it is difficult to consider the matter apart from the reactions of the present poor law system. I listened with very much regret to the statement of the Minister for Local Government that he could see nothing degrading in the system of home assistance. Fortunately for himself he has very little experience of it. Those of us who have had experience of it have had the humiliation of the whole position brought home to us very forcibly and clearly, and we have no doubt about the absolute and utter degradation that the system imposes on the people who are unfortunate enough to become victims of it.
Apart from people of that kind, there are a large number of people who have sufficient pride to avoid the home assistance system. We have people who have been able to struggle along and to keep up appearances under very difficult circumstances. It is for people of that kind, as well as others, that the passage of this motion would make a great change. We have women who have lost their breadwinners, and who have refused to look for charity, going out day after day to work in their endeavour to keep their homes together and to feed and clothe their families. We have a Compulsory School Attendance Act in force, and although it is desirable that children should be sent to school, if the mother is not able to look after the children at home and give them the attention and care, and exercise the control over them that is necessary, then Compulsory School Attendance Acts and other Acts of a similar kind will fall very far short of what could be achieved by them.
It is because we are absolutely convinced that the duty of the State in this matter is quite clear, that we have put down this motion, and it is because we are perfectly certain that such a scheme is going to make a tremendous change in the conditions of a very large number of people, who deserve well of the State, that we ask the House to pass this motion. It is clear that we are not at present discharging our duty to people of this kind. The Poor Law Commission afforded absolute corroboration of that. In their report there is general agreement with the view that home assistance, as at present administered, is entirely inadequate. Even since we discussed this question last we have had very striking corroboration of that fact in the County Kerry. I have here a statement made by the Superintendent Home Assistance Officer in Co. Kerry to the Board of Health recently, which makes very sorry reading. He refers, in the most striking portion of his statement, to the conditions under which a large number of people in receipt of home assistance in Kerry are living at present. Their existence, he says, is nothing more practically than starvation. The children are denied necessary nourishment; consequently in almost every family there are either imbeciles, cripples or consumptives, certainly caused in most cases by malnutrition. In a large number of houses there are no beds. He goes on to advocate that, whatever economies should be effected by the Kerry Board of Health, there should be no economies in the matter of home assistance. He considers that the allowances that have been given to people of this kind are entirely inadequate and, to some extent, responsible for conditions such as he describes in very striking language. The Minister for Local Government tells us that we have nothing to hope for except the continuation of such a state of affairs as this until 1931.
No—a more adequate provision for such cases under the home assistance scheme.
Mr. MURPHY
He has no other alternative but to suggest the addition of 8d. or 9d. in the pound to the local rates until 1931, and urges us to fight our corner better on public boards. He suggests that some local representatives in control of public boards are not generous enough in the matter of home assistance, and are not sympathetic enough to the poor. Yesterday I read a report of a Local Government auditor to the West Cork Board of Assistance pointing out that in at least one district in West Cork the scale of home assistance was far too liberal. It is very hard to reconcile a statement of that kind with the statement made by the Minister, that he is in favour of more generous administration of home assistance.
I want to point out that local representatives are not entirely at fault in this matter. I have had occasion before in this House to refer to a notorious statement made by a Commissioner of the Local Government Department in connection with the poor made at a sitting of the Poor Law Commission held in Cork City. I do not want to go into that again, but if that represents the official view, it gives very little hope for the more generous administration of home assistance that the Minister is advocating. Home assistance is given to a great extent with a view to supplementing some income that the people who receive it are alleged to have, but the fact is that in a great many cases no such income exists, and, to all intents and purposes the few shillings given by the home assistance officer must provide all they can provide for the home until the next payment is made.
I wonder did the Minister ever hear the suggestion made by boards of health in the country that the names of people in receipt of home assistance should be hung up on the dead walls of the towns and villages. I wonder did he ever hear that home assistance is often paid out in the middle of the street? People are asked to give away whatever little pride or dignity they might have when they are called up to receive the three or four shillings that they get in home assistance. The Minister may not have heard of it, but it is a fact, and it is further proof of the degradation of the home assistance system. We are not asking that the home assistance system should be scrapped, but we are asking that the humiliation it imposes on people should be minimised by taking as many people as can be taken off, and by giving them, at the expense of the State, treatment which, in our opinion, they are entitled to.
The Minister disagreed with the way in which Deputy Corish interpreted the article of the Dáil democratic programme that would have a practical bearing upon this question. I find that the next article of that programme, which by the way I understand the Minister himself moved at a meeting of the Dáil on that occasion, is one that will have some bearing on this question also. It says: "That the Irish Republic fully realises the necessity for abolishing the present odious and degrading foreign poor law system and substituting therefor a sympathetic native scheme." Now what have we done in that respect. We have abolished the old workhouses and called them county homes. We have abolished the relieving officers and called them home assistance officers, and we have changed the expression outdoor relief to that of home assistance. But the same odious system remains more or less in many portions of the country, and has been worsened considerably by the changes brought about. We can do something towards giving effect to that article by the adoption of this motion, and I can see no reason in the world why even the Minister for Finance in his caution should be slow to have the principle of this motion accepted by the House. The principle of this motion was accepted by forty-five candidates for Parliamentary honours in 1919. In 1919, I understand, the present Minister for Local Government promised to support a scheme of this kind. It is yet time enough for him to repent of the speech he made in the course of this debate, and I trust that other members of this House, who associated themselves for some years with the idea underlying this motion, will also assist in getting recognition for the principle of the motion in this House.
Deputy Alfred Byrne has been for some years an active member of the Mothers' Pension Society in Dublin, and, I understand, support for the principle of this motion of pensions for widows and orphans has been promised by Deputy Thrift also. I have no doubt whatever that members of this House who were signatories to the report of the Poor Law Commission will give effect to the recommendations made in that report by their votes upon this motion.
I come now to another portion of the speech of the Minister for Local Government. He gave us the figures affecting cases of this kind in West Cork. He told us that at the present time, in West Cork, the people who would be considered under a scheme of this kind were in receipt of 47 per cent. of what they would get under a pension scheme. I have here figures supplied in connection with the matter that do not at all tally with the statement of the Minister for Local Government. I find that in West Cork, at the present time, we have 69 cases to which a scheme of this kind would apply. The number of persons involved was 276; the amount per week distributed is £31 11s.; the amount per case per week, 9s. 2d.; the amount per head per week, 2s. 3½d.; the amount per case per day, 1s. 3¾d., I think this is the most significant porof the return—the amount per head per day is 4d.
What percentage does the Deputy make it? The Deputy questions my percentage. I said the amount paid to these people at the present moment would be 47 per cent. of the amount they would get under the British rate. What percentage does the Deputy make out it is?
Mr. MURPHY
I have endeavoured to work it out in accordance with the Minister's figures, but I gave it up because they did not seem to tally. In any case I shall leave it to the Minister and the House to consider what measure of treatment the figures I have given afford in cases of this kind. The average family that would benefit by a scheme of this kind in West Cork at the moment enjoy fourpence per head per day, and we can easily understand the luxury in which they revel at the present time on that sum of fourpence.
I understood from you, A Chinn Comhairle, that I would get some time beyond half-past ten in which to conclude my speech.
Yes. The Deputy yielded to the request that the House should have an opportunity of finishing the financial business by taking some of private members' time and I shall allow him some additional time beyond half-past ten in consideration of that.
Mr. MURPHY
I want to go back to the question that I raised in introducing this motion as to the set-off that could be obtained if we were able to reduce the amount spent on home assistance and other charges of that kind in aid of a scheme of pensions. The figure up to March, 1926, for a year for home assistance under the Boards of Health was £295,259. The children at nurse and boarded out cost £24,139; maintenance in county homes cost £173,112. Under the few remaining boards of guardians, children at nurse cost £6,903, outdoor relief £92,599 and maintenance £68,938, the total being £660,950. It is very easy, after a little consideration, to see how this relates to a scheme of this kind, and one can see that practically 50 per cent. of that amount could be saved by the adoption of a scheme of this nature. There you have to some extent a set-off against the scheme which I propose. I am quite satisfied that, with comparatively little trouble, we can evolve a sound scheme of pensions for widows and orphans. I am perfectly satisfied that we ought to tackle that job immediately. We have the opportunity and we ought to avail of that opportunity to go into all the branches of our national housekeeping account in order to find how that money can be obtained. In this country at present we have £2,200,000 spent in betting on race courses, and that is by far the smallest portion of the money spent on betting. We have money spent lavishly in many other directions, and it ought not to be outside the capacity of the Government to see how the resources of the State can be examined and utilised for a scheme of this kind.
I feel that whatever the fate of this motion to-night, a scheme of this kind is coming very shortly. We cannot afford, as the Minister for Finance said very properly, to lag behind other countries in the matter of social work and social services. I feel that as the Minister indicated a desire to have this question examined, the result of that examination will show that this task is not as appalling as the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, would have us believe. I am perfectly sure that the case for this motion has not been answered and has not been upset in any way and that it stands as the only constructive effort in this debate.
I cannot accept Deputy Law's amendment. Deputy Law's amendment reads very well, but means very little. It asks for an examination of the question by any other means that may be necessary. It may mean, for instance, some slight extension of home assistance, as the Minister indicated, but that is not going to meet the problem or provide a solution. Therefore I ask the House to accept this motion and to reject the amendment.
There is one matter to which I would like to refer before I finish—that is, the statement made by Deputy Brady in the course of this debate. Deputy Brady, apparently, had fears that certain remarks of mine in connection with the number of failures arising out of maintenance in industrial schools cast a reflection on certain schools. Nothing could be further from my mind than to make a reflection on any school catering for children of this kind. I condemned the system, and I condemn it still, without making any reflection on the manner in which schools of this kind are conducted. I ask the House to say that the State is bound to accept the principle of this motion, and, being bound to accept the principle of this motion, that the preliminary step should be taken of examining it in all its bearings.
I would like to say a few words——
Is the Deputy entitled to make a speech at this stage?
Enter the Firbolgs!
Order.
Deputy Flinn is trying to be funny. I am one of the two T.D.s in this House who signed the Poor Law Commission Report recommending pensions and allowances for widows and orphans.
On a point of order——
I just want to lead up to what I desire to say.
On a point of order, is the Deputy entitled to speak after the mover of the motion has replied?
I want to hear Deputy Hennessy for a moment in the hope that it will solve all the points of order.
As a Deputy who signed that recommendation, I am going to vote for Deputy Law's amendment.
We know that.
I believe that Deputy Law's amendment will achieve more——
I would like to insist on my point of order. Deputy Murphy has wound up this debate, and I submit that Deputy Batt O'Connor is not in order in making a speech now.
It is put to me that Deputy Murphy having concluded the debate, Deputy Batt O'Connor is now out of order. I hope Deputy Hennessy will realise that he cannot possibly intervene in the debate after Deputy Murphy has concluded. Deputy Murphy had actually foregone his right to conclude for a quarter of an hour after the time agreed upon. The Deputy cannot now make a speech. It is too late.
I do not want to make a speech. I only wanted to explain that I am perfectly consistent in voting for Deputy Law's amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séumas A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenny, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Turbridy, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Holt, Samuel.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Davin and Cassidy.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment put as main question and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.50 p.m. until Thursday at 3 p.m.