Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Nov 1936

Vol. 64 No. 3

Private Deputies' Business. - The Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1935.

Mr. Doyle

I move the following motion:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that the Executive Council should forthwith introduce proposals for legislation to amend the Widows' and Orphan's Pensions Act, 1935, to provide pensions for all widows whose means would qualify them for pension, but are excluded by not coming within the "contributory" or "non-contributory" pension provisions of the Act.

Since the passing of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act of 1935 and the tabling of this motion, I am quite confident that the Minister has received an abundance of information from the thousands of applications for widows' pensions sent to his Department. I am sure that the information is sufficiently widespread to indicate to him the amount of dissatisfaction that prevails in the country, due to the fact that such a large number of people, through no fault of their own, are debarred from receiving pensions. In view of the amount of information that must be in the possession of the Minister's Department on this matter, I do not intend occupying the time of the House by going into details. There are just a few points, however, that I would like to refer to briefly. The first refers to the non-stamping of insurance cards. In these cases when men, who are not insured, die their widows are deprived of the pension. In other cases, where workers are insured up to the date of their illness, if their cards are not stamped between that date and the date of their death, their widows are also refused the pension. I could go on for a long time detailing cases of hardship of that kind, but I will content myself by saying that the Minister must have sufficient information at his disposal to convince him that amendments of the Act are absolutely necessary. I hope that amending him the desirability of doing so as soon as possible, and I hope that amending legislation will be introduced at the earliest date. I formally move the motion.

Mr. Davin

On behalf of our Party, I beg to move the amendment to the motion standing in our name:—

To delete all the words after the word "provide" in line 3 and to insert therein the following words, "that pensions at the rate of ten shillings per week, with proportionately increased allowances for children, will be paid under the non-contributory Part of the Act to the widows of (a) men who were insured or were deemed to have had an insurance status under the National Health Insurance Acts at any time during the five years prior to the date of their death, (b) men who at any time during the five years prior to the date of their death carried on a small business in the capacity of independent contractors, and (c) men who were small holders immediately prior to the date of their death; and that so far as concerns these beneficiaries the provisions of the Act relating to a means test shall cease to have effect."

The members of this Party are not prepared to accept the motion standing in the name of Deputy Doyle because of the limited nature of the demand made therein. That demand calls for the inclusion of classes which have been left out of consideration under the existing Act. The amendment put down in the name of the Labour Party seeks to extend the scope of the present measure, and to increase the miserable pittances that are made under it, especially under the non-contributory sections. This Party has been advocating the provision of pensions for widows and orphans since it was founded as a political Party. Whenever we thought fit to put forward that demand, either inside or outside this House, we always had in view that the State pension so provided should be at least a living allowance. Deputies who have any knowledge of the administration of the Act, and particularly of its non-contributory sections, must be aware that, as administered, the Act does not provide a living allowance for those who qualify for benefit under it. In answer to a question which, I addressed to the Minister in the Dáil, on the 4th inst., it was stated that the number of claims for widows' pensions received up to the 23rd of October last was 26,944, and that the number of widows' pensions sanctioned for payment up to that date was 14,198.

I would like to know from the Minister, when he is replying, if he can say how many of the 26,944 applications have been rejected because of the fact that they do not come within the terms of the existing Pensions Act. I am informed that thousands of applicants have been completely cut out of consideration of any kind. I am sure that the Minister has available the latest figures, and I would be glad to know from him the number that come within that category. In reply to the same question, I was told that the number of claims for orphans' pensions received up to the 23rd of October last was 890, and that the number of such claims sanctioned for payment up to that date was 349, covering 559 orphans. In the case of orphans, I would also like to have information from the Minister as to the number of applications that have been completely cut out because it was held they did not come under the terms of the Act.

The worst point of all in regard to the administration of this Act is that regarding the average rate of pension paid to the applicants who come under the non-contributory sections. In reply to my question on the 4th of November, the Minister stated that the average weekly pension paid to a childless widow is at the rate of 4/9. But Deputies, I think, will admit that worse still is the average pension paid to a widow with one child. This amounts to 7/4 a week, which means that the allowance for the child is at the rate of 2/7 a week. I hope the Minister is not going to get up in the House and stand over such a miserable, niggardly pension allowance to persons so circumstanced. It will be pointed out by the Minister, I suppose, that the means test is responsible for reducing the average pension payment to such a low figure. In this amendment we are calling for the complete abolition of the means test which, under this Act as under other Acts, is administered in a most niggardly manner.

I have come across cases where a young officer has been appointed to carry out investigations in connection with the administration of this Act. He goes into the country and finds a widow with one or two orphans. He discovers that she keeps a couple of dozen hens. He calculates, from his own elastic imagination, that the hens produce so many eggs in the year, and that her income is so much from the sale of the eggs; but his calculation is based on the retail price at which eggs are sold in the local shop rather than at the price which the widow and other local people receive from the local shopkeeper when they sell their eggs to him. In some cases this young officer puts a market value on the eggs that would flabbergast the experts on the Opposition Benches, and that would meet with the disapproval, I am sure, of even such an optimistic agriculturist as Deputy Corry. I am sorry that the Deputy is not present to give his views to the House and to the Minister as to what his experience has been of the administration of this Act in his own area.

I would like to know from the Minister, who, I am sure, has a fairly decent personal outlook on matters of this kind, whether he stands over the average pension payments that are now being made to childless widows and to widows with one, two, three or four orphans. I am sure that the figures given to me in the Minister's reply on the 4th November are absolutely reliable, and will not be challenged by any speaker in this debate. I have personal knowledge, and so, I am sure, have other Deputies, of cases where the payment to widows and orphans, as the case may be, under the State pensions scheme, have been found to be less than was previously given by the local authority. If the Minister has any right to call the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act a State pension scheme, the pension payment should be fixed at a rate far and away beyond any payment previously made to such persons at the expense of the local ratepayers or by the local authority. I do not think that any Minister or Government claiming credit for the existence or operation of a State pension scheme should boast about payments which are admitted by the local authority to be below a living standard and which require the local authority, as a result of that consideration, to supplement the State pension allowance. I am sure that Deputies in every part of the House and representing every constituency can cite cases of that kind, and that large numbers of cases of that kind can be found in the files of the Minister's Department. I should like to know what action the Minister proposes to take to put such matters right; whether he believes the local authority should, in any case where a State pension is paid, find it necessary to supplement the State pension allowance.

I do not know whether the Minister or the Department has very much knowledge about the operations of the investigating officers who report to the Revenue Commissioners, I presume, and, in turn, to the Department of Local Government, under the section dealing with the means test. I do not know whether he would be willing to give the House any glaring cases where the means test is not working in accordance with his own wishes, or whether there is an intention on his part to abolish the means test in the proposed amending Bill which he promised to introduce in the near future. I think I am not wrong in saying that the Minister promised to introduce this amending Bill over six months ago, and I noticed with pleasure that he gave an assurance to the recent Ard-Fheis to bring in this Bill in the near future. This is the place and the time to give us reliable information, and I should like to hear from the Minister whether he proposes to introduce and pass that amending Bill before the Christmas adjournment.

Under the Act as it now stands, a number of cases of a most deserving nature appear to be cut out of consideration of any kind. We have applications for pensions from the widows of tailors, blacksmiths, shoemakers, country carpenters, cattle-drovers, chimney-sweeps and carters employed by local authorities. As far as I can ascertain, all these classes, although belonging to the wage earning class, and not being insured under the National Health Insurance Act, are out out of any kind of consideration under the law as it stands at present. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he proposes in the amending Bill to make provision for the payment of pensions to the widows and orphans of persons included in these classes, because I think the widows and orphans of tailors, blacksmiths, shoemakers, carpenters, drovers, chimney-sweeps and carters employed by county councils are entitled to as much consideration as has been given to widows in receipt of pensions under the contributory section of the Act. I am not by any means enthusiastic about the allowance provided under the contributory section of the Act. I think there is room for improvement there, if there is an admission by the Minister, and by Deputies who support this demand, that State pensions should be provided on the basis of a living allowance. I hope we will hear something interesting from the Minister as to what he intends to do under the amending Bill.

I daresay the Minister will justify himself by saying that we will have to wait and see, but I think that this Party is entitled to make the case that the existing Act has not, in its administration, covered all the deserving or necessitous cases. I hope that the amending Bill, when it becomes law, will provide State pensions at a decent living standard for all necessitous applicants. I do not want to see anybody with £1,000 a year provided with a pension under the Act—such people can look after themselves—but I think that the Act, as it now stands, does not meet the reasonable requirements of the majority of the members of this House. The members of this Party put forward about 50 amendments to the existing Act during the Committee Stage, but we were precluded by the rules of the House from moving these amendments, because no private Deputy has the right to move an amendment to a Money Bill of that kind which would increase the charges on the State. I am sorry the Minister did not see fit to take the responsibility on his own shoulders of including many of the amendments put forward by the Labour Party, because if he had been wise enough to do so, he probably would not have found it necessary to promise the early introduction of an amending Bill. I hope that the mover of the motion will accept the amendment in the name of Deputy Norton moved by me on behalf of this Party and that the Minister will see his way to meet the cases which I have cited and other cases, perhaps of a worse type, which can be cited by my colleagues on these Benches.

Mr. McMenamin

Is the Deputy not saying anything about the first sentence of the amendment?

Mr. Davin

I thought it was the duty of the mover of the motion to say whether he was going to accept our amendment or not. I hope Deputy McMenamin, when he speaks, will indicate what the Opposition propose to do in regard to that.

Mr. McMenamin

I want you to say something about it. You did not refer to the important part of the amendment—the proposal to raise the amount to 10/- a week.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

Do you object to it?

Mr. McMenamin

I do not.

Mr. Davin

Of course, I move it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Any Deputy desiring to speak can do so.

Mr. McMenamin

I have not consulted the mover of this motion about whether he accepts the amendment or not, but I certainly accept the amendment. I think the means test, as Deputy Davin has described it, is very unjustly applied in all these cases. The application of the test by the investigation officers under the Act seems to me to be exceedingly drastic. My experience is that it is much more drastic than under the Old Age Pensions Act. I am sure Deputy Davin, like myself, has come across hundreds of cases where the net award to widows is 6d., 1/- or 2/- per week. I want to be quite frank about it and say that I would feel ashamed to be the Minister in charge of a Department which would offer a pension out of public funds to anyone of 6d. per week. Poor women who have struggled all their lives are left with a family of children and have made sacrifices on their behalf. These women are real heroines and, in my opinion, have a greater claim on the State than, we will say, farmers whose families are reared and provided for. They have farms of land which provide the means of sustenance for them. Some of these cases are rather cruel. Just from memory let us take a few cases. Take a widow living in a cottage, not necessarily a labourer's cottage, but maybe a cottage on a farm.

Her husband was probably a labourer on the farm, and she is now living alone. She has a bit of a garden with a few heads of cabbage sticking in it. She may have a few hens and sell a few eggs. A woman of that kind had her means assessed at £25. I should like to know on what grounds that valuation was justified. In other cases, widows have been left with four or five young children. Perhaps, the youngest child was not born at the time of the husband's death. She has battled on and made good. Under the pretence that we are giving that woman a pension, we offer her 6d. a week. A woman who has battled through that storm, who has reared four or five children without making any demands on public funds is offered 6d. a week, and then we pretend that we are doing something for her.

Mr. Donnelly

You were a long time pretending.

Mr. McMenamin

In a constituency like mine, there are bound to be hundreds of these cases. In the main, these widows are poor. They are the widows of very small farmers who never had anything. Perhaps, their husbands, when alive, found their means of livelihood in Scotland. By all means, let us have an amending Bill, but let us not have an amending Bill of the type of the original Bill. If the present means test is to be applied in these cases, the pension should be increased to 10/- per week. The test applied is the same as is applied in the case of old age pensioners who are getting 10/- per week. My experience is that it is much more rigidly applied to the widows than it is to the old age pensioners. These women were led to believe that they were going to get some assistance under the Act, and now their hopes are dashed to the ground. In many cases, their children are reaching an age at which they are more expensive than they were previously. Even if the older members of the family have been placed, something should be done to enable the mothers to provide trades or other occupations for the younger members. If this House wants to pretend that it is doing anything for the widows and orphans, the maximum pension should be increased from 5/- to 10/-. That would be merely meeting the moral obligation—if we set out to discharge it at all. It is contemptible to award a pension of 5/-and, by a rigidly-applied means test, reduce it to a nullity. I support, in restricted form, the original motion, and I also support the amendment.

Mr. Donnelly

I have been brought to my feet by a remark made by Deputy McMenamin. I am delighted to hear the good news that he is going to vote for this amendment providing for a maximum pension of 10/- per week. He cannot conceive of any Government offering less.

Mr. McMenamin

If you apply the present means test.

Mr. Donnelly

That is a most extraordinary thing, coming from a Deputy who voted for a reduction of 1/- a week in a pension of 10/-.

Mr. McMenamin

I never did that in my life.

Mr. Donnelly

If you had been on those benches, you would.

Mr. McMenamin

Speak for yourself.

Mr. Donnelly

Things are changing so rapidly in this House that one must reach out to find whether one is in the Dáil or not. When a responsible Deputy like Deputy McMenamin makes the speech he has just made——

Mr. McMenamin

I shall repeat it if you like.

Mr. Donnelly

I shall let my colleague from Laoighis-Offaly down lightly. He summed up matters in the end of his speech. The Minister is about to introduce an amending Bill. Every Deputy knows that, but Deputy McMenamin thinks that it will be a grand thing to go down to Donegal and say that the Bill was introduced after he made his speech. Deputy Davin will go down to Laoighis-Offaly—I may go there some Sunday, too—and tell the people that, but for the speeches he made, the widows and orphans would be in a terrible mess. Deputy McMenamin is the greatest convert I have seen in the House in my time. Examine all these motions on the Order Paper which are to come up in Private Members' Time and then remember that we all know that an amending Bill is to be brought in——

Mr. Davin

Is the Deputy aware that this motion was put down before there was any promise of an amending Bill?

Mr. Donnelly

Seeing the promise is made, would it not be far better to stop talking about the matter and help the Minister to come along with his amending Bill? It is the Government Deputies who have to do this work. They have to support the Government and keep them here until the thing is done. If a political advantage could be taken by anybody on the opposite side, we might find Deputies going into the Division Lobby against this proposal—that is, if it would serve as a political trick or some purpose of that kind. Marvellous things take place coming up to a general election. All these motions should have been placed in the same boat if the people concerned were honest and sincere about them. They do not apply now at all. They were tabled at a time when conditions were entirely different.

Mr. Davin

Do you stand for the present pensions?

Mr. Donnelly

No. I say that amendments are needed and I say that, possibly, they should have been brought in earlier. No Deputies will go further than the rank and file of this Party to urge the Government to do the things which Deputy McMenamin wants done.

Mr. Keyes

I support the amendment, as distinct from the motion, because I think that, if the motion were accepted, there would be a real danger that it would be taken as an indication that there was nothing wrong with the Pensions Act save the financial clauses. One or two speakers who preceded me have pointed out that the Act is hopelessly bad. It seems to be almost incapable of amendment. The amounts doled out and even the maximum capable of being achieved in the non-contributory portion are insulting when offered in the guise of a pension to anybody. The restrictions with which the grant of pension is hedged round and barricaded render it more despicable still. I hope that the amending Bill, when it comes along, will not be confined to the alteration of the financial clauses but will deal with the matter root and branch and remove all the objectionable sections. One item under the present legislation refers to a widow who is eligible to obtain a pension outside the insurance clauses. That is the case of a plotholder. The plot, however, must be under £8 value and it must have a separate and distinct valuation, apart from the residence, or she will not participate.

The widow must have continued to reside in the same house or else she loses her qualification for this 5/-pension. I have particulars of a case from the County Limerick where an old mud cabin tumbled down on the little plot. The Board of Health built a cottage on the same plot side by side with the ruin—they could not build on top of it, obviously. Because the lady did not continue to live in the ruin, it has been held that she is not entitled to receive a pension. Surely, barriers of this sort were not necessary when the number of widows in the country was definitely known? There were, approximately, 134,000 widows in the State at the time this legislation was enacted. By reason of the fact that a certain number of them were over 70 years of age, they were ruled out. We went further and we decided that any woman who was childless, or who had not children under the age of 14, and had not the 60 years' qualification, was also to be deprived of any benefit under the Act. If a woman passed the age of 60 years she would become entitled to qualify. Apparently, somebody was trying to manufacture a jig-saw puzzle and was successful in that effort. Certainly they have succeeded in puzzling hundreds of unfortunate widows who have been looking for relief.

I may say that the Act has proved not a blessing or a benefit; in many cases its effect has been quite the reverse. I know plenty of cases where widows were in receipt of home help and where they were relieved by charitable organisations such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, or who derived benefit from some other charitable sources. In these cases, wherever State pensions have been granted, the widows have been debarred from outside help and, as a consequence, their standard of living has been considerably reduced rather than improved. I submitted a couple of questions to the Minister from time to time, dealing with the instructions issued to local boards as to their responsibilities. In reply, the Minister said that the local boards, and rightly so, ought to be aware of their rights and powers and functions in these matters. But that does not alter the truth of the statement that I have made, that once the State has come to the assistance of the widow, certain boards of health have definitely and flatly refused to give any help whatsoever because she was on the pension list. In such cases the Government have inflicted a real and a definite hardship on those people.

We have heard Deputy McMenamin speaking of pensions of 6d. and 1/-. I know of plenty of such cases. During the week a case was brought to my notice where the board are demanding a repayment of 13/- from a widow who was in receipt of 1/- a week. They discovered that she had been overpaid. They want the repayment made by way of a postal order or a cheque, but the amount must be paid immediately. I am going to prove to the Department that she did not receive anything like 13/-. Her child was over the school-going age and was not continuing at school and she did not notify the Department about the change in sufficient time, with the result that, because the child had passed 14 years, she rendered herself in debt to the State to the extent, as the Department claim, of 13/-. I hope to prove that she drew only 9/- up to the time they demanded the 13/- repayment. Deputy Davin has referred to the hardships inflicted on all the working class people who did not happen to be insured. Surely, we ought not to make any further classifications amongst people who are reduced to the poverty line and who have lost their breadwinners. A chimney sweep is regarded as a contractor, in his own way, and when he dies his widow cannot be provided for under this Act. The same thing applies to the case of a blacksmith; any of them who have not been stamping cards are ruled out from the operation of the Act.

If the amending Act promised by the Minister is to do what it is expected to do, it will be necessary not alone to increase the miserable stipend to at least 10/- a week but also to remove the very disturbing barriers placed in the way of unfortunate widows who apply for a pension. It will be perfectly easy to devise ways and means to prevent people of affluence becoming entitled to a pension. I am sure there are sufficient statistics at the disposal of the Department now, as a result of the close investigation they have made into the means of people who have been claiming pensions, and they could estimate how many people, approximately, would be entitled in ordinary honesty, fairness and justice to favourable consideration. I trust that all the information that they have already obtained will be used by the Department in a broad and generous spirit. I earnestly hope that they will speed up the consideration of claims for widows' and orphans' pensions and that the results of their efforts will be such as can really be regarded as a blessing by those unfortunate people.

Mr. Anthony

The first observation I want to make in what I intend to be a very brief speech is that I rather regret the movers of the motion and the amendment did not come together and give us a composite proposal, which would be the easier and the better way to deal with this whole matter. I can see a whole lot of good in the amendment. As a matter of fact, the amendment has a stronger appeal for me and I think it amplifies considerably what was in the mind of the movers of the motion. I rather deprecate the remarks or the comments of Deputy Donnelly who, after all, is an enlightened, educated man who must be aware that this is either a Legislative Assembly or it is not. He must know that it is usual in all Parliaments for motions to be put down and discussed even though amending legislation to existing Acts is promised. Is it not a help, instead of a hindrance, to a Minister to have the opinions of persons like members of the Dáil, who are in daily contact with the people, and particularly with those most affected by the legislation which we are told is in contemplation?

Nearly everything that could be said in relation to this matter has been said, but I want to endorse what Deputy Keyes said a few moments ago about the injustice and the hardship inflicted on large numbers of those people who were doing better when they were receiving home assistance from the local authorities. That is a state of affairs which should not prevail in any well-ordered community and particularly in a community in which we are told the Government are out to increase, to supplement, the social services. In Cork City complaints are very general in relation to the operation of this Act. I make no reflection on the administration of the Act, on the civil servants and others charged with carrying it into effect. These complaints are, however, very general. I have endeavoured to explain, with only partial success, by the way, because of unwilling listeners, to some of those whose claims were turned down that they were turned down only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Having given the only explanation a public representative can give on such occasions, I have often felt for those unfortunate people who were led to believe that when this Pensions Act was being enacted their conditions would be materially improved. Reference has been made to some of those persons who are unable to secure the modest pension of 10/- a week.

I had a case quite recently of the widow of a shoe repairer who was unable to obtain a pension because her husband was not an insured contributor. Deputy Keyes mentioned the case of a chimney sweep, but I had the case of a widow of a butcher in a very small way of business who also was denied a pension because her husband was not an insured contributor. On page 38 of the majority report, signed by 11 members of the Committee of Inquiry which considered this question of widows' and orphans' pensions, the semi-final sentence read: "The object of this inquiry will not have been achieved until all necessitous widows and orphans are in receipt of adequate pensions." If and when the amending Act is introduced. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his advisers will be able to act up to that protestation. In addenda to the majority report, signed by two members, exception is taken by these two members to the application of the old age pension means test referred to by Deputy Keyes, and to the restriction to 6/- a week of the means exemption.

These are the main objections to the Acts. As I say, I do not want to repeat what has already been said. I feel, from what I know of him, that the present Minister is a very honourable political opponent, and I pay him the highest tribute for his heart being in the right place, etc., but while we can fritter away money by the half-million pounds—this is my view, but it may not be the Minister's—while we are giving pensions to everybody who said "Boo" to a policeman, we are told we cannot find the necessary money for this sort of legislation without inflicting tremendous hardship on some other members of the community. That is a position I should like to put to the members of the Labour Party who proclaim that they are out to get all they can by way of social legislation. You cannot get more out of the common pool than you put into it. The sources of wealth of this country are not too great. We have only so much in the common pool, and the more you take out of it for the purpose of giving pensions to everybody who said "Boo" to a policeman, for the purpose of increasing the personnel of your Civil Service and other such purposes the less there is to finance necessary social legislation. I would commend that consideration to the Labour Party whenever Bills of another character come along for discussion. We are spending 4½ million pounds on education, and we are not getting 2 million pounds' value for it. Here is a way in which you could spend money to the advantage of the whole community, because every penny paid out by way of widows' and orphans' pensions will find its way back to the community in some shape or form, through the medium of the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. I appeal to the Minister, when the amending legislation we are promised is introduced, to bear in mind the comments that have been made on the drawbacks of the Acts and on the hardships which some of its clauses inflict on this deserving section of the community.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

When we had an opportunity of discussing widows' and orphans' pensions in this House some time ago on the Committee Stage of the measure the operation of which is now the subject of discussion, the Minister indicated that he believed it would be necessary to amend the Acts on some future occasion, and rather hinted that that occasion would be availed of as soon as possible. I think the Minister is now in the position of being able to lay his hands on a lot of useful information enabling him to see how such amendments ought to be made. It is a very well-known and indisputable fact that, in administration, very many defects have been revealed in the Acts, and while one is always glad and proud of the fact that the Statute Book of an Irish Parliament bears some testimony to a realisation of the need of widows and orphans in this country, one cannot say that very much more has yet been achieved. Particulars of the cases that have come under notice as typifying the hardships of the Act have been referred to, and, in addition to the particulars that have been touched upon already, there is, in my opinion, an undoubted hardship on widows who have not reached the age of 60 years, who have not children within the prescribed age, and who are very often in needy circumstances.

I think the plea made in the amendment to raise the amount of pension need not be unduly stressed. A reply to a Parliamentary Question last week elicited the fact that the average pension paid to widows was something like 4/9 and I feel sure, knowing the Minister's outlook on this and kindred matters, he realises that that is a position which cannot be defended and cannot be allowed to remain indefinitely. Many of us who were associated for a considerable time with the demand for this reform based our main case for the reform to a large extent on the hope that the advent of a measure of pensions for widows and orphans would remove the stigma of pauperism that remained for a good many of the poor; in the other words, that the widows and orphans would be put in a position of independence in which, in the same manner as the old age pensioners, they would obtain their pensions at the post office on Friday, without any taint or stigma attaching to their actions in doing so and without any fear that the whim of a rather niggardly board of health would alter their little means standard from month to month or from quarter to quarter. Unfortunately, in a number of cases, that hope has not materialised because I can bear testimony to the fact that boards of health, or at least one I have some association with and knowledge of, have had to supplement the allowances granted.

I do not want to decry what has been done. I say that in a great many cases the Act, for all its limitations, has been a very great boon indeed, but I think the Minister feels we must go forward in this matter, and the very large number of cases that have arisen in respect of which adverse decisions have been given ought not to be kept outside the scope of the Act very much longer. I support without any hesitation the plea in the amendment for the raising of the pension to 10/-a week and I think that no very prolonged argument is needed to justify that claim. I make the plea, too, that the large number of widows, the widows of artisans of the type described and other people, ought to have an opportunity given them to come within the scope of the Act and to receive its benefits in a very short time.

There are also numbers of people in this rather unfortunate position: the bread-winner died some time before the Act came into force and that death followed on what was very often a prolonged period of unemployment—two or three years. He had ceased active benefit membership of National Health Insurance. Considerable hardship exists in such cases. I admit that the admission of widows of tenants of labourers' cottages to the classification of such persons as smallholders in rural areas has eased the difficulties of applicants to a considerable extent, but a very large number of difficulties remain still and I would urge that the proposals contained in this amendment should prove acceptable to the Minister and should form the basis of the amending measure that he is introducing. Beyond that I do not think that anything further need be said at this stage. I feel that the Minister possibly is sympathetic to a more generous provision in the way of widows' and orphans' pensions. I would ask him to use every effort to remove whatever obstacles remain in the way of a more generous recognition of the very fine principle contained in the scheme of widows' and orphans' pensions.

Mr. Pattison

I should like to make my appeal to the Minister to reconsider the position in regard to the means test. I, like other Deputies who have spoken, have come across cases of hardship such as those which have been mentioned. I have also come across cases where the widow, through her industry, has provided her children with a good education. In some cases a son or a daughter may have become a teacher or may have acquired a trade or some other fairly good occupation and subsequently married. In order to remove the stigma of pauperism from their widowed mother, and rather than have her drawing money from the board of assistance, such children have tried to provide her with some weekly allowance. I think it is grossly unfair that the Minister's Department, in assessing the means, should take into account allowances of that kind. Surely the Minister does not expect that these married children should renege their widowed mother and say: "We will give you no more support. The State has provided pensions for widows, and unless you fight for your pension we are not going to support you any longer."

Surely, in this Christian country about which we hear so much, we do not want that condition of affairs. That is one kind of the many mean cases I find in my constituency. They all go to show that this abominable means test should be abolished. It is the meanest means test that could be devised. I hope the Minister, of whose humane outlook I, like other Deputies, have had experience, will give special consideration to the future application of the means test. I hope we shall never hear of it again. I welcome the announcement that has been made that amended legislation is to be introduced. I believe it is long overdue, and I trust that through it the Minister will remove all the grievances about which we have to complain at the moment.

Mr. Everett

I am very pleased that the amendment has met with such support from all sections of the House. We have had a contribution from Deputy Donnelly as to the promises made by his Party, but he was very silent on the question of whether or not his Party would support this amendment. He spoke of the promised new Bill and of what it would do for widows and orphans, but he did not give us any indication as to whether he would go into the Lobby with the Labour Party on this amendment. I am certain that, as a result of the statements made here to-night, he will urge the Minister to be more courageous in the Bill that he intends to put before the House, and that he will encourage the members of his Party to give it their whole-hearted support. We are all aware that the present Act has created discontent even in small areas. If the new Bill will remove these grievances of widows, it will be some consolation. I can give the Minister particulars of two cases that arose in one street. In the first case, a poor man who was in constant employment, and who had hundreds of stamps to his credit, unfortunately died last October. Another man, a neighbour of his, died last February. The widow of the man who died in February received something like 30/- or 32/6 per week, whereas the widow of the man who died last October, receives only 6/- or 7/- a week, owing to the fact that her claim was treated as a non-contributory case, while the other widow was treated as the widow of an insured person. These are some of the complaints that come before us as members of the board of health. We have just as many widows in County Wicklow in receipt of home help as previous to the passing of the Act. We have to supplement the amount which they receive as pensions by 3/-or 4/- a week. The majority of the widows are in receipt of an average of 3/- per week.

Take the case of widows of sailors and fishermen. I made a special appeal, on the introduction of the existing Act, to the Minister to bring the widows of such persons under the Act. These men work on a share system and, while they are not wealthy men, they have never been insured. A large number of widows, young women in many cases, are left without their breadwinners and have to depend on charitable institutions or on home assistance. They are not entitled even to a pension of 3/- or 4/- a week. I hope that under the amending Bill, now that the Minister has had experience of the working of the Act for the last nine months, he will be more generous and that he will be encouraged to remove all these means tests which I have always opposed in this House and outside it, especially means tests which are based on valuations, valuations which exist only in the imagination of young investigation officers travelling round the country. These young men have no experience which would qualify them to make proper valuations. I have no complaint to make against the appeals officers who have had a good deal of experience, but I do object to these young, inexperienced men, travelling round the country making these exaggerated valuations. They have very large districts to attend to, no doubt, but they put a very unfair value on even the smallest patch of garden. If the values which they place on these small patches of garden are to be accepted as fair, I do not see how any farmer can complain at the present time, because the farmers must be millionaires if their holdings are valued in proportion to the value which investigation officers place upon half an acre of land. I have come across a couple of cases where half an acrs of land was valued at £26 a year for the tenant of a labourer's cottage. Of course, it was only in the imagination of the investigation officer that such a valuation existed.

I agree with Deputy McMenamin that the Revenue Commissioners have not much consideration for these young men, and unfortunately they are tied down with regulations. The same value is placed on the perquisites of a widow who gets 5/- a week as is placed on the perquisites of a person who receives an old age pension of 10/-. In fact it is much easier to obtain an old age pension. Frequently we know that farms are transferred by old people, so that they can qualify for an old age pension, and you have not that strict administration by investigation officers as you have in connection with widows' pensions. I am certain that the new Bill which the Minister is to bring in will be a good Bill, that is if it is brought in before the general election. I hope it will not only be brought in before the general election, but that it will be implemented and put into operation before the election. No Party, I am sure, as Deputy Donnelly said, will try to take political kudos out of it. I would make a special appeal to the Minister on behalf of the widows of fishermen and sailors who, through no fault of their own, have never been insured.

I hope that some of those anomalies will be removed, and that, if we are really in earnest in providing the widows and orphans of the Saorstát with a pension, we will give them a pension which will be sufficient to enable them to live without any assistance from charitable institutions or the boards of health, and that the boards of health may thus be enabled to devote their time to really necessitous cases and the care of the sick people instead of having to make inquiries in a matter of this kind. I hope, that the widow will be able to get all she is entitled to get in this Christian State about which we have heard so much, and I trust that certain members of the various Parties who have been trying to prove, both here and on platforms outside, that they are more Christian than other people, will prove their Christian generosity by voting here in this House for a generous pension for the widows and orphans of the Saorstát—such pensions as they are entitled to from any Christian Government.

Mr. Corish

I am perfectly certain that the Bill promised by the Minister to amend the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act will be received with enthusiasm from all parts of the House. I think that the Minister himself is perfectly satisfied now that there is an absolute necessity that that Act should be amended. I think he pointed out himself, during the debate on the Second Reading, that many steps would require to be taken before this problem would be adequately dealt with. If the Minister felt that way then, I am perfectly certain, in view of his experience since and the experience of his officials during the working of this Act, that he is far more satisfied now that the Act should be amended. Members of this Party here pointed out, during the passage of the present Act through the Dáil, that it would be necessary to amend the Act and to carry out considerable amendments on it if the people for whom it was intended were to be reached. The Act was supposed to remove the taint of pauperism from the shoulders of many a widow who had lost her breadwinner. I think it will be found, upon investigation, that that is not the case —that in a great many instances the pension given to a widow and her children has had to be augmented by a weekly allowance from the different county boards of health. Now, I do suggest to the Minister that that should not be the case, and that it should not be necessary for a widow and her orphans to approach the county boards of health when we have an Act like this in operation.

Various Deputies have referred to people who have applied for pensions and who have been proved under the Act to have been ineligible. There are certain people who were not insured, of course. Their occupation, when they were alive, did not necessitate their being insured. The dependents of these people are in a very bad way. They are dependent on the chairty of their neighbours or upon the county board of health. I refer to such people as fishermen, carters who were contracting to do small jobs, and small cattle dealers. I know of a few small cattle dealers in my own constituency who never were insured under the Insurance Acts, who have died recently and whose widows have made applicasion but who are not eligible in consequence of the provisions of the Act. The Minister, of course, has told us that he is bringing in a Bill to amend the Act, and I do hope that that Bill will cover the cases that have been referred to. Now, the Minister must have expected that he would have to deal with 58,000 widows. That would leave 76,000 who would not be covered by the Act. Those were the figures he gave us on the Second Reading of the Bill which is now an Act. Notwithstanding the fact that he admitted that there were 58,000 who, in his opinion, would come under the Act, I think that up to the present moment only about half of the number of applications dealt with have been let through. I do not know whether it was the drafting of the Act that prevents these people from getting their pensions or not, but I suggest that the Minister should ask for some return relating to the numbers that have been passed through and the numbers he quoted on the Second Reading.

The Minister, of course, is aware of the hardships that are entailed by reason of the fact that a great number of people are not entitled to draw the pension, and I feel certain—at least I earnestly hope—that when he introduces his Bill we will not have much cause for further complaint. I am quite certain that the members of his own Party have come into contact with cases of hardship in their constituencies and that they have brought these cases to the Minister's notice, and I hope that, when he is bringing in the Bill, he will have these cases before his mind and that he will bring forward a Bill which will enable all these cases to be dealt with adequately. I can assure the Minister of the support of this Party in any effort he makes to bring about a situation which will enable him to deal properly with the case of the widow and the fatherless child.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

Perhaps it would clear the air, Sir, if I state right away that I do not propose to accept either the motion in the names of Deputies Morrissey, Doyle, Rice and Reidy, or the amendment in the names of Deputies Norton, Everett and Pattison. In reply to remarks that were made from different parts of the House about the putting down of motions of this kind, I should like to say that I have no objection in the world to seeing motions of this kind put down. I think that the motions concerned were down—or were sent in, anyhow—before I gave a promise in the House, in reply to a question by, I think, Deputy Davin, that I intended to introduce at an early date legislation to amend the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act of last year. However, as Deputies Corish and Murphy have reminded the House just now, I did say, in the course of the discussion on the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill of last year, that I was certain that legislation would have to be introduced to amend the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill that was then going through the House, and that probably several amending Bills would have to be introduced into the House at different times before the Act reached anything like the state of perfection that many Deputies in the House, in the course of the discussion on that Bill, had demanded. I knew that the Bill of last year would not satisfy everybody in the House, and perhaps would not satisfy even a great number of people in the House, but I did state then that while I myself did not regard it as entirely a satisfactory measure I looked upon it as a big step in the right direction. I looked upon it as a measure that was laying the foundation of social legislation; that was eventually going to be of great value; and that had been demanded all over the country by various individuals and societies interested in social reform for a great many years. While the amendments which I hope to introduce at an early date will, I am satisfied, improve the windows' and orphans' legislation, and will enable thousands more widows and orphans to benefit as a result of the passing of the legislation, when it is passed, I am still certain that it will not satisfy many people in this House, and perhaps many more outside it, but again it will be a considerable step in the direction of further social benefits for a very deserving—perhaps the most deserving—class of the community.

In the motion we are asked to provide pensions for all widows whose means would qualify them for pensions. I cannot say that I intend to do that in the amending legislation. I hope that that legislation will go to the draftsmen this week, but I cannot say when exactly it will be introduced. I cannot give a definite date to Deputies who asked for it, but I do hope that it will be introduced here before the present Session concludes. As I have said, its purpose will be to make provision for the bringing into the ambit of the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme perhaps, in round numbers, an additional 5,000 widows and close on the same number of orphans; I cannot give exact figures. The scheme which is the foundation of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions legislation is a contributory scheme. I think that that is the right basis to work on. It means that, in the early stages, a good many people who have not hitherto been in insurable employment and have not been contributors to National Health Insurance do not come under the scheme. That will continue, and must continue, so long as we found our scheme for widows' and orphans' pensions on a contributory basis. That disability must continue with regard to those people for perhaps a long time, but the number who would be concerned and who would not come within the ambit of the scheme would not be great. There would admittedly be a certain percentage of persons of the class referred to by Deputy McMenamin and by all the Deputies on the Labour Benches who have spoken, and it is possible that so long as we continue carrying on the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme on a contributory basis there will still remain grievances and grounds for complaint on the part of people who would not come within the ambit of the scheme because they were not in insurable employment. Up to now I have not discovered any scheme which would enable me to meet all the claims of that kind from all those different classes who have been referred to here in the House.

With regard to the amendment from the Labour Party, I do not, as I say, propose to accept that either. As my first comment upon it I may say that if we were to do what the Labour Party asks in the raising of the amount of benefit to be paid to widows—to be paid to the number of widows at present receiving benefit, without bringing in one additional widow or orphan—the annual cost would be increased from the present £250,000 to £650,000. That is an expenditure which I would not be prepared to ask the Minister for Finance or the Government to face at the present time, although admittedly there is not a more deserving class in the community than the class dealt with in this legislation. When we were discussing the Bill last year—the Bill which afterwards became an Act —I said that when it came to the time for introducing amendments my desire would be to go as far as possible in bringing a larger number of widows within the ambit of the scheme. That is the line on which I am going. We do not propose to raise the present rates of pensions, but we will bring, roughly speaking, an additional 5,000 widows within the ambit of the scheme, and between 4,000 and 5,000 additional orphans. Sooner or later in this House some Government— perhaps our own Government—will probably be able, when their burdens grow less than they are at present, to find the necessary money to increase the present rate of widows' and orphans' pensions. Unquestionably the tendency of social legislation will be in that direction. I do not know whether it will be for the Labour Party—I hope the widows and orphans will not have to wait for this increase until the Labour Party forms a Government—to get the rate of pensions raised to what I think everybody on all sides of the House would like to see the widows and orphans getting.

Mr. Davin

Would the Minister be prepared to say that when we get a Republic—and that may be in the near future—he will do it?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We will do it much sooner than the Labour Party forms a Government. If and when the Labour Party does form a Government here in this country they will insist on a means test, just as we will, for widows and orphans and other beneficiaries of that kind—old-age pensioners and others in the country. They will have to do it. One of the Deputies on the Labour Benches—I do not remember which one—said that they did not want to see widows with large incomes getting pensions. If there is no means test there is nothing to stop anybody, no matter what her means is, from making application and getting the benefit of the legislation to which she would be entitled if the law did not lay down that there is a certain means test limit of income applied in the case of those seeking a pension.

In the amendment which the Labour Party has put down they ask that men who are insured or who are deemed to have had insurance status under the National Health Insurance Acts at any time during the five years prior to the date of their death should be brought within the ambit of the measure. I have in mind a Bill which will do that and which will go further. That will provide that every person who was in insurable employment at any time and died, no matter for what period he was out of insurance, his widow can claim and will get the benefit of the Act, provided that the man at no time after going out of insurance went into employment that was not insurable. So long as he was an insured person he will be in benefit provided he did not go into employment that was non-insurable. In that case the widow will get the benefit of the Act. I intend to propose such a measure to the House; in cases where through unemployment or through sickness he went out of benefit he will, if the House passes such a measure, be regarded as an insured person under the Bill that I propose to bring in.

One of our great difficulties is the question of the small holder; I do not see a way of getting over that difficulty. At any rate, taking them all over the country they are, relatively, a small class though they were mentioned here by many Deputies. However, judging from the figures I got from the Department as to the number of rejections, it will be seen what the numbers are. The total number of rejections up to October was 11,024. We will practically cut that figure in two as a result of the amending legislation which I propose to bring in. Taking them by and large the total number of rejections will be 5,000 and, as a result of the amending legislation, they too will be brought within the ambit of the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Act.

Of these 11,024 rejections, I rather think that the number of people who were of the type of the small tradesmen class referred to would number only some hundreds. I have some figures here, but they may not be accurate, with regard to that particular class. I say that for the reason that probably some of these people would go to the Deputies in their immediate neighbourhood and ask their advice about applying. Probably the Deputies would inform them that they did not come within the scope of the Act, so that any figures I might now give would not be accurate and it may not be proper to quote them. In relation to the total 11,024 rejections the number of those tradesmen, small contractors and the like would be a very small percentage of the total. Deputies will like to know that the additional charge on the Exchequer by the amendment that I intend to bring in will be between £80,000 and £85,000. That, of course, is in addition to what it is already costing the Exchequer.

Deputy Doyle, in opening the debate, said there was much dissatisfaction throughout the country with the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions scheme. I suppose there would be some dissatisfaction, and possibly greater dissatisfaction, before any scheme was introduced. When discussing this Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill last year in the House, I remember saying that I was satisfied that there would be more publicity and more dissatisfaction expressed in public after the Bill was brought in than there had been previously; that people would talk about it in a general way, but that the great majority of them had not much hope of ever seeing such a Bill being passed into law or put into concrete shape.

When some people got those pensions and others did not I knew then we would hear a clamour. Deputy Everett gave instances of two cases in his neighbourhood where, in one street, one person got 6/- a week and another person in the immediate neighbourhood in the same street got 30/- a week. Deputies forget that neither of these people would have got anything a year previously. They are much better off now. I have come across cases in Dublin where the husband met a tragic death and where the widow is now getting 30/- a week or more. She gets that as a right because of the contributory basis of the scheme. The widows do not have to go to any local authority hat in hand. Once a person belongs to the contributory classes she will automatically get the pension. Where the woman has a large family she will get a fairly substantial sum per week. There is a very big difference in that woman's position as compared with her position a year ago, when she and people like her had nothing to expect but poor law assistance. Now they have a legal right to this pension. This Legislature has given a right, where the widow has five or six children, to 30/-a week or more. That is a benefit not to be sneezed at.

Unquestionably there is dissatisfaction with the Act because everybody is not treated alike and because of legal difficulties of one kind or another that are essential to a scheme of this kind. Everybody cannot be treated alike. The contributory basis of this scheme is worth defending because the whole scheme is on a proper footing. It gives those people in the future their pension as a right. It changes the whole tone of those people's lives who have become widows, especially those with children. It gives them a new status in life, a status which they did not have until this legislation was passed.

I have been making inquiries into schemes of insurance of this kind, widows' and orphans' pensions, as well as other sorts of insurance, and I find that no scheme of special compulsory insurance of independent workers has been applied. That is in reference to the small trading class and small contractors. No such scheme of compulsory insurance of independent workers has been applied in any country that I can discover. There is the same difficulty in all countries where they have nothing like the scheme of national health insurance and of social welfare for widows' and orphans' pensions that we have adopted. No other country has yet solved that difficulty. In Czecho-Slovakia a scheme was adopted in 1925, but, up to the present, they have not seen their way to put it into force because of the difficulties that have arisen. While the difficulty is there these people regard it as a hardship that they cannot get pensions that they see their neighbours getting. I suppose some time a solution will be found. I confess I have not yet found that solution. In addition to including people who had fallen out of national health insurance, we also propose to reduce the age of childless widows from 60 to 55. That will bring in a considerable number. We also propose to raise the age of children from 14 to 16, which will bring in a number of others. There are additional smaller amendments which will make it easier for the smallholder class to get pensions. There are other minor changes that will facilitate the operation of the Act and make it easier for some people who have failed to qualify during the operation of the Act throughtout this year. The main amendment I propose will concern the insured classes, and the ages of childless widows, and school-going children. Deputy Everett referred to the number of widows who were in receipt of home assistance. Before the introduction of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act there were 11,000 widows getting home assistance. Up to October of this year 13,140 non-contributory pensions had been granted, and the number of widows getting home assistance had fallen to 7,679, 800 of whom were also in receipt of widows' pensions.

Mr. Davin

Why should any of them be in receipt of home assistance when you have a State pensions scheme?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Deputy Anthony said a wise thing which would apply to any Government that might be here, that you cannot get anything more out of the general pool than you put into it. Naturally there must be some limit. This is all very well, and good politics, especially, as Deputy Everett said, to talk about this at a general election. There is no keener politician than the Deputy. It was remarkable how member after member of the Labour Party got up and spoke about the widows' and orphans' pensions. I wonder if they had the election in mind.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

The Minister is not a bad politician.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am not, and I would not be here if I was.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Davin

That is good for the Chamber of Commerce, all right.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know how much can be got out of the general pool as well as anyone, and how hard it is to keep the pool full. If, in present circumstances, and in the very unlikely conjuncture of the Labour Party happening to be here, I doubt if they could do any better than we have done, and are doing, for the working classes generally, and for widows and orphans in particular. The scheme of widows' and orphans' pensions that was brought in last year was not brought in for the purpose of having something on hands when we would go to the electorate at a general election, as I made a promise then that before the year was out I would probably be introducing further amendments. I said that more than once last year when discussing the Bill, and I have brought it on as early as I could. Whether the promise was made or not, certain amendments would have become necessary, and whatever Minister is here in 12 months or two years looking after these matters will probably find that he will have to do the same thing.

There will be an advance all along these lines, especially so far as social legislation is concerned. You will have changes in national health insurance, in widows' and orphans' pensions, and old age pensions. We have already a promise from that simple man who says he is no politician, Deputy Dillon, that pensions will be given at 60. I wonder when he made that promise did he believe that he will not be asked to perform it. We are doing excellent work for this deserving class of the community, and it remained for our Government to do it. Through the gentlemen now on the opposite benches were in office for ten years they made no effort to introduce legislation of this kind for the most deserving class of the community. That will not be denied. We do not claim to have done everything but if we are here for ten years, as we probably will be, we can claim to have improved steadily all the time, and to have done more for this class, that everyone in this House is anxious about, so that the public purse should be at their disposal to the utmost extent. That is what we have in mind. That is what we are doing, general election or no general election, and that is the policy we are pursuing.

Mr. Dillon

I am sorry the Minister saw fit to become distinctly controversial at the end of his observations. I do not think it was necessary to introduce that kind of discussion on this motion.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy was not here during the debate.

Mr. Dillon

I feel when the Minister points the finger of scorn at Deputy Cosgrave and his Administration, because he did not finance as many social services as the Minister, the Minister should remember that that kind of jibe must, in justice, evoke the reply that Deputy Cosgrave had to build up this State and to pay for the Ministers' civil war. That is happily all over, but I do not think the jibe should be tossed about, because it is going to draw us into a discussion of affairs that had better be forgotten. Whatever resources are at the disposal of the present Government are largely at its disposal as a result of the prudence, care and ability of the Administration before this one.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Rubbish!

Mr. Dillon

I venture to say that if the Minister consulted his Minister for Finance he would be told that is true. It would be well, however, if we all departed from that aspect of the question. I agree with the Minister that the future history of this State is going to consist of steady progress in the amplification of social services. I believe that is going to be the case in every democratic country. I believe that if the capitalistic system is going to survive—and I hope it will—it has to be purged, in so far as it is possible for any Government to do so, of the clear inequalities of distribution of income which did exist when the capitalistic system was in its full flower, and which still exist to a smaller or lesser degree, smoothing out all the inequalities and improving the social services which are to be paid for by the rich and enjoyed by the poor. I want to put it to the Minister that this is a case where a new social service would be immensely improved by admitting a comparatively small category of persons to its benefits. If you start a new social service it will certainly do a great deal of good, but there is no use closing our eyes to the fact that if you have two persons in stress and poverty, living side by side, while their plight was very bad before any social service was introduced, if the effect of the new social service is to lift one from destitution and to leave the other as he was before, then the condition of that one is, in fact, very much worse than it used to be.

I know of numbers of cases in rural Ireland in which, for instance, you will have a blacksmith who, to all intents and purposes, is exactly the same as a small-holder in the immediate neighbourhood. The widow of a small-holder is entitled to a non-contributory pension. The blacksmith dies, and his wife is left in a state of complete destitution. Now, we may try to explain to her the elaborate reasons why that has been judged desirable, but it is a very poor consolation to her, and it gives rise to an entirely disproportionate amount of discontent through the whole area in which those people live. I feel that we ought to be able to give pensions to every destitute widow in this State. I hate getting up to advocate extravagant proposals without any regard to the difficulty of financing them. That, in my opinion, constitutes the cheapest form of politics. I do not think that the financing difficulties of looking after these people would be insuperable, and it must be borne in mind that whether we do it through the legislation of this House, or whether it has to be done by the local authorities, somebody must look after them.

The day has gone, thank Heaven, in this country, and, indeed, in Great Britain when the community will tolerate the idea of anybody suffering from hunger. Now, somebody has got to look after them. The public purse has got to be charged with protecting them from the rigours of destitution. Once that is admitted, then I think the sooner the community faces shouldering the burden squarely and by no devious method the better it is for everybody. I could well understand the Minister saying to us to-day that in principle he was in agreement with us, but that he preferred to postpone this matter until after the Budget so that we may see our way. I think it is a pity that he should put the thing irretrievably on the long finger, and say that, possibly, hereafter further amendments may be introduced with a view to advancing in the direction of giving those pensions.

I do not feel that the financial burden of the reform suggested in our motion would be too heavy. I know, from living in the country, that the benefits conferred by it would be immense. It is right, however, to bear in mind the truth of the Minister's statement, that there is no use attempting to take out of the pool more than you have put in. The pool from which we are drawing this money is the pool of the national income, and when you draw money from the national income for the purpose of promoting social services you have got to consider a considerable number of things. One is that, so long as you maintain the capitalist system, and I hope we shall always maintain it in this country, you have got to take the precaution that your social services will not react on the productive capacity of the nation as a whole, because if they do what is going to happen is that you are going to reduce the entire sum of the national income and make the share of everybody proportionately smaller. I can see no danger whatsoever arising in that direction from coming to the relief of necessitous widows. I do not want widows charged with the responsibility of rearing children to be engaged in productive industrial or other work in this country. I think the place of a mother is with her children rearing her family, and I think it is the duty of the State to facilitate that. I think we ought to avoid, in so far as our resources will permit, bringing pressure to bear on a woman so circumstanced to go out and work. I think she is doing better work for the country if she holds her family together and rears her children well.

Mr. Everett

Hear, hear.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know that the Deputy and I would agree in our philosophy in regard to certain other social services, but we find ourselves in agreement here, and I have no doubt that the Minister agrees with us fundamentally. The Minister has shown, and many of his colleagues have shown, considerable courage in facing problems of this kind before. Let me assure him that, in this matter, a very grave evil exists, and that an amount of jealousy and a feeling of injustice is being fomented amongst a number of people who have quite enough to bear as a result of the adversity which they have met with already. I would urge strongly on the Minister that, between this and the introduction of the amending Bill he told us of to-night, he should consider again whether he could not widen the scope of his amending Bill so that all necessitous or destitute widows who are going to become a charge on the national income, directly or indirectly, can be provided for. I am convinced it would be much better, even if the sum is a substantial one, that the country should be brought face to face with the necessity of shouldering that obligation, and not have it shouldering it through the rates, through home assistance or some other devious way where the money is coming out of the same pocket but by another method.

I was sorry to hear that so many widows who are in receipt of pensions are still in receipt of home assistance. I would very much sooner see pensions fixed at such a figure as would make it possible for the local authorities to remove those persons' names from the home assistance books. It has got to be remembered, both in connection with unemployment assistance and with those widows' pensions, that boards of health, in certain circumstances, cannot remove those persons' names from the home assistance books because the home assistance officer reports that such pension or assistance as they are getting is not sufficient to keep body and soul together, and that it has got to be supplemented. Personally, if we could examine this whole question of social services in a calm and detached way, what I would like to do would be to set an ideal goal before us, a goal which none of us would pretend is going to be reached immediately or in the near future, and formulate what we would consider to be a fair redistribution of the national income, while preserving the essential elements necessary to keep the capitalistic system working in this country: assess how far our present resources would permit us to travel on the road towards that ideal goal, and then come to Dáil Eireann and seek powers from this House to raise openly and above board the money necessary to finance those services and to allow politicians from all sides to say: "This desire to see a fair subsistence guaranteed to every person in this State is not exceptional to any Party in the Oireachtas."

All sides of the Oireachtas desire to see every individual in Saorstát Eireann effectively guaranteed against destitution. The rapidity with which we can advance in that direction is conditioned by the prosperity of the country from time to time, and so soon as the national income is adequate to finance the ultimate ideal, so soon will the ideal state of affairs be established. But, in the meantime, careful consideration informs us that we can go a certain distance. We can go it publicly, overtly asking the people to provide the money. We are fixing them with notice now that, so soon as Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the national income will admit of some advance towards the ideal we have set ourselves, we shall ask for the additional sacrifices in order to make it. That would be my ideal approach to this whole question of social service. I believe it is a sound method and a better method than this piecemeal attack on the general question of poverty.

I think the people should be made to know that we who represent the democratic institutions in this country are determined that the resources of the State will be employed to eliminate destitution and that by using the instruments and institutions which we have, and which we are concerned to defend, we can more rapidly abolish destitution in this State and secure for the people a higher standard of living than they can ever hope to get under any "ism," whether it comes from Rome or Moscow. But I do feel, and I submit with respect to the Minister, that unless we are prepared to do that, we are simply strengthening the hands of the gentlemen who come from Rome and Moscow in order to propose their remedies for the social evils that afflict mankind. I think the time has come for democrats and those of us who believe in individual liberty openly to meet these gentlemen and take the trouble to explain to the people that democracy and individual liberty is a better remedy for the evils that afflict mankind, and that democratic politicians have the courage adequate to face these ills and overtake them more rapidly and more certainly than dictatorships of any kind can ever hope to do, in whatever community they may be found.

Mr. W.J. Broderick

I regret that I was not in for the whole of the explanation of the Minister's amending Bill and the different classes to whom it will apply, but I heard the Minister state most emphatically that the whole right to a pension depended on the contributory basis. Is that contributory basis to apply to the husband alone? Are young women who are now widows, and who were formerly contributing, to be denied widows' and orphans' pensions or are they to get them? I have a few cases in mind. There is one very pathetic case of a young lady who was in insurable employment for a good many years. She got married, and her husband died rather tragically, and her case has been turned down by the Department, as her husband was not a contributor, while she herself was a contributor for a good number of years. Does the Minister intend to provide for that particular class of case in his amending Bill? There are not a great many such cases, but if the Bill is to be based on a contributory scheme, I think that in all justice and equity the contributions of the wife before she was married ought to entitle her to a pension. Will the Minister answer that?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We are not dealing with the Bill now.

Mr. Broderick

In the amending Bill, will the Minister consider that particular class of case? I think it is a terrible thing, where a person has been contributing for a long number of years, then gets married, and after a few years is left a widow with children, that under the ruling of the Department, as the husband was not a contributor, that person is not entitled to a pension. I think it is a distinct hardship. Is there any hope that the Minister will include that class of case in his amending Bill?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I will examine it.

Mr. Davin

The Minister gave a figure which was rather amazing to me —that in October of this year there were 7,600 odd widows still in receipt of home assistance. Will he say whether any of the widows included in that figure are in receipt of any pension from the State under the existing legislation?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Eight hundred of them are.

Mr. Davin

Therefore, you have 800 receiving portion of a maintenance allowance from the State and another portion from the ratepayers, and that is good Government policy!

Mr. Cosgrave

Did the Minister say that about 16,000 pensions were being paid?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No, I will give you the exact number at present. This was given last week in the House in reply to a question asked, I think, by Deputy Davin: Number of claims for widows' pensions received up to the 23rd October, 26,944; number of widows' pensions sanctioned for payment up to the 23rd October, 14,198.

Mr. Davin

On a point of procedure. The mover of the motion did not indicate, when speaking, whether he proposed to accept the amendment or not. In the absence of such information, what do you, Sir, propose to do now with regard to the motion and the amendment?

An Ceann Comhairle

In accordance with ordinary procedure, I shall put the amendment first. There will be two questions, with divisions.

Mr. Davin

If the mover of the motion, who did not say very much in support of it, is not prepared to come into the House to reply to the discussion and say whether he accepts the Minister's assurances or not, might I claim the right to reply?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy to reply for the mover of the motion would presumably be a Deputy on the same side of the House.

Mr. Davin

I am on his side up to the point to which he is prepared to go.

An Ceann Comhairle

If no member of the main Opposition rises I shall hear Deputy Davin. The amendment is similar in intent to the motion.

Mr. Davin

The mover of the motion was very brief, and to the extent to which he makes a certain limited demand upon the Exchequer and upon the Minister responsible for amending the existing Act, I am in agreement with him. The one thing that amazed me in the Minister's statement is his attitude of saying: "You cannot take more out of the pool than is in it." That is all right coming from Deputy Anthony when he wants to have a little bit of a lash at the Labour Party, but I cannot understand it coming from the Minister. I have been in this House since 1922 and I accept my share of the responsibility for pension legislation brought in by two successive Governments. Deputy Cosgrave, when leader of the Government, brought in what was called the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, making provision for the payment of large sums of money to able-bodied men, many hundreds of whom had other means of employment and other forms of maintenance.

An Ceann Comhairle

It appears to the Chair that the Deputy is not now speaking for the Party to which the mover belongs.

Mr. Davin

I want to relate this to the Minister's remarks. When this Government came into office, the members of this Party, who happened to hold the balance of power during 1932, were invited on a certain occasion to vote for the repeal of that measure. On behalf of the Party, I gave a very definite assurance that we were not prepared to do so for very good reasons which were given to the responsible authorities at the time. The Minister's Government then come along and bring in an amending Pensions Act, which is at present the cause of a good deal of discussion around the country. This Act made provision for the payment of additional pensions to able-bodied people who have other means of livelihood. Deputy Cosgrave's Government and the Minister's Government are responsible for putting their hands down into this pool to the tune of £1,000,000 for the payment of pensions to able-bodied persons. The Minsiter says, and some of the Opposition Deputies may say, that it is not possible to find any more money for widows' and orphans' pensions—for pensions for people who have no means of earning a decent livelihood. Did anyone ever hear such political hypocrisy in any Parliamentary institution in modern times? We are told that we cannot put our hands into the pool and take money out if it is not there. It is not there for destitute widows and orphans but it has been found, regardless of any consideration, for able-bodied people who have other means of livelihood. I invite the Minister to put that issue to the people in such a way that he can receive a straightforward answer.

If pensions are to be found for any section of citizens, they should be found, in the first instance, for those who have no other means of livelihood and who are incapable of earning a livelihood for themselves or their dependents. I thought that that type of policy would be accepted by the Minister. Before the amending Bill is introduced, I hope he will reconsider his attitude. If he can justify a vote at any time for the provision of pensions for able-bodied persons, surely he has much greater justification for putting his hand more deeply into the pool to assist a much more deserving section of the community. There is no justification for Deputies advocating a State pension scheme and leaving the responsibility for any portion of the maintenance-allowance on the local authorities. If we have a State pension scheme, it should so provide for widows and orphans that they would not have to fall back for maintenance on the ratepayers. Such a scheme should be either provided by the State or by the local authorities. The Minister has shown that 800 persons in receipt of widows' and orphans' pensions had to have those pensions supplemented by allowances from the local authorities. Does the Minister believe that that is right, or that it should be allowed to continue? How many Deputies believe that such a state of affairs should continue?

I hope we have heard the last, in discussions of this kind, about the bottom of the pool and the depth of the pool. That sort of talk is merely hypocritical. It is not the kind of argument the Minister would use on an election platform. I do not care a tinker's curse when the next election comes along. It will come along when it suits the Minister and his Party. I did not say one word that had any bearing on the general election, nor did I advert to the Party advantage that might be taken in discussing matters of this kind. I endeavoured to put a point of view in support of the amendment which, I thought, would be accepted by the Minister with some sympathy. I do not mind Deputy Anthony talking about this pool. The interest of some of the selected classes he speaks of, representing the wealthy City of Cork, blinds him. But I am surprised at the Minister for Local Government and my colleagues are surprised. We hope he will reconsider his attitude before the amending Bill comes before this House. The Minister rejected the suggestion to abolish the means test. This test is the sole cause of the childless widow getting 4/9 under the non-contributory section of the present Act. Is the Minister prepared to do anything in the amending Bill which will increase the average payment to the childless widow under the non-contributory section of the Act? I invite him to do something in that regard and thus prevent the childless widow from having to fall back on the local authority if she cannot secure assistance from her relatives or friends.

This is not the type of scheme for which James Connolly gave his life in 1916. He was the first man who ever stood up at a Labour Party conference in this country to advocate the provisions of pensions for widows and orphans. If he fought for anything, he fought for something better than is provided in the existing Act. The Minister probably knows more about his outlook than many Deputies on these benches, but I know something about his attitude on Labour matters and on matters affecting social reform. He did not give his life to have a flag floating over this building or any other useless purpose of that kind.

Mr. Everett

Or the Christian Front.

Mr. Davin

One of my colleagues talks about the Christian Front. If Deputy General Belton were back from Spain, he would not take up the attitude the Minister is taking up here this evening.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would deal with the motion before the House.

Mr. Davin

I thank you for having given me the privilege of replying in the absence of the mover of the motion. As there has been no indication on the part of the Minister that he proposes to accept the reasonable request contained in the amendment, we propose to divide the House on the question.

Mr. Cosgrave

May I say a word on this motion?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair distinctly stated that if any member of the main Opposition desired to sum up, he could do so. No such Deputy rose and Deputy Davin was allowed to conclude. The Deputy may, of course, put a question.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am rather nervous that the speech just made by Deputy Davin may affect some votes and I merely wished to assist the motion by saying a few words. As that is not allowable, I hope that those who have listened to Deputy Davin will not be unduly upset by the speech he has made.

Question put: "That the amendment be made."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 55.

Tá

• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecn.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Corish, Richard.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Davin, William.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacEoin, Séan.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick James.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Scán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Neilan, Martin.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Everett and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.

Question declared lost.

Motion put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 53.

Tá

• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Corish, Richard.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Davin, William.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick James.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Davis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Neilan, Martin.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and McMenamin; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.

Motion declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

The next motion is No. 13.

Mr. MacDermot

This motion stands in my name, and I wish to say that, at the suggestion of the President's Parliamentary Secretary, I ask leave to let it stand over in the hope that the President may be able to attend when it comes up again.

Motion adjourned.

Motion No. 14 also adjourned.