I put down an amendment which does not appear on the Order Paper because it is in a form which normally is not set upon the Paper.
Widows' and Orphans' Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1940—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
A direct negative may not be moved.
I accordingly now move to delete Section 2.
The Deputy can only vote against it.
I invite the House to vote against it, and the purpose of so doing is to ensure that this proposal to delete Section 2, taken with the proposal to delete Section 3, would result in giving to the agricultural labourer as from the new year the same benefits that are enjoyed by subscribers to this fund who are subscribing at the higher rate, while permitting the agricultural labourer to continue contributing at the half rate. The Parliamentary Secretary, when I suggested this to him on the Second Stage, expressed alarm lest the adoption of such a proposal would render the fund insolvent, or be contrary to actuarial probity, or place a burden upon the Exchequer far in excess of what the Exchequer might reasonably be asked to contemplate. I, therefore, asked him to-day to tell us what his actuarial experience was of the incidence of claims made by agricultural labourers' widows. I find that out of 34,700 pensions, a figure which includes all the non-contributory pensions, we are paying contributory pensions to only 776 widows of agricultural labourers; that 316 widows are receiving a pension in respect of dependent children, and that 42 orphans in the whole country are receiving pensions for being the orphans of agricultural labourers.
We must not close our eyes to the fact that, although those figures represent the case as it is to-day, we have to reconcile ourselves to the realisation that the numbers here set out will tend to grow; that, as the agricultural labourers who are contributing to the scheme grow older, the mortality will be higher, and the incidence of widowhood and orphanhood in the ranks of the agricultural labouring community will become wider. We can see from those figures that the problem is a comparatively microscopic one looked at from the Treasury point of view. I do not care how the difference in benefit is made up. If the Parliamentary Secretary says: "The Minister for Finance is very glad to give each of those individual widows and orphans a subsidy direct from the Exchequer and not through the Insurance Fund", that is all right by me; or, if the Parliamentary Secretary says: "The Minister for Finance will give to the fund such sum annually as will enable the fund to give the widow and orphan of the agricultural labourer this additional benefit", that is all right by me. The machinery, to my mind, does not matter. What I want to secure is that the differentiation in benefit for contributory pensioners will be abolished, while preserving the distinction in the contribution required from the different types of labourer. At first glance it may seem queer that we should ask that one type of contributor should be paying 4d. for the same benefits for which another type of contributor is paying 8d., but on examination the thing is not so queer at all. We are a highly protected country; by that I mean we are highly protected by tariffs, and within that tariff wall the trades union organisation has secured to the industrial population a certain standard of living which bears little or no relation to the wages fixed vicariously by this House for the agricultural labourer. The agricultural labourer is to-day getting 30/- for a 54-hours week. Is there an industrial worker in the whole of Ireland of whom that can be said? I do not think so. Not one.
We are responsible for the situation which enables industry, at the expense of the agricultural community, to provide a reasonable wage for the industrial workers and we have taken extensive legislative steps to safeguard those industrial conditions. We are responsible for the rate of wages fixed by our authority for the agricultural labourer. All I am asking is the equivalent of fourpence a week for the agricultural labourer as a bounty from this House and that bounty not to be enjoyed by the labourer himself but to come into enjoyment only in the event of the agricultural labourer dying and his wife and orphans being left with no other means of subsistence. I do not pretend that the average industrial worker has a very large surplus out of which he can lay by substantial savings but he may be able to lay something by. He will be contributing to a ton-tine society or to an industrial insurance policy or something of that kind. Such provisions for a rainy day are out of the question for the agricultural labourer and all I am asking is that when that man lies down to die he knows his widow and orphans will not be worse off than those of the industrial fellow who he knows is in a position to make a larger contribution than he was in a position to make while he was living. One could expand that. One could draw the picture of the awful circumstances under which the agricultural labourer lives. To the Deputies of this House that picture is familiar without any word painting by me. I am asking for something for these people. They are the people who are closest to most of us. I make no apology for asking for it. I think equity demands that they should get it. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to say that in all the circumstances he is prepared to recommend that this concession should be forthcoming.
I think most of the points made by Deputy Dillon this afternoon were made on the Second Reading and they were dealt with in my concluding statement on the Second Reading debate. Deputy Dillon in effect asks for 100 per cent. benefits under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act for a certain class, namely, agricultural labourers, in return for a 50 per cent. contribution. It is all right presumably, from the point of view of playing up to the agricultural community, the people who would have to contribute an additional 50 per cent., if the Bill at present before the House had not been introduced. Deputy Dillon's line of argument in this debate may be palatable to them. I presume it is intended to be but, applying reason and commonsense to the position, I think the House will agree with me that in continuing the specially favourable treatment to the agricultural industry that was provided for that industry in the framework of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act the Government is going a long way, going the whole way, in fact, towards preserving that specially privileged position for agriculture. If the Bill before the House were not introduced at all on the 1st January next the contributions from the agricultural labourers and employers would be doubled and the benefits resulting from that increase of 50 per cent. in the contribution would amount to 20 per cent. They would pay an increase in contribution of 50 per cent. and they would get in benefit an additional 20 per cent. If we did not introduce this Bill at all and if we said: "We will let agriculture come into the scheme on the 1st January next on the same financial basis as the industrial workers," Deputy Dillon might feel aggrieved. Other representatives of agricultural workers or the agricultural industry in this House might feel aggrieved. But we have not done that. We have come to the House with the proposal that the specially privileged position that was created for agriculture as a temporary expedient by way of experiment when the Bill was first put before the House should be made a permanent feature of our legislation. At the present time the contributions from the agricultural section of the insured population amount to £60,000 per year. If the Bill before the House were not passed or if the amendments that Deputy Dillon proposed had not been ruled out of order—the only way he can achieve the same purpose is to have the sections deleted—a further £60,000 per annum would be collected by way of contributions from the agricultural industry.
Surely that is not correct.
It is correct.
Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that if my proposal to delete this section were carried it would result in the collection of a further £60,000 per annum from the agricultural industry?
I do not know what the Deputy understood me to say, but what I want to say and what I want the Deputy to understand is that if this Bill were not introduced and passed the agricultural industry would have to pay up by way of contribution an additional £60,000 per annum.
But we are not talking about the Bill. We are talking about Section 2.
They would have to double their contribution. For half contribution they get 80 per cent. benefit at the present time. It is proposed to continue that privileged position and I do not think the Government could in all reason be asked to make any more generous contribution towards the agricultural industry. Deputy Dillon says to the House, "I am asking for something for these people." Deputy Dillon is pleading for these unfortunate agricultural labourers and for their more unfortunate widows when they become widows. I would like to ask Deputy Dillon, why did not he plead for these widows during the ten years when the Party to which he belongs was in power here as a Government? During that period there was no provision whatever made for the destitute widows of agricultural labourers or of any other section of the community. If Deputy Dillon had applied his eloquence during that period, when we were on those benches and when we were fighting to try to force the Cumann na nGaedheal Government to make some provision for the widows and orphans, we might be further on in our social legislation to-day than we are.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made a Second Reading speech about the Bill. We discussed all this about the Bill last week, exhaustively. We discussed very fully all about the Bill, what the Bill would do and what the Bill would not do. The Ceann Comhairle called the Committee Stage and the Parlimentary Secretary moved Section 1 which was carried. Then we came to Section 2 and I proposed that the House would vote against Section 2 and I explained why I wanted the House to vote against it. The Parliamentary Secretary got up and made a Second Reading speech about the Bill and about the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and about the social services, but that does not get away from the fact that the Government, by the Parliamentary Secretary's own admission, have said that in their judgment the agricultural labourers in this country are entitled to 80 per cent. benefit for 50 per cent. contribution. They said: "At first we only had this as an experiment; then we spent five years thinking about it and we made up our minds that it must be made a permanent part of the legislation; we accept the principle that the agricultural labourers are entitled to 80 per cent. benefit for 50 per cent. contribution." I make the revolutionary proposal that, in view of the fact that for a 54-hour week the agricultural labourer is getting less than half what any industrial worker is getting for the same period of labour, very often for labour not half as skilled, you should give him 100 per cent. benefit for 50 per cent. contribution. That does not seem to me to be a proposition, in view of the Government's own stated principle, designed to shock the tender susceptibilities of the Parliamentary Secretary. I should have liked him to devote his attention to the proposal made, not to vague rambling generalities, wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
My simple proposal is that the principle laid down by the Government, the principle first proposed by the Government, the principle now confirmed by the Government, should be developed to its logical conclusion by the Government that first gave birth to it, and that is that instead of 80 per cent. benefit for a 50 per cent. contribution, the agricultural labourer should get 100 per cent. benefit for a 50 per cent. contribution. It represents a small benefit of about 2/6 a week for 776 widows and 1/- or 1/6 for 358 orphan children. That is not going to bring the financial foundations of this country crashing down. It is nothing to get vexed about. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is just as solicitous for the widows and orphans as I am. I have no desire to asperse the tenderness of his heart at all. I am sure he is as tender, as gentle, as a spring lamb.
Do not be too sure.
I am sure he is the kindest and most soft-hearted man in Ireland.
Do not be too certain of that.
Assuming that he is as tender-hearted as a chicken, I am now suggesting that he should exercise this chicken heart in attempting to secure 2/6 a week for 776 widows and 1/6 for 358 orphans.
How long does the Deputy estimate the figure will remain at 776?
I warned the House that the figure will tend to increase, but I think that in a closely restricted section of the community, such as that of paid agricultural labourers stamping insurance cards, the prospect of their widows and orphans developing into a limitless army is very remote. There will never be more than a certain number of agricultural labourers' widows, and orphans cease to be orphans after 14 or 16 years of age—the school-leaving age. In that way there is a constant drain away from the number of charges on the orphan list. We must, of course, bear in mind that there will be a constant tendency for new ones to come along, but there will be no catastrophic change and the charge will never become an overwhelming one. The plea is made solely on the basis that this fortuitous and unjust differentiation has to be made between the agricultural worker and the industrial worker.
What do you estimate the amount will be?
Do you mean in order to make the fund solvent to meet this charge?
No, I mean the annual charge.
Taking conditions as they exist to-day, it would cost about £120 a week.
Do you think that is all it would mean?
The calculation is that it would rise to £26,000 in six or seven years' time.
How do you make that calculation? How do you assume that the number of agricultural labourers' widows would rise so rapidly? Do you estimate that as the annual contribution to the fund that will be necessary, or the annual burden on the fund?
The actuarial forecast is that in the first year the number will be 700, in the sixth year, 7,000; in the 11th year, 12,250 and ultimately 23,000.
That is the total number?
The widows of persons in agricultural employment will, it is calculated, number 3,340. It is estimated that the amount involved will, roughly, be £26,000.
And the actuarial calculation is that the figure will be stable after that?
That is the forecast.
Of course, all actuarial calculations are subject to error, but at the same time we may assume this is a reasonable one. That is going to be our maximum average burden and that is our contribution towards the disparity in respect of agricultural wages. Is that an unreasonable suggestion?
It is not very extravagant.
I think Deputy Hickey and I are agreed that a softer-hearted, more generous-spirited or gallant body of men and women than the Fianna Fáil Party ever sat on those Parliamentary benches. If that will mollify them, I will let it go in order to keep them in good humour. I am making a reasonable case and, if the Parliamentary Secretary has nothing to add, I propose to divide the house on this matter.
Deputy Dillon has made a case in respect of agricultural workers, but there is a class affected by the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and they are in even a worse position. I refer to those in receipt of non-contributory pensions. Many of these people are receiving benefits on a non-contributory basis to the extent of only 1/- or 2/- a week. By a means test, which is pretty rigorously applied, many widows receive nothing, although they have fulfilled the same conditions as those whose husbands were insured. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has had an opportunity of reviewing the finances of the Act to such an extent as to be able to say now that there is some prospect of levelling up the rates of non-contributory pensions so as to ensure that the non-contributory scheme will not continue to operate in the present rather niggardly manner. It should be possible for the State to make budgetary allocations to the widows' and orphans' fund in order to raise the scale of payments. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some idea whether the Government contemplate legislation along those lines?
The Deputy knows that such legislation does not arise now.
I think it is much more relevant than some of the things Deputy Dillon trotted out—about spring lambs, for instance.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Keane, J.J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William J.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Cole, John J.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put.
I wish to have my dissent recorded.
Question declared carried.
Sections 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 6.
I move:—
Before Section 6, to insert a new section as follows:—
For the purpose of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1940, horticultural workers resident in county boroughs and urban areas shall be deemed to be insured persons other than agricultural workers and the rates of pension payable to the widows and orphans of such persons shall be determined in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Principal Act; and the rates of contribution shall be determined in accordance with sub-section (1), paragraph (a) of Section 38 of the Principal Act.
This is an amendment which I put down really more for discussion than to press on the Government. There is arising a situation in which you have persons working in horticultural establishments and garden nurseries whose normal place of residence is in the city, whose work is in a suburb, or even in the centre of the city, and, for the purposes of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, they have been deemed to be agricultural labourers. The same individuals, for the purposes of the Holidays (Employees) Act, are deemed to be industrial workers. The purpose of the amendment is to secure that these horticultural workers will be treated for the purposes of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts the same as they are treated for the Holidays (Employees) Act. But this has to be considered—and frankly I am not in a position to certify as to what the mind of these people is—if my amendment is carried it would mean that they themselves and their employers would have their contributions increased, and whether they would themselves want the increased benefit consequent on the increased contribution is something I am not quite clear about. But this much I know, that I came across a case recently in the city here where two widows were living in the one house— I think it was a tenement house as a matter of fact. One of them was the widow of an industrial worker who was enjoying a contributory pension at the ordinary rate in respect of herself and three dependent children. On the next floor there was a widow of one of these workers in a horticultural establishment who also had a widow's pension in respect of herself and three dependent children. The industrial worker's widow had 24/- and the horticultural worker's widow had only 19/6 —a difference of 4/6 in the weekly revenue of the two women.
That seemed to be an anachronism and I thought it well to bring the matter before the House with a view to taking the opinion of the House as to whether it might not be desirable to remove that anachronism and restore to this measure the same uniformity that obtains in the Holidays (Employees) Act. On the whole I think we ought to do it. It is a matter about which I do not feel very strongly, and if those in closer contact with this class of workers feel that their interests would be better served under the present arrangement I am not prepared to press the amendment. I do not know whether Deputy Hickey's attention has been directed to this amendment, but it would be of assistance to me to know his view as to what these men would feel about the matter.
I think there is a good deal in what Deputy Dillon has stated. I know of a very peculiar case where the Corporation of Cork have an employee in one of their parks who is not termed an employee proper of the corporation and is not paid unemployment insurance benefit. He is looked upon as an agricultural labourer. If he died his widow would only be entitled to a pension at the rate of 19/-, whereas the widow of any other employee of the corporation would get 24/-. There is something to be said for the case of the workers to which Deputy Dillon has referred, because horticultural workers are somewhat different from agricultural workers as we know them. If the Parliamentary Secretary would give consideration to the point made by Deputy Dillon we might get agreement about it.
This point was also raised on the Second Reading by Deputy Dillon and I had hoped from the discussion on the Second Reading that we would not have heard any more about it. Deputy Dillon stated on the Second Reading, and again to-day, that under the Holidays (Employees) Act horticultural workers are classed as non-agricultural workers. I do not think Deputy Dillon is correct in that. I would refer him to Section 2 (2) of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1939, which states:—
"For the purposes of sub-section (1) of this section the expression ‘agricultural worker' means a person who is employed by the occupier of agricultural land...",
and then later on it says in this sub-section:—
"In this sub-section the expression ‘agricultural land' means land used for tillage, dairy farming, poultry farming, market gardening, or horticulture..."
Is that the Act of 1939?
Yes.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary look at Section 2 (2)?
I direct the Deputy's attention to the definition of agricultural worker there. It means a person "who is employed by the occupier of agricultural land". Then we come along to this: "In this sub-section the expression ‘agricultural land' means land used for tillage, dairy farming, poultry farming, market gardening, or horticulture...", so that employment in horticulture would appear to be agricultural employment even under the Holidays (Employees) Act. Apart from that, however, under the Agricultural Wages Act horticultural employment is classified as agricultural employment and, of course, under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, workers in certain employment have been deemed to be employed in agricultural employment. Now it seems to me that, if Deputy Dillon's amendment were accepted, greater anomalies would arise in attempting to give effect to that amendment than arise under the existing legislation. Take the case of employees in horticulture, say, in the neighbourhood of a city, where there might be more than one person employed, and one might be resident in the city and the other might be resident in a rural area. The employer would have to have different stamps for the man resident in the city area from those that would apply in the case of the employee, doing exactly the same kind of work, but residing in a rural area. That could very well lead to employers rather favouring horticultural workers who resided outside the city, because a cheaper rate of contribution would operate in a rural area than in a city area.
The principle on which the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act has been based is to relate, as far as possible, the pension to the earning capacity of the wage earner and his standard of living. The Deputy mentions the cases of two widows living side by side, or in neighbouring houses, one being in receipt of 19/6 pension and the other in receipt of a pension of 24/-. No doubt that would be true, and in fact cases could be cited where the discrepancy would be greater. But if their husbands were alive the discrepancy in the earning capacities of their husbands would probably bear, at any rate, a proportionate relationship to the discrepancy between the pensions; so that, if pensions are to be related at all to the earning capacity of the wage earner when alive, well, then, such anomalies must exist. I do not think, however, that it would be wise to introduce the principle that the earning capacity of the wage earner would not be the determining factor, but that the residence of the wage earner would be the determining factor. Under this amendment, the determining factor would be, not the wages earned or the nature of the employment, but whether a person resided in an urban or a rural area.
Quite recently we had a good deal of discussion of that matter in this House, and a lot of time taken up in criticism of the Government's policy in this particular regard. We had a motion by Deputies McGovern and Nally, I think —I forget the wording of it now, but at any rate it was in direct criticism of discrimination in benefits, under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and such legislation, in favour of the urban dweller. Now, it is quite possible that they did not speak for their Party. It is quite understandable that there might be differences of opinion on that question in the Fine Gael Party, but the Government certainly cannot meet both points of view. Quite a number of Deputies on the Fine Gael Benches spoke very strongly in favour of Deputy McGovern's motion, but now Deputy Dillon comes along and proposes an amendment that is directly opposite to the views expressed by Deputy McGovern and the people who supported him in his motion in the House. Apart, however, from that little inconsistency—and I suppose these little things do arise in Parties from time to time——
That is true, they do— both in this House and outside it.
Yes, and particularly outside, but apart altogether from that, I think the principle of this amendment is unsound and that Deputy Dillon ought not to press the amendment.
I shall not press it, but the real class of person I have in mind is the same person who is deemed to be an industrial worker under the Holidays (Employees) Act, on the ground that he is a gardener. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that there were certain persons working on an agricultural holding, one of whom, perhaps, was employed in the garden, and he was not deemed to be an agricultural worker. It is really that class of person that I had in mind. To tell you the truth I think that in the case of a person working in an agricultural industry in the City of Dublin, growing roses and so on—with such firms as Dickson's or Drummond's—his remuneration would approximate to that of an industrial worker, and it seems to me peculiarly a hardship that, under this Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, while during his lifetime he was receiving an industrial worker's wages and living according to the standards normally enjoyed by that kind of worker, when he dies his widow should be given the pension attributable to such rural labour.
I do not want to follow the Parliamentary Secretary into the little flight of controversy that he introduced, but perhaps he has forgotten that we have been spending the last 40 minutes, I trying to persuade him to eliminate the differentiation in the compensation paid to an agricultural and an urban worker, and he angrily resisting my proposal. Of course, knowing my Parliamentary Secretary, I foresaw that he would resist any reasonable proposal. From my experience of his resistance to reasonable proposals in the past, I always had a second string to my bow.
You need not tell us that.
Oh, I would need 40 strings in his case, and I have no doubt that if I were really hoping to get anything approximating to reason from the Parliamentary Secretary, I should need to have a forty-third. However, I do not press this amendment. Frankly, I think there is a great deal to be said on both sides of the question, but I thought it was a matter that ought to be brought before the House for the purpose of examination and to be passed if the House thought it expedient to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 put and agreed to.
Title of the Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.