asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is aware that the non-contributory pension awarded to Mrs. Jane Davis, Aughrisbeg, Claddaghduff, County Galway, under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1935, has since been withdrawn, and a demand made upon her for the refund of £14, the amount of the pension paid to her subsequent to the 4th February, 1936, and if he will state for what reason the pension has been so withdrawn, and whether it is his intention to restore it as from the date of withdrawal.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Withdrawal of Widow's Pension.
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The pension was withdrawn because Mrs. Davis ceased as from 11th February, 1936, to comply with Section 19 (b) of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1935. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
Arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, is he aware that the qualification mentioned is that Mrs. Davis should occupy the farm that belonged to her husband; and is he aware that she no longer occupies that farm, simply for the reason that she changed over to another holding that had been created by the Land Commission and to which nobody else would go because of the nature of the land and because there were no turbary rights, and that, in fact, she is in the same position, as far as being an occupier of agricultural land is concerned, as she was before she changed?
Section 19 (b) of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1936, provides that the widow of a man who was, at the date of his death, a smallholder, shall be entitled to a pension if and so long as such widow is resident on the holding by virtue of the occupation of which her husband was a smallholder.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary now telling us that, because a woman gets a pension by virtue of the occupation of a holding such as that, she can be deprived of that pension if she changes over to another holding created by the Land Commission?
Well, that is the legal position. I quoted the law for the Deputy. The Deputy, of course, knows that the Act has been amended in the meantime, and her claim to a pension could be examined again under the amending Act. Under the 1935 Act, however, she could not continue to draw the pension.
But the Parliamentary Secretary does admit that her pension was stopped simply because she changed from a holding she occupied to a holding, of no greater valuation, newly created by the Land Commission, and that her pension is stopped because of that reason and she is asked to pay back £14. If that is so—and I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that that is so—can the Parliamentary Secretary state that the amending Act will not only make this woman entitled to a pension but will cover the period in respect to which the pension was stopped?
I have already pointed out to the Deputy that the pension was stopped in this case in accordance with Section 19 (b) of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act of 1935. It is not a matter of administration at all. It is a matter of law.
And the law at the present time then, penalises a widow who lived on a small holding and who goes into another——
The Deputy should put down a separate question. He may not criticise legislation.
I might remind the Deputy that similar widows were penalised during the ten years that his Government were in office.
But they had not to pay so much for the maintenance of their families as they have now and they had more work to get.