Three hours are allowed for this motion under the Standing Order.
Private Deputies' Business. - Widows' and Orphans' Pensions— Motion.
I move the following motion, standing in my name and that of Deputy Murphy:—
Being of opinion that the existing scales of pensions applicable to widows and orphans are totally inadequate, having regard to the prevailing prices of commodities, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that widows' pensions should be increased to 25/-per week, and that in the case of widows having dependent children there should be paid to them, in respect of the oldest of such children, an allowance of 10/- per week, and in respect of the subsequent children 5/- per week until they reach the age of 16 years, or in the case of children suffering from infirmity rendering them unfit for gainful employment, during the continuance of such infirmity; and the Dáil is further of opinion that any income not exceeding £52 per annum enjoyed by a widow should not be taken into account when computing the net income of applicants for pensions under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts; and the Dáil further requests the Government to introduce the necessary legislative proposals for the purpose of giving effect to these views.
According to our Constitution—that Constitution about which we hear so much from time to time, and much more outside this House than inside it —the right is accorded, on paper, at any rate, to food, clothing and shelter for every section of our citizens; and Article 41, I think, of that Constitution expresses the pious opinion that the proper place for the married woman is in the home. If the proper place for a married woman, who is fortunate enough to have her husband in gainful employment, is the home, surely, then, the proper place of the woman who loses her husband—the widow who has the responsibility of looking after a number of orphans— is in the home. I make that point at this stage, because, under the existing miserable rates of pensions provided for widows, and especially for widows who have orphans to look after, it is practically impossible for those widows, in the majority of cases, to remain at home. The majority of them, and especially those who live in cities or towns, are forced, under existing circumstances, and by reason of the miserably low allowance of pensions provided, to go out and seek work, to the disadvantage, very seriously, in after-life, of the orphans. These orphans have a claim upon the mother, and it is the duty of the mother, if she can afford to do so, to remain at home and see to the proper upbringing of her children so as to make them fit, as far as they can be made fit by home training, for the difficult battle of life.
Now, the rates of pension proposed in this motion have been regarded by the Minister and his colleagues as excessive and beyond the capacity of the people of this country to pay. We, certainly, are not prepared to admit that, especially in view of the fact that it is the duty and responsibility of the Government of every country to provide a decent means of subsistence for every section of its citizens and, particularly, for those who are unable to look after themselves. It is not pretended that the rates proposed in this motion provide economic security for widows and orphans. They merely propose to raise the existing miserable rates of pension slightly above what is known as the "poverty standard." I think that it is right and proper on an occasion of this kind to summarise the most up-to-date information, so far as it can be secured by a private Deputy, so as to give members of the House an accurate view of the present position.
The latest figures made available to me were furnished by the Minister for Finance on the 29th February, 1944. On that occasion I asked the Minister for Local Government if he would state in respect of the last year for which information was available (a) the total number of (1) contributory and (2) non-contributory pensions paid under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, and (3) the number of beneficiaries in each case; (b) the number of pensions paid under each rate of benefit of 1/- per week and over, distinguishing between contributory and non-contributory pensions; (c) the number of such beneficiaries who received food vouchers and the total cost of such vouchers, and (d) the total sum paid in pensions in the case of (1) contributory and (2) non-contributory beneficiaries. The figures gave a very good view of the position prevailing at that time. The reply stated that figures as to the numbers of pensions paid in any year were not available, but figures were available showing the number of persons in respect of whom pensions were payable as at the last day of each month. Figures were then given relating to the financial year ending 31st March, 1943. These are the latest figures in my possession. If the Minister has more up-to-date information —and I am sure he has—I trust he will give it to the House. The contributory pensions payable in that year numbered 8,031 and the non-contributory pensions 27,711. The total number of beneficiaries was 58,434. I do not want to go into the figures in detail. I merely want to summarise them in a way in which they will be properly understood.
From the tabular statement furnished to me, it would appear that, out of the total number of non-contributory pensioners, 26,080 were then in receipt of as low a pension as 10/- a week. Only 1,631 were receiving pensions, in the non-contributory section, of 10/- and over. I quote the figures in that summarised fashion to give Deputies a view of the position prevailing on the 31st March, 1943. The Minister will hardly suggest that these figures go any distance towards showing that the reasonable needs of widows and orphans are being met. Out of the 26,080 persons in receipt of pensions of 10/- a week and under, about 13,000 were receiving pensions of 5/- a week and under. I do not think a member of a Government would stand up in any of the few democratic parliaments left and say that he felt proud of that position, especially with the cost of living at its present high figure.
It will be argued, of course, by the Minister that, in addition to the pensions paid on different scales ranging from 6d. per week to 21/6 per week, a certain number of these pensioners are getting food vouchers of a certain cash value. I ascertained from the Minister, in reply to a question on that matter, that, of 58,434 persons then in receipt of pensions of varying amounts, only 23,227 were getting food vouchers. It will also be argued that, in addition to the food vouchers, the Government recently made it possible, with the co-operation of the local authorities, for certain sections of these pensioners to get what are known as supplementary allowances. I have no figures to show the number of pensioners who are in receipt of supplementary allowances and I should be much obliged to the Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary, if it is he who will reply, if he would give us the latest information on that aspect of the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. It is unfortunate that widows who desire to obtain these allowances have to go to the poor law authorities and prove to their satisfaction, which it is not easy to do, that they are entitled to them.
According to the figures supplied to me on the occasion I mentioned, the total cost of the scheme for the payment of pensions up to that period was £731,147. According to the figures furnished to me on that occasion, I think it is only right and proper to point out that the average pension paid under the contributory scheme for the year ending on the 31st March, 1943, was at the very low rate of 6/9 per beneficiary and under the non-contributory scheme at the much lower rate of 4/- per beneficiary. Is there any Deputy or person in the country who believes in the provision of widows' and orphans' pensions who will stand up here or on a public platform outside and attempt to justify these low allowances, especially with the cost of living as it is to-day?
We all have a share of responsibility as well as the Government for the legislation passed in this House. I am sure no one would take the risk of standing up to defend the payment of such miserable allowances to the poor and the needy, especially to those who have no other means or income. I wonder if Deputies who were not members of the House when the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act was passed would look at the tabular statement that was furnished to me in the House on the 29th February last, and ask themselves what in the name of goodness is the use of providing pensions at the rate of 6d., 1/-, 1/6 and 2/-, and, if you like, up to 5/- per week under existing circumstances? We have people under the non-contributory section getting the princely sum of 6d. per week. We have 301 getting 1/- per week, 33 getting 1/6 per week, 591 getting 2/- per week, 387 getting 2/6 per week, 1,336 getting 3/- per week, 1,511 getting 4/- per week and 101 getting 4/6 per week. We have the big number of 12,675 in receipt of 5/- per week. I should like to ask what does it cost the taxpayers to administer this miserable means test for the purpose of keeping down pensions to the people residing in the rural areas under this non-contributory scheme to figures of that kind. What is the use of 6d. per week, or, if you like, 5/- per week to a widow who has probably to pay that much in rent if she lives in a village or a town? Compare these figures with the pensions that are being paid by other countries in the Commonwealth, that is if this country still claims to be a member of the Commonwealth. In Great Britain you have a contributory scheme that provides if not princely, at least decent pensions for those who qualify. In addition to the provision of pensions for those who are engaged in insurable occupations in Great Britain, you have a supplementary scheme in existence which is based on family needs. That scheme is also in operation in Northern Ireland.
Under it a widow, with three children, is entitled to a pension of 52/6 per week. The pension is based on family needs, on the sum that she has to pay in rent for her room or her house and to meet other charges. Under that supplementary scheme, children aged between 11 years and 16 years receive 9/- per week each. A widow can receive for herself up to 20/- a week under that supplementary scheme. A widow here in our part of the country, if she is able to give satisfactory proof to the home assistance officer, will get 2/6. Under the supplementary scheme in Great Britain and Northern Ireland children between 11 and 16 years of age get 9/- a week each; children between eight and 11 years, 7/6 each per week, and for each child under eight years, 6/- per week. Then there is an amount not stipulated—it is at the discretion of the assistance officer for the area—to meet the net rent payable so far as it is a reasonable rent. That is not a fixed figure. I cannot imagine widows and orphans who reside in that part of this country being over-anxious to wipe out the Border if, when it is wiped out, they are going to be transferred into our non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions scheme which would give them a maximum of 21/6 per week and a minimum as low as 6d. per week.
We have heard a good deal about New Zealand and of the financial system there as well as of the social security plan that was pushed through by the Government of that country in 1938. I listened a couple of years ago, about the time that Mr. Walter Nash, the Minister for Finance there, was on a visit to this country, to a speech of very doubtful wisdom that was delivered in this House by the present Minister for Local Government and Public Health criticising the financial system in that country, ridiculing the whole social security system there and prophesying—his prophecy did not turn out to be correct—that the country would be bankrupt in a couple of years. I understand that the Minister for Local Government subsequently expressed regret, and rightly so, for having used the language that he did on that occasion. In speaking on matters of this kind one is entitled to take the case of New Zealand in order to justify the claims contained in the motion and to point to what has been done in other countries. Under the social security plan put into operation in New Zealand by Mr. Walter Nash, a widow with dependent children gets 30/- a week with 10/6 per week for each child up to 16 years of age or until 18 years of age if a child is still at school. Widows with no dependent children are given 25/- a week and in addition can have a personal income up to £1 per week.
It is interesting in connection with this matter—I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is well posted on matters of this kind—to quote from a document issued by Mr. Walter Nash inside the last three months. In drawing a comparison in regard to the purchasing power of money in New Zealand and in Great Britain he made this statement—
"It may be said here that the purchasing power of the £ in New Zealand is fully equal to what it would be in Great Britain".
It is no harm to have that statement put on record. Let us now compare the increase in the cost of living, since the outbreak of the war, in Great Britain, in this country and in New Zealand. According to the latest official returns the cost of living has increased here by 71 per cent. over pre-war; in Great Britain the increase is only 27 per cent. while in New Zealand it is even lower—13½ per cent. The purchasing power of money in these countries, according to the returns published in the Trade Journal for December 1, shows that workers, even with the advantage of wage increases, can in this country only purchase £70 worth of essential commodities compared to £100 pre-war, while in Great Britain they can purchase £124 worth of food or other essential commodities and the comparable figure for New Zealand is £123 worth. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any doubt about these figures, they will be found in the latest edition of the journal issued by the International Labour Office associated with the League of Nations — the League of Nations that was, if you like.
It is struggling on.
I hope that we will have a real League of Nations and not a league of notíons in the post-war period. I have endeavoured briefly to summarise the position as I saw it on paper, here, in Great Britain and in New Zealand; and I have endeavoured to make as good a case as possible for the improvement in pension rates asked for in the motion.
Reference has been made here on many occasions, by me and by other Deputies, to the necessity for abolishing this miserable means test. I would like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary—or whatever colleague of his speaks for the Government, in reply to this motion—justify the continuance of this means test in the case of widows' and orphans' pensions and to tell the House—as he can, if he wishes—the cost of administering the means test. Why have we a means test applied to widows and orphans when there is no means test applied—and very properly so—in the case of children's allowances? If it is possible for the children of millionaires, if we have any, or wealthy people in this country, to qualify under our own Act for the payment of children's allowances, why is not the same principle applied under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act?
This means test is costing us far too much. In the case of small allowances, which it should be the right of these poor people to get in a Christian country, the means test should be wiped out and with it the high cost the taxpayers must bear for carrying on that farce. We know perfectly well what happens and the way this means test is carried out in rural areas. The investigation officers, who are paid very high salaries and have fairly heavy travelling expenses, go around and hold a sort of third degree inquiry into the method of living of these poor people, who are practically penniless. If they see a few hens knocking around, they want to find out how many dozen eggs those hens produced inside a fixed period; and, in some cases which have come under my notice, I have seen them assess the value of those eggs, which are sold in some cases by the owners of the hens, not at the price that would be received normally by the owner but at the retail price that a person who bought in a local shop would have to pay. The whole thing is a farce, a costly farce, and it is about time it was wiped out, particularly in connection with the claims of widows and orphans and old age pensioners.
Is it or is it not the right of the aged, when they come to a certain age, after service rendered to the country, to get these State allowances, without any third degree inquiry as to their domestic circumstances? Surely it ought to be the right of widows, left without their bread-winners, to get this State allowance? For goodness' sake, let us fix a reasonable allowance and cut out the means test and the farce associated with it for so many years. Some people think there should be some means test. In the case of New Zealand, it is possible for a widow to have personal property up to the value of £500 and a weekly income up to £1 per week and, at the same time, qualify for a pension at the rate of 30/-, if with orphans, and at the rate of 25/- per week if without orphans. Look at the difference between the amounts allocated in New Zealand and in Northern Ireland, for which I have quoted the figures, and here in this country. In New Zealand, where the cost of living is lower to-day than it is here, children get an allowance of 10/6 a week. Here in the cities the scheme is 7/6 a week for the widow, against 30/- in New Zealand; 3/6 for the first dependent child and 1/6 in cities like Dublin and Cork for each other child. Is that not an insult to people with intelligence and a Christian outlook? One shilling and sixpence per week: where could any widow provide for them out of that? Would she get enough milk for a child for 1/6 a week? In urban areas where the cost of living is nearly as high as in the city, the rate is 6/- a week for a widow, 2/6 for the first dependent child and 1/—a miserable 1/ —for each other child. In the rural area, it is 5/- for a widow, 2/- for the first dependent child and again 1/- for each other child. It is about time those figures were wiped off the Statute Book of a House that claims to be a democratic Assembly in a country that claims to have a Catholic and Christian Government.
I could go on elaborating and quoting figures to justify the amendment of the existing legislation and the improvement of the miserable rates. I will confine myself to one or two other cases which must be obvious to those who have studied the conditions of widows and orphans. Take the case of a widow with five dependent children, living in Dublin. As far as I can find out, she would be entitled to 17/- a week, plus food vouchers and any other supplementary allowances that might be made available. It is true that she also comes under the Children's Allowance Act, and in that case there would be an additional allowance of 7/6, bringing the maximum cash payment up to 24/6 a week. Out of that sum, the widow has to provide for herself and five children, for clothes and fuel; and she has to provide the greater part of the food needed in a household consisting of six persons. Can that be done in the City of Dublin by any widow—even the most thrifty widow— on a maximum cash allowance of 24/6 a week? We all know perfectly well that in the most miserable tenement districts of this city you will not get a room for less than 10/- a week— is that an excessive figure to name; I do not think it is—and there is 14/6 in cash left to that widow to provide clothes and fuel and the greater part of the food consumed by the family for the whole week. Is the Parliamentary Secretary or his colleagues attempting to justify that figure under existing circumstances?
The same kind of case occurs in a town like Clonmel. The same widow would have 12/6, plus food vouchers and 7/6 for three children who come under the Children's Allowance Act, making a total of £1 per week. Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Morrissey know more about rents in Clonmel than I do, but at a guess I would say the average rent would be about 7/6 a week. What is left for the widow and five children to purchase clothes and fuel? These are some of the things that must be apparent to those who have studied the administration of this measure, under which these miserably low allowances are provided. In my opinion, the allowances should be increased without further delay.
Of course, I will be asked immediately where the money is to be found. Naturally, I will be asked that question by the same Minister, probably, who boasts from time to time that this is one of the few small creditor countries in the world. We have increased our deposits in the banks in the last six years by the respectable sum of £120,000,000. What is the use of boasting about being a creditor country if we cannot provide a decent level of existence for those who have lost their breadwinners and who are either unable to provide for themselves or must go out to work and leave their children at home unattended, with all the consequences of that in later life? What is money meant for? What is the use of boasting about a Christian Constitution? There is no use in talking of what is only on paper if you do not implement it by providing food, clothes and shelter for those in need of it.
We talk about the increase in our bank deposits. There is plenty of money to be found if there is willingness on the part of those who have the power to provide it. When we were confronted at the commencement of the emergency with a possible attack from outside upon the people of this State, every leader of every Party and every Deputy came together and quickly made up their minds that there was no limit to the money which could be found to defend this country against a possible attack from outside. Here is an attack on the very existence of large numbers of our people—widows and children, people unable to look after themselves. We provided millions for increasing the number of our Defence Forces, for the establishment of A.R.P. and everything else associated with the defence of this country. There is no limit to the amount which bankers and moneylenders were prepared to give for that purpose. Who is it that is refusing a decent existence to the widows and orphans? Is it the Parliamentary Secretary, or is it his boss, the Minister for Local Government? Is it the Minister for Finance? Surely it is not the average Deputy of any Party. If a proposal of this kind were left to a free vote of the House, I have no hesitation in saying that the overwhelming majority of those who sit behind the Parliamentary Secretary and on every side of the House would find whatever money is needed to give decent pensions to widows and orphans.
We should be ashamed to call this a Catholic and Christian country and the Government a Catholic and Christian Government; I am not emphasising the word "Catholic" for any particular purpose, but it is the common boast of those who speak at social functions. I have heard members of the Government at Vincent de Paul meetings talk about the Constitution and the rights provided under the Constitution for the people. We hear a lot about it during elections.
Let us have the Constitution which is there on paper in lovely language put into practice and, by doing so, make it possible for the majority of the widows who have to go out to work to maintain their children to remain at home and look after the well-being of their children and give them a training which will fit them for the difficult battle of life which lies in front of children who have lost their breadwinners. I appeal to the sense of decency of members of the House. If they cannot see their way to accept the reasonable proposals made in this motion, they should, at any rate, increase the present miserable amounts provided under the contributory and non-contributory sections of the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Act and wipe out the miserable means test which is applied in connection with the non-contributory section.
I second the motion. I should like to remind the House again of what has already been pointed out by the proposer that the motion proposes three or four specific things. It proposes to increase the allowance for widows, with or without dependents, to 25/- per week. In the case of dependents, it proposes an allowance of 10/- for the eldest child and 5/- for each of the other children until they attain the age of 16 years. It proposes that applicants for pensions should not suffer from the decision that will follow the presentation of their case by reason of the fact that they possess means amounting to 20/- per week, and also that for that purpose any children suffering from any physical or mental infirmity should be included. Let me take that aspect of the motion first and ask: can there be the least objection to a proposal of that kind? Widows are amongst the most deserving sections of our people and are in a very helpless position owing to widowhood and the responsibility of dependent children. That position is considerably accentuated if any of the children are suffering from physical or mental infirmity that would prevent them following any employment. That is one of the aspects of the present legislation dealing with widows' and orphans' pensions that calls out for immediate action.
The mover of the motion has given the House an idea of the scope of this demand and the number of people concerned. I have some figures which could be usefully added to supplement the figures given by Deputy Davin. In reply to a question asked by me on the 3rd October last, I was informed that on the 31st August, 1944, the number of persons in receipt of contributory widows' pensions was 9,952; of non-contributory pensions, 25,220; and that the weekly value thereof was £6,685 2s. 0d. and £7,460 6s. 0d. respectively. Analysing the figures, the fact is revealed that the average weekly rate of contributory pensions paid is 13/5 and of non-contributory pensions 5/11 per week.
Does that include children?
I am not clear on that, but I think so. That is the average weekly pension and I take it the pension is what all concerned receive. I put a further question to the Minister on the same day with a view to getting information in regard to certain aspects of the present administration of the Act. I asked the Minister for Local Government if he would state the number of non-contributory pensions in respect of (a) widows, (b) orphans, and (c) widows and orphans jointly, payable at weekly rates of 1/-, 2/-, 3/-, 4/-, 5/-, 6/-, 7/-, 8/-, 9/-, 10/-, and over 10/- and the information I got is as follows: Rate of pension: 1/-, 306 widows; 2/-, 467 widows; 3/-, 1,232 widows; 4/-, 1,280 widows; 5/-, 12,032 widows; 6/-, 886 widows; 7/-, 1,479 widows; 8/-, 917 widows; 9/-, 631 widows; 10/-, 323 widows; over 10/-, 1,365 widows. In regard to orphans who are segregated in this particular case, I presume by orphans are meant children both of whose parents are dead. The particulars as to orphans' pensions were as follows: 2/-, 85; 3/-, 50; 4/-, 112; 5/-, 77; 6/-, 31; 7/-, 7; 8/-, 30; 9/-, 3; 10/-, 14; over 10/-, 21; a total of 430. I should have said that the total number of widows benefiting by pensions at rates from 1/- to 10/- and over is 20,918. According to this table, 75 per cent. of widows' pensions are payable at the rate of 5/- per week or less.
I consider that there is, on the face of it, an excellent case for doing something to improve this position. I want to be quite frank with the House and with the Parliamentary Secretary. If it is claimed that the rates asked for in this motion cannot be granted immediately, but that the matter will be kept in mind as a proposal for attainment as soon as possible, at least the responsibility is on the House and on the Parliamentary Secretary, as the member of the Government responsible for this particular form of social legislation, to make a beginning in the immediate future and to provide for the present a very substantial instalment of what is asked for in the motion. Since this motion was tabled, the position has improved slightly. Widows in the county boroughs and urban areas, and even in the rural districts, are getting certain supplementary allowances, but such allowances merely touch the fringe of the problem. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would admit that that is so.
I ask the House earnestly to consider the question of the means test associated with widows' and orphans' pensions. It is considerably more rigid in the case of non-contributory pensions than in respect of old age pensions. I think it is admitted that, so far as the Act goes, the administration of the Act by the officials in the Department of Local Government is humane and considerate. I think it right to say that. Generally speaking, I have not a great deal of fault to find with the method of investigation. There are exceptions, as Deputy Davin has said, but, generally speaking, the method of investigation of the cases is fair. I should like to repeat that the attitude of the officials dealing with the Act, from the Controller down to the most junior official, is one of sympathy, humanity and kindness. So far as I can judge, both by correspondence and personal interview, every possible assistance is given to the applicants or those representing them. But the officials must administer the law as they find it and, unquestionably, the law is very defective and lags very much behind in regard to this particular service.
Clearly the question will arise—and we will be asked what suggestions we have on this side of the House for providing means to deal with this particular matter. There are two classes involved. Persons who benefit by way of contributory pensions are treated considerably better than those who receive non - contributory pensions. The case in regard to recipients of non-contributory pensions is as urgent as it could possibly be. It may be that one of the approaches to this question, from a financial point of view, would be to create in this country an all-embracing scheme of insurance. In order to help the most deserving and the least supported section of widows, those who benefit by non-contributory pensions, it may be that the general question of contributions to national health insurance would have to be reviewed, taking this aspect into account. It may be that, in a short time, we will inevitably find ourselves in agreement with the conclusions of a very prominent person in this country who recently stated that the approach to the whole question of social security in this country should be along the lines of bringing 90 per cent. of the people within a scheme and providing a means by which the people concerned would be helped to a better degree of social security. The Exchequer would be helped to provide for those who have come within the scheme since the Act was passed in 1935 and who are still almost where they were in 1935. That is a suggestion that, I think, is worthy of consideration. However long the matter may be delayed, however discussion of it may be avoided, I think we will be driven to some sweeping reform of that kind in the future and perhaps in the very near future.
In England, public opinion has been very much concerned with what has been described as the Beveridge plan. I am not suggesting that we could attain standards of the kind foreshadowed in that plan. I admit that we would not have the resources to face a responsibility of that kind, but I do think the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a very keen student of economic matters and, I am sure, of the whole trend of world opinion in regard to social legislation and who, I feel sure, has approached keenly, and has given earnest study to, this whole question of social security and social problems, must realise that we cannot exactly stand still in this matter and that, in one way or another, we must be prepared to do much more than has been done up to the present.
Deputy Davin has referred to New Zealand. I think the best way to put the case to the House is to say that in New Zealand a widow without means is entitled to a pension of 30/- a week, with an allowance of 10/- for each child. In other words, a widow with five children under 16 years of age would be entitled to £4 per week. That is a very long distance from our position at the moment. It is a gap that, perhaps, in our lifetime could not be entirely breached but it certainly ought to set us thinking and it certainly ought to be an incentive to us to make some beginning in this matter.
I have given the House the figure of the average amount paid in widows' pensions in this country. Some time ago a medical authority in this city, at a meeting of the Statistical Society, demonstrated that 14/- per week was necessary for the simplest form of diet for a man in this city and that 80 per cent. of that was necessary in the case of a woman. Certainly that is a statement which cannot be ignored. It comes from a very well-known and recognised authority. If that is the minimum for the bare necessities of life in food for one person, then the case for the widows and orphans in the country in regard not alone to food but clothing, shelter and all the other expenses that follow in the case of young children—because we are dealing with young children where there are dependents—can be easily pictured and readily appreciated by the House.
I do not want to trespass on the time of the House at undue length. The case has been very fully put forward by the mover of the motion. But I do want to mention one thing before I conclude, and that is that in this House in 1929 I had the privilege of putting forward a proposal in favour of widows' and orphans' pensions, representing one of the first efforts that were made in an Irish Parliament to bring about a reform of this kind. During the years between 1929 and 1935, I had the opportunity of joining in a campaign in support of this reform. In this House in 1935, when the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill was passing through the Committee Stage, I was responsible for a number of amendments, totalling about 100, designed for the purpose of improving that Bill. As you, Sir, may recollect, a very large number of those amendments could not be moved because of the fact that they involved financial commitments, proposals in regard to which ordinary private members of this House are not allowed to formulate. But I do remember one particular incident on that occasion, and that was the concluding statement of the then Minister for Local Government, who is now Minister for Finance, Deputy O Ceallaigh. He admitted that the measure then proposed and passing through the Committee Stage was a beginning in regard to pensions for widows and orphans. Ten years have passed since then. Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to remind the Minister for Finance—who is a very important Minister in a matter of this kind — of his statement on that occasion, and suggest to him that, after ten years' experience of that Act, and after a full examination of the very limited benefits afforded to widows and orphans under its provisions, the time has come for making one improvement on that beginning, and giving some substantial instalment of what is the due right of the widows and orphans in this country?
I think it will be admitted that the case made for this motion, both by the mover and by the seconder, was a very good one. I take it, however, from the number of files which I see in front of the Parliamentary Secretary, that the motion is not going to be accepted. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary or anybody else in the House will oppose the motion on the ground that the existing rates are sufficient or that the rates proposed in the motion would be more than enough. Therefore, I assume that the reason which will be forthcoming from the Front Bench will be that the country cannot afford to pay the rate now proposed. I want to ask the House to look at this matter in the light of our experience, particularly our experience over the last eight or ten years, and to say whether that is a sound reason. I should be inclined rather to say that this country cannot afford to allow the present rates to remain. It is known, of course, that there has been a considerable increase in disease in this country in recent years. In particular, the increase in tuberculosis has been so marked that it has called for very special statements not only from responsible members of the Government, but from responsible people in the medical world also.
I will put this to the House: on the basis of the figures given here to-day by the mover of the motion and by its seconder in respect of what is allowed for a child and for the child's mother, is it any wonder that there is a marked increase in disease, and that there is particularly a marked increase in tuberculosis? Whilst condemning children in this country to an allowance which can only mean malnutrition at its worst, which can only mean that each and everyone of those homes dependent on the miserable allowance we give them is a breeding ground for tuberculosis, is it not the sheerest humbug, if not hypocrisy, that side by side with this motion we have on the Order Paper a Bill to provide more accommodation in this country for people who are infected with tuberculosis? Whilst at one end we are refusing to give to people who are unable to provide for themselves an allowance which will enable them to sustain life, or give them an opportunity to fight disease, at the other end we are spending millions of pounds out of State funds and out of Sweep funds to build and maintain new hospitals.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister or any member of this House contend that it is possible to give a child anything approaching sufficient nourishing food on the rates that are at present allowed, even with the supplementary allowances? I think the majority of us in this House are married. We have children of our own; we have homes of our own to keep up; we have rents to pay, and so on. To any member of this House, I do not care whether he is living in the city or in the town or in rural Ireland, I will put this question: "How much per week will it cost you to give your child sufficient plain, ordinary, healthy food"? I suggest that, under present circumstances, the amount allowed under the existing Act would not clothe and provide boots or shoes for a child for 12 months, without spending one half-penny on food at all. Those of us who have children of our own know that at the moment boots and shoes for children are at a very high price. We know that, to say the least of it, the quality of those boots and shoes is not of the very best. What is the use then in talking about trying to combat tuberculosis? What is the use in having a committee set up in this country? What is the use of trying to use every sort of subterfuge to get from the people money to fight tuberculosis?
We have appeals made in every conceivable way to induce people to subscribe money to fight tuberculosis when, at the same time, we are condemning sections of our people to a miserable existence that must lead to under-nourishment and, of course, subsequently to disease. I want to suggest that we are not going to get rid of tuberculosis or any of the other diseases that afflict our people, particularly children, until such time as we take steps to see that children who have no breadwinners to provide for them are provided for by the State, at least to see that they get sufficient nourishment, shelter and clothing. I know, as the mover of the motion said, that we shall be asked where the money is to be got. That very same question has been asked in this House in relation to every appeal made for better social services and many of those social services for which we were told at one time the money could not be provided, have already been put in operation. Let me put this to the House. Six or seven years ago the Defence Forces of this country were costing in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000 or £1,500,000. When the war broke out, the House decided that whatever moneys were necessary to secure that as far as possible we would not be embroiled in the war, and that if we were embroiled our people would be equipped to the best advantage to meet any attack that could be made upon us, should be provided and the provision for the Army jumped from £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 to the neighbourhood of £10,000,000 a year.
If anybody suggested in 1939 that £10,000,000 should be provided to see that every child in the country should get at least enough to eat, we know the cry of horror that would go up from certain individuals in this House and in the country outside. May I suggest further that if we, like most other countries, had been unfortunate enough to be embroiled in this war, if we had been attacked, we would have to find not £1,000,000 or £10,000,000, but hundreds of millions? In these circumstances, if we had been attacked and had to defend ourselves, these hundreds of millions would be forthcoming. Does not any reasonable person agree that it is absolutely facing the problem at the wrong end to be providing hospitals costing millions of pounds and to be making appeals to fight tuberculosis while, at the same time, we are compelling widows in this country to provide sufficient food, shelter and clothes for their children on an allowance of 1/6 per child per week?
I should like to support the motion in so far as it might induce the Government to introduce the necessary legislation to amend the law relating to widows' and orphans' pensions. I think in approaching this problem it is not sufficient merely to put down figures in an arbitrary fashion without inquiring into the amount required to keep a person or a family, as the case may be in the essential requirements of life. Deputy Morrissey approached the matter from what I regard as the best angle. We in this country are spending considerable sums to deal with disease. We propose, as far as I can see, to spend further sums on large schemes to make the best provision that medical science can devise in order to combat tuberculosis. The Government appear to have become slightly nervous, if not panicky, recently at the remarkable rise in the incidence of that disease. Surely the increase in the incidence of that disease is confined particularly to the lowest paid or the worst-off section of the community?
It is, of course, true to say that numerous families through one cause or another who are in a comparatively well-off position have amongst them members who are affected by the disease, but in the majority of cases those affected are confined to the poorer sections. In many cases families where the breadwinner, the father or husband, has died, the children are dependent on the mother or some other guardian for a livelihood. The situation in these families, particularly since the war, has deteriorated to such an extent that the amounts paid no longer provide the barest essentials. I think the Government quite freely admit and realise that, but in order to ascertain what sums should be paid to these people I suggest that the actuarial investigation, which is provided for in Section 45 of the 1935 Act, should now be undertaken in order to see exactly the minimum sum required for each individual, a widow or child, as the case may be.
Numerous people in this country, and I presume all members of the House, particularly the Government, have given consideration to schemes that have been formulated in other countries, in particular to the scheme known as the Beveridge plan. It is possible because of the publicity and attention which that plan has evoked that our minds are more directly brought to bear on the problem here. It is true that the vast plan outlined there is one suited to a country in which the income is far in excess of our income here, of a country which is at the present time producing a far greater output in practically every sphere of production. It is possible that when our minds get to work on that plan that we forget that our income is far less, that our resources are considerably smaller than the resources available there to be devoted to the operation of that plan. It is true, too, that the sums which we propose to spend here, which we are attempting to secure by voluntary effort on the one hand, and by taxation on the other, are increasing one year after the other in order to fight disease, particularly tuberculosis. I seriously put it to the Government that if an actuarial inquiry has not been held, or if they have not been able to find any report on it, one should now be undertaken. I really think that this must be portion only of a broader scheme. Originally when the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act was introduced it was one of the pioneer movements in that connection.
More recently as a result, I presume, of advances in public opinion throughout the world, and particularly throughout that portion of the world with which the people of this country are more closely associated, or more closely affected by, it is realised that social insurance, provision for the sick, the infirm, for orphans and others who are unable to provide for themselves, must be made by the State. In order that such provision may be made by the State, money has to be found somewhere, and if taxation is unable to bear further increases—I think it has reached in this country an extremely high level—then a contributory scheme, a scheme which will embrace contributions from people other than those directly affected, must be brought into being.
Recently the Government rejected a plan which was put forward. There is no point whatever in disguising the fact that they were perfectly right in rejecting it. The plan was put forward, based on the desirability of providing for those people, without first undertaking an inquiry to ascertain what financial commitments would be involved. It is possible at any time to devise a scheme, but unless that scheme is put on a basis that has some relation to the actual position, it is little better than mere day-dreaming. That particular scheme, in my opinion, started at the wrong end. An actuarial inquiry should have been made first, and should not have been left as purely a secondary matter.
I do not know whether the section of the 1935 Act which provides for an actuarial inquiry is sufficient to cover all the details of a comprehensive social insurance scheme, but at any rate some provision is made there in order to ascertain, in respect of widows and orphans, what would be required. I seriously suggest that such an inquiry should be undertaken. It is equally true that the amount which is now paid to widows and orphans was fixed at a time when the cost of living was approximately half what it is at the present time, and, while a large sum would be involved by increasing the existing benefits, I consider the Government would be well advised to make some change in the legislation. While you will be immediately confronted with the problem of obtaining the money necessary to meet the increased charge, I think Deputy Morrissey has put his finger on the kernel of the problem. If we are prepared to find money, if we are prepared to secure, by borrowing or taxation, the amount required to fight the increase in tuberculosis, to meet the increased expenditure which that disease involves, I believe it would be far sounder from a public health point of view, and even from an economic point of view, to spend the money in increased benefits now to widows and orphans and thereby obviate expenditure in dealing with the disease and, possibly, eventually increasing the benefits when it might be too late. I believe that better results would be obtained if proper provision, such as I have suggested, were made in the initial stages.
I think there is little further to be said on this matter. Sufficient figures have been given, and the Parliamentary Secretary is fully aware of the amounts paid, and so also are practically all Deputies. The whole question resolves itself into whether we are prepared to spend in order to prevent or whether we will wait until we have to cure. I certainly believe, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary believes, that it is better to spend on prevention than on cure. By increasing the benefits now we can better fight disease. I believe that now, when the Department of Local Government is split into three sections—not literally split into three sections, although I understand in one particular respect there was a certain difference of opinion—and when there are three people responsible for looking after the affairs of that Department, we may expect some advance. I further believe that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are more advanced than other members of the Government in this matter and perhaps we may hope, with their co-operation, that something better than the existing benefits will be paid.
I desire to support this motion, mainly because I think it is desirable that something should be done. While supporting the motion, I would not like to see legislation introduced only for the purpose of implementing the proposals contained in the motion. I think if legislation is to be introduced at all it must be of a much more comprehensive nature. If the scale of allowances to widows and orphans is to be increased, there must be a stepping-up of other social services, and, if that is to be brought about, I think it will be necessary to have a very far-reaching and comprehensive insurance scheme. There is need, therefore, for a thorough survey of the whole question of social insurance and social security; but even that alone would not be sufficient unless there was also consideration given to the economic position of our people.
References have been made to New Zealand, to the very generous social services provided there, but I think it is necessary to point out that in New Zealand there has been not only a stepping-up of the social services, but also a stepping-up of the productive capacity of the people, and that has been brought about mainly by the security which has been given to the agricultural producer in regard to prices and markets—a security which has enabled him to increase the volume of his output and thereby made it possible to provide more generous social services for the people who are unable to work or maintain themselves. Therefore, in dealing with this question it would be necessary to deal very comprehensively not only with our social position, but also with our economic position.
Social services, as I understand them, may be divided into two kinds: those which result in the redistribution of the national income, in the taking of portion of the national income from one section and giving it to another, and those which add to the national income inasmuch as they add to the goods or commodities which represent the essential requirements of our people. Housing, sewerage and public amenities of that kind would, I think, come under the heading, not of social services which take from one section and give to another, but of social services which add to the general wealth of the community.
The particular social service embodied in this motion aims at taking from those who can afford it a certain amount of their income and giving it to those who are in need. There is, of course, a limit to the extent to which any community can go in regard to the redistribution of national income. If you take too much from those you consider can afford it, it may have the effect of curtailing production. If you take away the incentive and the means of adding to production, the result may be a cutting down of production and, in any case, even if it did not have that effect, you cannot go on steadily increasing the amount from year to year which you can give to the poorer sections of the community, while there is no increase whatever in the national income.
Therefore, the fundamental matter which has to be considered in relation to this motion, and every similar motion which may come before the House, is the importance of adding to the national pool of goods and commodities out of which every social service must be drawn. There is, as Deputy Morrissey pointed out, in the matter of the increase asked for here the other side of the account: the saving which will certainly be effected in regard to expenditure on public health and the treatment of diseases, and not only the saving that will be effected in that direction, but in the strengthening of our position as a community by making our people, and particularly our working people, more healthy and more happy than they are at present.
These are the considerations which I think should be brought to bear upon this problem, and it is a matter of urgent importance that this whole question should be gone into very carefully by those who have control of administration here. They should not hesitate about, or postpone, decisions on these important matters until after the war. These problems should be tackled here and now. The period after the war will in all probability be a period of unsettlement, a period of unrest. It is necessary that our community should be strengthened and safeguarded by having plans carefully laid, not only for looking after those who are in need, those who are affected by poverty and distress, and those who are the victims of tragic circumstances such as are envisaged in this motion but for ensuring that the wealth of the entire community will be such as will make it possible to carry into effect the generous schemes which we all desire to see carried into effect.
This resolution gives us an opportunity of discussing the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme, and, from that point of view, it is valuable, since, when the Estimates are being discussed, the particular Vote is generally passed without very much comment. I should like to say, in the first place, that the Government has been expanding social services ever since 1932 and that recently we added to the national taxation a sum of about £2,250,000 in the shape of children's allowances. Therefore, any appeal to the Government for increases in social services will always be listened to with a sympathetic ear. We do not require convincing as to the desirability of doing what we can to secure the more necessitous class of person against every sort of difficulty, every sort of adversity, which they may meet. The questions which arise are whether the particular suggestion in this resolution is a desirable one, whether we can afford it, and, above all, whether it was ever our intention under the original Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act that such sums should be paid under the scheme. The first point I should like to make is that there are two types of widows' and orphans' pension—contributory and non-contributory. The House will remember that the basis of the original Act was a contributory scheme of widows' and orphans' pensions. A majority of the House felt it desirable that, so far as widows were concerned, it would be a good thing if (a) the State (b) the employer and (c) the employee cooperated to provide a fund out of which widows' pensions would be paid. The non-contributory scheme arose out of the fact that there is a large class of self-employed persons in the country from whom contributions cannot conveniently be collected who are not associated in an organisation with employers and employees. It was felt that something should be done to help them, that the State should step in and pay the cost of their pension.
Therefore, any proposal for a drastic increase in widows' and orphans' pensions must be related to the fact that the contributory scheme is there, that so long as the House believes in the contributory principle in regard to pensions paid to widows and persons earning a wage, any non-contributory rate granted must bear some relation to the contributory rate, and that, therefore, if there is to be a big increase in widows' and orphans' pensions non-contributory rates, the first question we must ask ourselves is: what happens to the contributory scheme; can the employers and employees afford such an increase in the contribution as would still induce people to take part in the contributory scheme, and what, in future, is to be the relation between the contributory and non-contributory scheme? I admit that the fact that we have certain services that at the moment are non-contributory, and other that are contributory, complicates the discussion, but for the purposes of this debate and the matter we have under discussion I must take it as being the opinion of the Government that the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme is suitable and consistent with the contributory principle, and that we must take into account that there are people in certain parts of the country, who are self-employed, and from whom the contributions cannot easily be collected. I think that that is a reasonable approach to the problem, and I think that it is important that members of this House should face the issue in regard to this matter of contributory pensions in the proper way.
Now, that does not mean that we would not like to increase widows' and orphans' pensions. It does not mean that at some time in the future we might not be able to increase widows' and orphans' pensions, but it does indicate, as I have said, that the basis of the scheme was primarily designed from the contributory point of view, although, at all times, when it was discussed, it was also related to the conditions of the non-contributory class. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, when speaking on the Children's Allowances Bill, adverted to the fact that the children's allowances scheme was a non-contributory scheme, covering everybody in the community, and he warned the House that, having regard to the national income of the country, it would be most difficult to extend social insurance in any form which would require a very largely increased State subvention. He pointed out that the addition of the children's allowances scheme to the present social services, as established by this Government and by the previous Government—although very largely by this Government— involved a very big increase in taxation, and he made a general statement that we would have to wait and see how far we may develop our national income and what our post-war prospects would be in connection therewith before we could increase, to any large extent, State subventions towards social services, and particularly in regard to permanent social services in the country, as distinct from the amounts we have paid out for certain services as a result of the emergency.
Bearing that in mind, I should like to advert to some of the difficulties that present themselves in regard to the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. Some of them have been adverted to before, but I think they will bear repetition. There are now 35,000 of these pensioners, which represent 46 per cent. of all eligible widows, and it is only ten years since the scheme was introduced. Whether that is a large or a small percentage can be argued one way or the other, but I would say, having regard to the condition of the country, we need not feel ashamed that we have been able to pay pensions to the extent of 46 per cent. of those widows who are eligible. Now, of those 35,000, there are, roughly speaking, 25,000 non-contributory pensioners; something like 10,500 are in receipt of children's allowances, and of the 10,000 contributory pensioners, 1,400 pensions are given to persons in agricultural employment.
Mr. Corish
On a point of information, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary mean 35,000 widows alone, or does he mean widows with orphans?
I mean 35,000 widows alone.
Mr. Corish
It has gone up, then, by something like 15,000?
No. I shall repeat the figures for the information of the Deputy. Of course, I am giving round figures, but the answer to the question was that there were 9,952 persons in receipt of contributory widows' and orphans' pensions, and 25,220 in receipt of non-contributory widows' pensions. That makes a grand total of roughly, 35,000 pensions. The 9,952 contributory widows' pensions include 10,542 children's allowances; and the 25,220 non-contributory widows' pensions include 11,953 children's allowances.
Mr. Brennan
They are not all getting 10/- a week?
No.
Mr. Brennan
Some of them to my knowledge are only getting 4/- a week.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned two figures. I take it that the 35,000 he mentioned includes the contributory and non-contributory pensioners. He said that that represents 46 per cent. of what he calls the widows eligible for widows' pensions in this country.
Yes.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary clarify that further by saying what exactly he means by 46 per cent. being eligible?
I mean widows who have not applied for pensions on the grounds of means.
If they are ruled out by means, then they are not eligible?
I am referring to those who come under the eligible widows' class and who would only be excluded by means and not by status.
Would it include those widows in the figure mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary?
No.
If so, it appears to me that that is not an accurate figure.
I am giving the figures roughly, as I have said, and I do not propose to go into it further.
Surely, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to be allowed to continue his speech without being subject to cross-examination?
I can assure you, Sir, that I have no desire to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary merely for the sake of interruption. I was hoping, however, that I would get more courtesy from the Parliamentary Secretary than we usually get from the Minister for Local Government.
I think that the question raised was on the interpretation of the word "eligible", that it was not raised for any other reason, and that there was no question of discourtesy.
That is so.
The real fact of the matter is that Deputy Morrissey thinks he ought to be in the Chair.
Well the Minister knows that I was often there, to his sorrow.
Perhaps I might be permitted to continue. I think, that what I have said indicates the position, and that the figure represents 46 per cent. of those who are not eligible for pensions, except for means. Now, taking the 25,000 non-contributory pensions, of those about 20,000 have no family that can be counted for the purpose of pension; in other words, they have no dependent family. It is interesting to realise that five-sevenths of the cost of the non-contributory pensions is given to people who have no dependent family, and we must realise that a considerable number of those people do receive some sort of support from their grown-up children. There may be some who do not, but if we are to examine this question in a reasonable way, I think we must assume that a considerable number of those widows do receive some sort of support from their dependents.
Again, having heard the views of some members of the Opposition with regard to the low rates of pensions, it must be remembered that, when it is stated that a number of those people are receiving pensions at very low rates, we have to assume that many of them have alternative means, and, because they are only in receipt of 1/6 or even 6d. a week, of a pension, it must be assumed that they have alternative means of support. It means that they have a certain quantum from other sources. In that connection, I may say that I do not think it is reasonable to relate this matter of widows' and orphans' pensions to measures that have been introduced here and that were designed to prevent tuberculosis or to inhibit that disease in its early stages. We are here discussing widows' and orphans' pensions and, in particular, widows' pensions, and I do not think that widows, as a class, can be held to be suffering largely from T.B., which generally sets in between the ages of 15 and 35. Therefore, I think that for the purposes of this debate it would be better for Deputies to confine themselves merely to the question of widows' and orphans' pensions, and to discuss such problems as tuberculosis on some other occasion, such as the Budget, when it would be more proper to raise such a matter.
I do not think that we shall get very far if we try to discuss the question of an increase in the pensions of widows and orphans owing to the menace of tuberculosis. The Government, as members of the House are aware, have taken steps to deal with that problem already and are prepared to take further steps so far as it is possible to do so. Deputy Cosgrave was rather contradictory. He said, in the first place, that he supported the motion and then he began to ask a series of question as to whether we could afford the increase or not. He aided the Government considerably in what he said in that he raised a query as to whether we could afford this expenditure, having regard to the taxable income of the country or whether the surplus from our production would enable us to pay for so expensive a service. He asked for an actuarial inquiry. He related the actuarial inquiry to the amount that a person should be paid in order to secure an adequate livelihood. I think that he used the term wrongly. An actuarial inquiry in connection with widows' and orphans' pensions would be of a negative character. It would be an inquiry as to how we were spending the money, whether wisely or otherwise, and whether the contributions made were sufficient to keep the fund in order.
Deputy Cogan referred to the need for an increase in agricultural economic security and said that social services were very desirable in so far as they redistributed the national income— from the more wealthy to the poorer classes. I should like to sound a note of warning there. When we speak of the redistribution of national income by social services, we must remember that contributions to taxation must be horizontal as well as vertical. There can be no question that taxation for redistribution of national income does not only take income from the wealthier classes and give it to the poorer classes of the community but does, in effect, bring about a compulsory saving on the part of the poorer section, who pay their share of the contributions. Therefore, in discussing an increase in widows' and orphans' pensions and the cost of such a scheme, we have to bear in mind that all contributions to taxation have a horizontal as well as a vertical effect.
Let me give some more figures which will convey an idea of the extent of the scheme. On the 31st December, 1943, 642,000 persons were insured under the widows' and orphans' pension scheme, from which figure the House will realise that the scheme had only just begun to come into operation after ten years. Although that number have been insured, only 10,000 contributory pensions are at present being paid and it will be many years before the scheme comes into full operation. The cost of the whole of the widows' and orphans' pensions in 1943 was £844,000, of which employers and employees contributed £242,000. The cost of administration, about which a good deal has been said, varied between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the outgoings in respect of the widows' and orphans' pensions and amounted to about £80,000. I should like immediately to dispose of the argument that the means test is an administrative cost which, if removed, would have the effect of enabling pensions to be paid in other cases and that, apart from being undesirable socially, it is simply an administrative cost with which we could dispense so as to make moneys available for further pensions. It is very hard to estimate what the effect of wholly eliminating the means test would be in connection with non-contributory pensions. It is very hard to say what reduction would take place in the administrative cost if we were to eliminate the means test. Roughly, non-contributory pensions would rise from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 per annum. That, related to an administrative cost of £80,000, will enable the House immediately to realise that it is not the cost of administration which is debarring certain classes of widows from receiving pensions which would otherwise be paid them.
In addition to the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme, established before the emergency, there are available 2/6 food vouchers in the urban areas. That amount is paid not only to widows but to all children of widows. The House should bear in mind, when considering this widows' and orphans' pension scheme, that the food-voucher scheme, which applies not only to the widow but to all the children of that widow, constitutes a valuable accretion to the amount she receives. In addition, there is a 1/6 increase for widows who do not get the food vouchers. There are also the cheap fuel scheme and the new boot scheme, by which a large number of boots are made available at reasonable prices for children.
At this stage, it would be wise if we were to relate the terms of these proposed increases to the total cost of our social services and see where we stand in regard to the estimated cost of the proposed scheme in relation to their cost. This gives me a valuable opportunity to provide the House with some figures which serve to show the tremendous burden placed on the taxpayer by our social services as at present established. I propose to compare the amounts voted by the Oireachtas for social services at various periods. In 1938—the last normal year—for social services proper, excluding such things as housing grants, Gaeltacht services, employment schemes and similar services—the Government issues amounted to £5,616,000 odd. In the 1944-45 Budget, the cost of these services of a purely normal type had increased to £7,387,000. That figure includes the proportion of the children's allowances paid in the current financial year. The increase in the cost of social services directly due to the emergency amounted to £1,276,500.
Mr. Corish
Per year?
Yes. The total figure, therefore, including only a proportion of the children's allowances, was £8,663,800. That represents an increase of £3,000,000 on the 1938 figure, or 60 per cent. If you were to include the full children's allowances and assume that they had been paid in the current financial year, the cost of social services, including emergency services, would be £9,413,000. It is possible to calculate these figures in a different way.
Mr. Corish
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what services he is including in that?
It would take some time to read them, but if you like I will do so.
Let us know what they are.
Old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, national health insurance benefits, unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance, allotments, maternity and child welfare, provision for necessitous children, fuel assistance in kind—that, of course, is covered by expenditure out of the emergency—supplementary allowances in connection with various social services, medical treatment of school children, school meals, child welfare and the treatment of diseases, free school books, children's allowances—again only in part in connection with one figure that I gave.
On a point of order are not children's allowances available for all classes?
That is not a point of order.
The Parliamentary Secretary is including children's allowances, but people with means get them.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary mind circulating the figures in the official report?
I think I am doing my best to give as many figures as possible. It would merely prolong the debate if I were to give more.
Mr. Corish
How much of that is national health insurance?
The Minister has told him not to give this information to the people.
It would be a very orderly debate without the Minister.
Deputies should not be interrupting.
Mr. Corish
I simply want to know how much of that is national health insurance. That is a service that is paid for by employers and workers.
And the State.
I could spend the next hour reading figure after figure. Most of those figures can be found in the Library. In order to make a comparison, I have made a separate series of calculations to see how far they can be compared with other countries. Our social services, when considered in relation to our total national income, have reached a point where we can say that we are not behind other nations, and that we have nothing to be ashamed of. For that purpose I have taken the social services provided by the local authorities and by the State and divided them into two classifications, services that may be described generally as income—maintenance services such as old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, etc. The total expenditure under that heading in the last year for which we have estimated the national income—the year 1938— was £7,407,000. The expenditure under what may be described generally as medical treatment services, from the moneys raised locally and nationally, was £3,037,000. These two figures give a total of £10,444,000. That sum represents expenditure on services which, according to the International Labour Office, can be considered as social services and I have compared the expenditure on them to the national income.
I hope the House will accept my statement that I have done my best to make a fair comparison and not to include services that are not indicated by the International Labour Office, and on the other hand not to exclude services which could properly be included for the basis of comparison. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that we had passed the Children's Allowances Act in 1938 it would add another £2,250,000 to that cost. The House may say that is unfair since the cost of living has gone up since then, and that maybe we would not have paid children's allowances at the present rate on the then cost of living. That, of course, is a matter of pure speculation. I think myself that probably, having regard to everything, we would hardly have reduced the children's allowances from 2/6 to a lower figure. Even though the House may be loath to indulge in my speculation, I think that we could fairly, for the purposes of the argument, assume that we would have paid the children's allowances in 1938 at the present rate. If we do that then the cost of our social services gives us the total figure of £12,700,000. Our national income in 1938, as calculated by Professor Duncan with, perhaps, a few reservations which are generally accepted by people who claim to be statisticians, was £154,000,000. The cost of our social services, therefore, amounted to 8.1 per cent. of the national income. I am not prepared to stand rigidly over that figure. For the purposes of my argument, I do not mind very much whether in fact it was 7½ per cent., 8½ per cent. or 9 per cent. According to the calculation that I have made, it is 8.1 per cent.
In the International Labour Review for November, 1943, the following statement occurs:—
"Estimates of disbursements for income maintenance and medical cash services under the schemes of New Zealand and the U.S.S.R., now in operation and under the Beveridge Plan, the Marsh Plan (Canada) and the Wagner-Murray Bill (U.S.A.) suggest that a minimum figure of 10 per cent. of the national income must be counted on for financing a comprehensive social security plan".
I hope the House fully comprehends what that means. According to the International Labour Office review that is what is regarded as reasonable: that you have to go up to that level. The implication there is that you cannot go very much above it, and that in fact the social security plans provided in those countries do not total more than 10 per cent. of the national income. Now their method of calculating the national income may be different from ours, but taking the matter generally, I think it can be said that I have not tried to take undue political advantage of the House by basing my calculations on figures which have no relation to reality. I have done my best to make a good comparison with the International Labour Office method of calculation.
Ten per cent. of the national income in what year?
1938.
And the International Labour Office calculation is based on the same figure.
It is based on figures for various years before the war. Some countries took one year and other countries took another year. Sir William Beveridge made a complete analysis of the pre-war national income. He made an estimate of the post-war income and of the changes in the value of money, and applied his figures in that way as those who have read his report will recollect. The figures I have given indicate that, although we may in the future increase our social services, the social services already established here are somewhere near the limit possible, having regard to our national income. Those people who sometimes talk rather too glibly about applying the Beveridge scheme to this country and of including the same allowances as those which obtain in Great Britain should bear this in mind: that whether we pass the proportion recognised internationally as being the general proportion for our own good, we must at least have regard to that proportion and to what has happened elsewhere. We must think twice before we start removing surplus income from the community which may have the most adverse repercussions on our national economy.
This figure of £12,700,000, which, as I have said, includes children's allowances in 1938, amounted to nearly a quarter of the whole agricultural net income of the country in that year; it amounted to half of the estimated industrial income of the country in that year; it amounted to the whole of the rents which were estimated to have been levied by landlords on tenants in that year. I am describing the various forms of national income. Nearly a quarter of the income, taken by itself, would be represented by these social services, with the children's allowances added as a speculation.
When we come to consider countries like New Zealand, we have to bear in mind that, in 1935, according to a book by Colin Clark, entitled "Conditions of Economic Progress", which is a most advanced study of national incomes, the national income of New Zealand per head had already passed that of the United States and Great Britain and that was due largely to the fact that it was an undeveloped country, occupied by a small population, with immense national agricultural resources. It would be utterly impossible and impracticable for us to compare the rates of social services in New Zealand, or in any country with an income three or four times that of our own, in order to produce an argument for increasing the social services in this country. It is reckoned by one economist—Professor Shields, of the National University, in the course of a debate at the Statistical Society—that to apply the Beveridge scheme holus-bolus to this country would cost £25,000,000 a year. His method of calculation may be one which can be variously interpreted, but whether he is under-estimating or over-estimating, it indicates the difficulty of applying other countries' rates of social services to this country.
I have shown, I think, what the Government has done in establishing social services, at very heavy cost, and I would like now to proceed to a further examination in more detail of the terms of the motion. Before we consider what these proposed new services would cost, we must see what the Government has done, since the emergency commenced, to provide for an increase in the cost of living in connection with widows and orphans. I have prepared some figures which may be very interesting to the House, showing the percentage increases in the various services that have already been paid, under the children's allowances scheme and under the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme.
The cost-of-living index has increased by 70 per cent, but there must be two reservations made in that regard. First of all, people living in rural districts largely produce food at their own cost of production and, therefore, the cost of living, although it has increased for them in respect of clothing—very largely in connection with agricultural boots—and agricultural parts, no statistician and no farmer could claim that the cost of living increase of 70 per cent. could be said to apply to the agricultural community, since the agricultural community have to a certain degree been responsible for it. We have paid increased prices for our produce, in order to attract greater production and in order to enable the farmers to overcome any difficulties. In other words, farmers produce goods at their own cost of production and, to that extent, they are better off than people in the towns who have to pay for the goods after they are produced and after the wholesale and retail charges have been added.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary state the cost of fertilisers?
I said there have been increases.
They are working 15 hours a day.
The increase in the urban area, the increase of 70 per cent., is subject to another modification: the number of foods bought before the war is not the number of foods bought now; and from that standpoint, although there has been; admittedly, an enormous increase in the cost of living, I do not think the Government is prepared to accept 70 per cent. as a fair estimate, without mentioning these modifying factors by which the nature of the index is altered. Bearing that in mind, let us see the effect of the increases in widows' and orphans' pensions, by including the food voucher scheme and the children's allowances scheme. Let us take a widow with no children, unaffected by the children's allowances schemes, but affected by the voucher scheme. In the case of the non-agricultural contributory pension — 10/- — the increase is 25 per cent.; in the case of the non-contributory pension, in incorporated towns of 7,000 population or under, it is 49 per cent.; in the case of the maximum non-contributory pension in the urban area as distinct from the borough area, it is 44 per cent.; and in connection with the borough area it is 35 per cent.
We now take as an example the case of a widow with three children. I am not going to repeat all the categories. The increases in these cases, not counting children's allowances and counting only the food-voucher allowance, are 49,109,102 and 74 per cent. Including the new children's allowances, made to a widow with three children, they are 61, 137, 125 and 92 per cent. Deputies will have noted already that the increase has long gone past the increase in the cost-of-living index.
Mr. Corish
How is that made up?
I have indicated quite clearly that it is made up by adding the food-voucher allowance to the pension given to various classes of widows, together with the children's allowance given to widows who have dependent on them a given number of children.
Mr. Corish
The Parliamentary Secretary did not explain the kind of people who get it.
I have already given the classifications to the House and have made a tremendous effort to give the figures correctly and it is unfair that I should be continuously interrupted.
Mr. Corish
I want to make it clear that it was not for the sake of interruption that I asked the question. When the Parliamentary Secretary says "125 per cent. increase", one wonders where that came from.
The Chair is not in a position to correct the statement.
Mr. Corish
I want to say I did not speak for the sake of interruption.
The Parliamentary Secretary is making his speech in his own way and must be allowed to do so.
Telling lies.
The Deputy must not make a statement like that. He may not accuse the Parliamentary Secretary of telling lies. That is perfectly unparliamentary.
I think the Deputy should be asked to withdraw.
We will let it go.
Put the Minister in the Chair.
I would like to ask the Minister——
I have drawn the Deputy's attention to the fact that the remark was unparliamentary. Let the matter rest there and let him not use it again. The Parliamentary Secretary will please continue.
Since the House seems to be so interested, I will be a little more detailed when I come to the next figures. I have just a few more and do not wish to bore the House. For a widow with five children, the present rate of pension per week, for a contributory pensioner, is 27/-, including food allowances; this makes a percentage addition of 54 per cent. and, counting children's allowances, 82 per cent. The corresponding figures for various classes of widows in that category go up to 193, 180 and 129 per cent. I need not give the figures for a widow with seven children, but if any Deputy desires those figures in detail, he can ask for them in the form of a Parliamentary Question. The figures have been carefully prepared and illustrate the point I wish to make—that we have done our best to provide increases to widows, particularly those with dependents, which have some bearing—and a very satisfactory bearing—on the increase in the cost of living, taken at the figure of 70 per cent.
On a point of order, I want to make it clear that my question to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. He is referring to the widows with family allowances, but he is not telling us how many widows get no family allowances and are getting only 5/- a week.
That is not a point of order. The Deputy is raising another question and the Chair is not bound to answer it.
It is a common-sense question.
Deputies should understand that, when they raise a point of order, it must be a point of order and not a question. The Parliamentary Secretary must be allowed to conclude.
The first percentages I gave were for widows with no children. Now, bearing these increases in mind, let us examine in detail the terms of the motion. It is proposed that widows' pensions should be increased to 25/- per week. In connection with dependent children, in the case of the eldest of such children the allowance should be 10/-; and in respect of subsequent children 5/- each until they reach the age of 16 years. There was no mention of what was to happen to orphans, but I presume the allowance would be the same as that for the eldest of the children.
Let us bear these increases in mind and see the effects. The first result is that, competing with the contributory scheme of insurance, the rates of which are well known to Deputies, the contribution from the employer and the employee, will be a scheme which will have the effect of practically cutting out the contributory scheme altogether. Is it the desire of the House or anybody in the House that the contributory widows' and orphans' pension scheme should be abandoned because of a non-contributory scheme which is so much more attractive? You will draw in quite a huge class of widows whose relatives would not be disposed to take part in the contributory scheme and it would be difficult for the Government to insist that they should pay contributions thereto.
Therefore, those persons in the House who approve of a general plan of social insurance based on contributions from employers and employees and the State and who frequently advert to the necessity of extending it if at all possible, should bear in mind that, if we start giving large increases of this kind, unrelated to the general cost of other social services, unrelated to the amounts paid for other social services, the first result is the immediate destruction of the contributory principle. We have had an estimate prepared in the Department of what the cost of this scheme would be per annum and the cost would amount to approximately £5,000,000.
That is terrible.
It is a very heavy impost on the community. It represents nearly the whole cost of the ordinary social services for the year 1938.
Half the cost of the Army.
Does the Deputy want to disband the Army?
I will talk about that when I get you in the L.D.F.
It represents very nearly the whole cost of the social services in 1938. Although we had complaints from the Opposition that the social services at that time were not adequate, I do not recall members of the Labour Party proposing an immediate all-over increase in respect of one social service, among many other social services, amounting to nearly the whole cost of the social services for that year. The House will recall the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to the cost of the children's allowances scheme. He said that the produce of the following taxes would be required to pay for the children's allowances scheme as at present established:—1/-in the £ on the income-tax; 1/- per lb. on tobacco; 2d. per lb. on tea; ½d. per lb. on sugar; and a penny on a pint of beer. If you double these figures they become rather frightening, but, when doubled, the approximate cost of this proposal will be realised, assuming the law of diminishing returns would not operate when these increased taxes were imposed. I know very well that it can always be argued that the Budget has been constantly increased in the past and that it may increase in the future and that the mere argument that social services cost money is not by itself the whole reply to a motion of this kind. There are a number of issues we have to consider. What happens when a widow with 25/- per week reaches the age of 70? Is her pension to revert to 10/-. In fact, when you compare these rates with other social services, almost inevitably the result would be that the whole cost of social services would not only be increased by £5,000,000, but would be trebled or quadrupled. In fact, I can think of no better way of causing immediate and serious inflation of the currency than, first of all, raising wages in order that the contribution for the contributory scheme should be such as to keep the contributory scheme going on with the non-contributory scheme and, secondly, the raising of the other social services so as to be in line with these very extravagant and extreme proposals.
I tried to give the House a picture of the social service position as a whole in this country. I have indicated that this Government will, when it thinks fit, continue the work of improving the social services; that we have it always in our mind; that we are aware of the value of bringing security to every class in the community; that we must base our future decisions on what the national income of the country is likely to be; on the effect of collecting surplus income from the community; whether it is likely to increase employment or increase our agricultural exports or increase the production of home industry; or whether it will not do evil in one direction for the good it does in another. I suppose any Government in office has always to make that statement when confronted with demands of this kind. I can only assure the House that we shall continue to bear this important problem in mind. We gave evidence that we had not stopped thinking about social services when we established children's allowances last year. But to accept this proposal in its present form would be utterly impossible and would immediately result in the gravest financial repercussions throughout the State.
I did not intend to say anything on this motion but, having heard the Parliamentary Secretary, I feel compelled to express my sympathy with the late Thomas Sexton when, on a famous occasion, having heard a spate of statistics from the Government side of the House, he was heard to say that there are three kinds of lies—lies, damn lies and statistics. I followed the Parliamentary Secretary some of the way but, when he got into the wood of statistics, I must confess I got lost. However, I did understand him to say that, assuming that children's allowances had been paid in 1938, the cost of children's allowances together with other social services in that year would have exceeded the national income from agriculture.
I did not say that. The Deputy misunderstood me. I said it would amount to, approximately, one-fourth of the agricultural income. I said it was equal to the income derived from rents in the country.
Including ground rents.
The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the year 1938 was hardly a fair one as a basis of comparison. That was the year in which the economic war ended and the agricultural industry was in a very low state. However that may be, the national income was then estimated to be £154,000,000, and, on that basis, the social services were calculated to amount to 8.1 per cent. of the national income. In subsequent remarks the Parliamentary Secretary told us that social services of the type contemplated under the Beveridge scheme would roughly approximate to 10 per cent. of the national income. On that basis alone, it is clear that we have not yet come within a considerable distance of 10 per cent. of the national income. I am sure the estimated national income this year is nearer to £200,000,000, if not over £200,000,000, and that we would in this country be capable, of bearing a higher scale of expenditure for social services.
I am not concerned with that, because I feel we are approaching this problem from the wrong angle. The encyclicals of His Holiness the Pope have laid down that the wage-earner should be given a wage which would enable him to provide not only a home, food, clothing, education, and all that goes to the maintenance of family life, but also to put by savings for his old age and, as we say, for the rainy day. If the problem of social services is ever to be tackled satisfactorily, it will have to be done on a wage basis. The wage, therefore, should be based, not on the capacity of the man to earn but on family requirements. If a family wage were operating in this country we should be saved the necessity of finding stop-gap bounties from the State for every conceivable type of individual or family ailment. At the moment we are endeavouring to provide old age pensions, children's allowances, maternity benefit, free milk, free boots, free everything, as far as I can see. The tendency is towards providing some sort of allowance from the cradle to the grave. I do not think that policy can be pursued much further with the resources at our disposal. I subscribe to the principle laid down in the encyclicals that if you base your wage, salary, income, or whatever you may call it, on family requirements, you can, to a large extent, if not entirely, dispense with these aids which are merely tempory expedients and which are not likely to get us over our difficulties.
The problem of a family wage, of course, is interlocked with a problem which, sooner or later, we must face in this country, the problem of providing full employment for our people. I think we cannot get away from that aspect when we consider any particular problem of social service. The problem is linked up with our international trade relations; it is linked up with the problem of finding ways and means of stepping up our national income; above all, it is linked up with the problem of enabling men to live with dignity and independence, without the necessity of forever looking to the State or the local authority for a bounty, subsidy or some miserable allowance.
I think the present tendency of State aid is all wrong, that it creates a slave mind. When the State becomes the paternal, bountiful giver of everything and anything from the cradle to the grave, we are compelled to look to the State for these things. Inevitably, we are driven to that under existing conditions because we will not face up to the real problem which is at the root of the evil, the problem which I have tried to outline, of finding full employment for our people on a family wage basis.
I subscribe to the principle that prevention is better than cure and, for that reason, I will support the motion. I believe it is better, in existing circumstances, to attempt to create healthy conditions for the young and to give the widow and orphan an allowance sufficient to enable the orphaned children of this community to grow up in reasonably healthy surroundings.
When Deputy Cosgrave was speaking on this matter, I understood him to mean that he advocated an actuarial inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining two things—the minimum amount of wholesome healthy food which would be essential for a young person, and the capacity of this country to bear social services. I think the Parliamentary Secretary misrepresented him in that respect. Deputy Cosgrave was concerned not so much with an actuarial inquiry into a mere matter of widows' and orphans' pensions; it was the broader matter he had in mind.
One aspect of the non-contributory widows' pension was brought to my notice recently. It is the case of a woman who, in middle life, is cut off from pension. When her children reach the maximum age, 14 or 16 years, as the case may be, she is automatically cut off until she reaches the age of 54. A woman of, say, 45 years who is cut off from pension in these circumstances, generally finds it very difficult to get employment. That case should be borne in mind if it is intended to introduce ameliorative legislation in the near future.
I had not intended to take part in the debate, but we had very many figures from the Parliamentary Secretary and I felt a simple statement of the problem would have been more welcome on all sides of the House. We had a forest of figures presented to us and it is very difficult to find one's way through them. Even on the Parliamentary Secretary's figures, I would emphasise, he has made a case which shows clearly that, accepting the national income of 1938 and even accepting the allowances as at the present date, we are far from reaching the 10 per cent. which has been suggested as the minimum required in the United States and in Great Britain.
Deputy O'Leary rose.
Before the Deputy starts, I should like to point out that this debate must conclude at 8.35 and the mover of the motion must get at least a quarter of an hour to conclude.
Would you mind giving Deputy Corish reasonable time to reply?
I think there should be a quarter of an hour given for reply so that whoever is replying on behalf of the mover of the motion should be allowed to get in at 8.20.
I shall not be five minutes. The reason why I interrupted the Parliamentary Secretary was that he was quoting all the people who get pensions but did not tell the House how many are getting pensions as low as 2/-. It is a pity that the widows who represent Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are not here, so that we could have their views. I should like to hear them speaking here for the widows outside the House, which they ought to do, but they are in the happy position of being in the Dáil and not depending on 5/- a week. I know the case of a woman whose husband was killed, and she got a pension of 10/-. Less than a month ago, two inspectors went around. One of them was a very nice fellow. Another young man came along afterwards. With the compensation which she got, this poor widow had set up a little huckster shop. This second inspector went to every merchant and shopkeeper to find out what that widow bought, what stocks she had, and how much profit she was making in the year, in spite of the fact that at the present time people who have been in the trade for years cannot get supplies. The stock which this poor woman had consisted of a few packets of woodbines, a few boxes of matches, some candles, and so on.
As a result of those investigations, her pension was reduced to 4/-. That is a widow with two children. She gets nothing under the family allowances scheme. Family allowances have been mentioned here, but quite a number of widows are getting nothing under that scheme. The scheme for the provision of free boots has been mentioned, but only one pair of boots is supplied. Those are all the great social services that have been put before the House. Widows who are in receipt of 5/- a week were better off when they were getting home assistance. They got 5/-home assistance before the widows' pension scheme ever came in. If they have any little means at all, they do not get even 5/- widows' pension. In the case of the old age pensioners, their employers cannot give them any more than 6/- a week—good, decent employers, who would be prepared to pay more. The same applies in the case of a widow who is working; her employer cannot give her any more than 6/- a week. I should like if the Minister would pay some attention to cutting down the expenses involved in sending out those inspectors to find out what means those poor widows have, instead of cutting down the amount of pension which the widows receive. I know one widow who is getting only 2/- pension because her son went to England and sends her £1 a week.
Who has a better right to keep her than her own son?
She is a widow, and I presume she is included in the big number mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary as being in receipt of widows' pensions. That is what I want to make clear. That is why I said he was telling lies, because the big majority of those people are not getting 10/- widows' pension. Some of them are not even getting 5/- owing to the means test.
Mr. Corish
I do not want to keep the Minister out, but I should like to know what the arrangement is?
I suggested that the mover of the motion should get a quarter of an hour, from 8.20 until 8.35, to conclude.
I should be glad to hear the Minister speak, if he takes a reasonable time. Will Deputy Corish then get 15 minutes from the time the Minister finishes?
If the House agrees. It is a matter for the House.
I am quite prepared to give Deputy Corish 15 minutes.
A good many people might want to speak on this.
By order, the debate cannot last longer than three hours, but if it is the unanimous wish of the House it may be continued beyond 8.35, but in any circumstances not later than 9 o'clock.
If the House agrees, I am quite prepared to allow Deputy Corish 15 minutes.
The House has given its assent to continue longer than 8.35.
What is the ruling now?
If I continue longer than 8.25, which I probably shall, Deputy Corish will get 15 minutes to reply after I sit down.
But the debate cannot continue later than 9 o'clock.
Why must the debate conclude at nine?
A private Deputy's motion cannot take longer than three hours.
As an example of satirical humour, this resolution in the name of Deputy William Davin and Deputy Timothy J. Murphy is, in my view, fit to rank with the "Modest Proposal" of Dean Swift for the relief of Irish poverty. It proposes, Sir, if I may say so—the metaphor may be a little unfortunate—to make the Irish people try to grow fat on their own tail, or at least to make one section of the Irish people try to grow fat on the flesh of another. The Parliamentary Secretary has just told the House that in order to give effect to this motion we should have to raise by way of taxation a sum of £5,000,000. He said £5,000,000, but the sum is nearer to £5,250,000. He has indicated what that would mean. It might mean, for instance, 2/- in the £ on income-tax, which would inevitably result in a considerable increase in unemployment in the ranks of those who are engaged in domestic and personal service in this country; a considerable increase in unemployment in the ranks of those who provide us with our boots and our clothes and certain special articles of food. He then went on to point out that to secure this amount in taxation we should have in addition to increase very considerably the cost of sugar, the cost of tea, and the cost of those beverages which make life endurable for a great many of us. In short, Sir, whatever benefits which might be conferred on the limited class who would be beneficiaries if this resolution were to be carried into effect— and I should like to point out that it is a very limited class—the great mass of the population, including some of those who have to work hardest, some of those whose circumstances are the most distressful, those families where the wage earner gets a very modest return for his labour, those families of the small farmer and the small landowner and the agricultural labourer in this country, the poorest of our people, if they have the good fortune to have their parents still with them, would inevitably find their circumstances greatly worsened and their standard of living considerably depressed if this motion were carried— this motion which, let me emphasise again, would benefit a very small proportion of our people. The Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of his speech, stated that the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme had not yet come into full operation.
That is true, but it is true only in a limited way. Within the last two or three years statistics have indicated that so far as the number of persons who are beneficiaries of this scheme under both heads—that is to say, the aggregate of those who are beneficiaries under the contributory scheme and those who are beneficiaries under the non-contributory scheme—is concerned we have reached a stable position. It is true that as time goes on there is a transition from the non-contributory scheme to the contributory scheme. As time goes on, a larger proportion of the people who are beneficiaries under the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme can draw pensions at the higher rate—at the rates appropriate to the contributory scheme. But so far as the general mass is concerned, so far as the sum total of widows and orphans under both sections of the scheme is concerned, practically a stable position has been reached, a position in which we find that the total number of persons benefiting will be about 35,000 widows and about 22,000 orphans or in all, say, 57,000 women and children. Now that is in round figures 1/50th of our population. It is important that we should bear that fraction in mind. The total number of people benefiting under our widows' and orphans' pensions scheme represents in round figures 1/50th of the population. In fact, it represents something less, but for the purpose of my argument it is a convenient fraction to keep in mind because it is one which we can easily remember.
What is the other side of the picture? The other side of the picture is that to give effect to these proposals would cost us £5,250,000. It was calculated, I think, in the year 1938 that our national income was £158,000,000 per annum. We made £158,000,000 per annum in what, I think, was the reasonably normal year of 1938. It may be true that for one reason or another, because of the high prices, for instance, which our farmers are getting at the moment, the national income at present might be estimated at a higher figure. We know, however, that we are living in abnormal times and that when this war is over there will inevitably come a reaction in this country and a great deal of the money which we are now spending, and a large part of which we are now borrowing, in order to meet some part of the cost of our national defence and other emergency services will have to be repaid—repaid out of taxation which, in turn, will have its reaction on national production, perhaps. There is one thing which I will not go so far as to say is reasonably certain, but which we may apprehend as a possibility, which is that in postwar years we may be looking back to 1938 as a sort of halcyon year in this country, a year when everybody was reasonably well off, and thinking that a national income of £158,000,000 could be regarded as something which in the post-war years we should be well off to have again.
Let me remind Deputies of what I said. Under this proposal the fraction of the population which would benefit would be about one-fiftieth. To give effect to this motion would cost £5,250,000. Our national income we shall assume is £165,000.
£165,000,000.
£165,000,000. I thank the Deputy for his correction. He seldom interrupts with so much intelligence.
Mr. Corish
The Minister is so intelligent.
Let us assume that our national income is of the order of £165,000,000. Here we are going to take out of the pockets of our wage earners, out of the pockets of the middle class, out of the pockets of our wealthy people, if you like—there are very few of them, remember—out of the pockets of the bulk of our people whose total income is only £165,000,000, £5,250,000 to finance this proposal.
The Minister has repeated that statement three times.
I want the Deputy to remember it.
Wasting time.
I want him to get these figures into his head because if he gets figures like those into his head he will not be so enthusiastic about such a foolish resolution as his is. £5,250,000 is, roughly—I am taking round figures because I want to get the fraction stark and neat for the purposes of comparison—one-thirtieth of what our total national income may be expected to be. Here we have this "Modest Proposal" of the modern Dean Swift to take one-thirtieth of the national income and distribute it amongst one-fiftieth of the national population.
What is the natural consequence? That 49/50ths of the Irish people in consequence of this motion are going to be made poorer and that, among those who are going to be made poorer still, will be the very poorest of those households which are blessed by the fact that both parents are still alive. That is the sort of motion put down by the Labour Party. I think it is a cynical motion. I think it is almost as cynical as the speech made in support of it by Deputy Morrissey.
Deputy Morrissey's principal argument for supporting this motion was that he was anxious to do everything possible to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis in this country. Now, I hope, indeed I am sure, that the Deputy, though cynical, is anxious, as we all are, to do everything possible to curb the ravages of this terrible disease amongst our people. I hope he will have an opportunity next week of supporting the Government in its efforts to do something in that regard. I hope that when he comes to discuss our proposals—the proposals which will be shortly submitted to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Ward— he will remember the speech which he made on this motion. Now, tuberculosis is not a disease which is very general among widows, and particularly among widows in the non-contributory class of 55.
Or orphans.
Nor is it very general even among orphans coming within the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. It is, as the Deputy ought to know, a disease of adolescence.
Where does it start, though?
It is most prevalent, I think, in the active years of life, but it certainly is not, as I think, a disease which is more prevalent among widows than it is among the generality of the population.
It is lack of "consumption " they suffer from.
The Parliamentary Secretary has told the House—and I have repeated the figures, though in rounder terms—that to give effect to this proposal would cost approximately £5,250,000.
Five times the Minister said that.
Yes, why not? Is the Deputy becoming afraid of that figure? Is he becoming apprehensive about this motion?
The Minister is merely wasting the time of the House.
I want the members of the House to get that figure into their minds; I want them to go away with these two fractions in their minds—one-thirtieth of the national income to be taken from the population and distributed amongst one-fiftieth, and a scheme of this sort is going to cost £5,250,000. These are the facts I want to get home to the minds of Deputies.
The incidence of tuberculosis varies from year to year. In one year we had 22,000 sufferers and in another year it was nearly 24,000. I will take the present circumstances, the present cycle. It would not be greatly wide of the mark, it would not be extravagant, to say that you would probably have 23,000 people suffering from tuberculosis, in one stage or another, in this country at the present time. Not all of these people are in straitened circumstances. Undoubtedly, not all of them would require to be helped out of the Exchequer or from the public purse or, to put it in its most comprehensive form, out of the pockets of their neighbours, because nothing comes out of the Exchequer, nothing comes out of the public purse, that does not come out of the private pocket of the private individual. And, therefore, when we propose to spend money either in providing widows' and orphans' pensions or in taking measures to combat tuberculosis, we must remember it is not our money; these millions are not our millions, these millions consist of pennies and shillings and pounds taken out of the private pockets of private individuals in this community.
I said there were 23,000 persons suffering from tuberculosis. I said not all of these were in straitened circumstances. Let us assume there are 15,000 of the 23,000 who require help in a greater or less degree, and let us see what we could do to combat tuberculosis, about which Deputy Morrissey is so much concerned, and so rightly concerned, if we had that £5,250,000. I have to make some extempore calculations.
That is no trouble to you.
I am not as agile in that matter as I used to be.
We would not expect you to be right, anyway.
Not as agile, perhaps, as when the Minister was dealing in gold ounces.
The Minister has been talking for at least 20 minutes.
If there were, no interruptions, it might be much better.
When Deputy Norton says that he does not expect me to be right, that is only an indication that in his case experience has not yet triumphed over a lack of intelligence.
You are the best mathematical wizard I have met, without doubt.
Assuming we have 15,000 people suffering from tuberculosis, to be assisted, and we have £5,250,000 to assist them, that would mean that we could give to each one of the 15,000 people about whom Deputy Morrissey and, I think, Deputy Cosgrave, are so rightly concerned, approximately £340 per annum. We could send them to South Africa, to Switzerland, outside the four corners of Ireland, and we would not have, if we were able to spend at the rate of £5,250,000 per year combating tuberculosis, many very glaring cases of the disease in our midst. But Deputy Morrissey must realise that if he takes the £5,250,000 and spends it in the way this resolution asks, we will have so much less to spend on combating tuberculosis and, if he is really concerned about the incidence of the disease, about the mortality and the ravages of tuberculosis in this country, then what he ought to do is to say to the mover of the motion: we will let well enough alone, so far as the widows' and orphans' pensions are concerned, and we will try to find some more money out of the national income, if we can, to combat tuberculosis; but we will not, by this resolution, make it more difficult for this or any other Government to deal with tuberculosis. I think I have kept the House long enough.
The Minister should be ashamed to make play of this subject.
Not since Barnum came to town have we heard worse than what we have just heard from the Minister.
Do not forget the £5,250,000.
Mr. Corish
This motion has been under consideration for almost three hours. A good deal of that time was taken up by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Childers, and quite a portion of it was taken up by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. As usual, the Parliamentary Secretary's statement was made up of very academic utterances, high-brow economics, and statistics which he was either unable to explain or refused to explain.
He gave us certain figures in connection with social services which are being administered in the country and in regard to which some of us, at least, would like to have more information. He told us that the amount of money now being spent on social services is in the vicinity of £8,663,800. I asked him did that include national health insurance. I do not know exactly what his answer was. I pressed for a definite reply, but I could not get a coherent statement from him. I asked him what was the amount of money spent on national health insurance and I said then what I am going to say now, that national health insurance was never looked upon as a social service in the accepted sense, as administered by the Government. Employers and employed contribute a large amount of money towards that service. I have never heard it spoken of or described as a social service in the sense in which we speak about social services now.
He mentioned that the number of widows in receipt of widows' pensions was in the neighbourhood of 35,000 and that a great number of them were in the non-contributory class, the reason they were in that class being, he said, that a large number of them were self-employed. I venture to suggest that a large number of those in receipt of non-contributory pensions are the wives of men who were unemployed for a long time prior to their deaths. Many of them were unemployed because of the economic policy of this Government, but the Government were not content to keep these people unemployed. They must follow them into their graves and inflict hardship on the wives and children left behind by giving them a miserable pittance of 5/-or 6/- per week.
It is with these people we are concerned — non-contributory pensioners who are in receipt of 5/- or 6/- per week. Again he was pressed for particulars, but he merely dealt vaguely with statistics. I suggest that some thing will have to be done in so far as the wives of unemployed people are concerned. Any of us who interests himself in endeavouring to secure pensions for widows often finds that the fact that their late husbands were two or three stamps short means a difference between a 10/- and a 5/- pension. Because a man worked hard in the interests of his family and in the interests of the State year after year, and because he was unemployed for a few months prior to his death, his family has to live on the miserable pittance of a non-contributory pension.
The Parliamentary Secretary asked us to face the issue. I submit that the Parliamentary Secretary himself did everything but face the issue. It is the easiest thing in the world to quote statistics, which were rightly described and put in their proper category by Deputy Coogan. The Local Government Department of this country does nothing but quote statistics. Both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, in respect of every motion with which they were confronted within the last couple of years, quoted statistics and deliberately got away from the motion before the House. What use are highbrow economics to an unfortunate widow who is trying to live on 5/-a week? What good are highbrow economics to the widow with two or three children who has not yet reached the age of 55 and gets nothing at all? It will be poor consolation to these people to read in the Press to-morrow the statistics put before the House by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary, referring to Deputy Morrissey's statement, said that there was no relationship between T.B. and the widows and orphans. Of course there is a decided relationship, and I now suggest that it is because of the malnutrition amongst orphans in this country that there is so much T.B. The Minister again dealt with the matter of T.B. and quoted the number of people suffering from the disease in the country. He told us that this proposal of the Labour Party would cost £5,250,000, and he emphasised that on four different occasions. He then told us that if, instead of increasing the pensions of these people, that amount were divided between those suffering from T.B., they would get £340 each. That unfortunately has been the policy in this country over a number of years—palliatives all the time, and failure to make an effort to get at the root of any of our social evils.
Anybody could make a statement of that kind, which is on all fours with the statement he made in answer to the proposals put forward in the Bill which the House discussed which sought to enable labourers to purchase their cottages, when he said that if the Bill were passed, we would be making a present of 10,000 houses to the agricultural labourers. That kind of talk gets us nowhere. I ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to face the issue. They are the people who have deliberately evaded the issue in the motion. If they want to cure T.B., they will need to do something to see that the children of widows get proper nourishment, which is the only way to cure this disease.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave other statistics. He said that the increases given to recipients of widows' and orphans' pensions since the beginning of the emergency ranged from 35 to 202 per cent. He admitted that the cost of living had increased by 70 per cent. I pressed him to say how these percentages were made up. I can imagine that if a widow were in receipt of 1/- or 2/- per week, or of 6d. as in some cases, it would be easy enough to show a 202 per cent. increase, but that was trotted out here in all sincerity to show that there has been an increase in the maximum pensions given to widows and orphans. That is the kind of claptrap we hear from Government Benches, while these people are starving all over the country. When pressed for an answer, he would not give one. The Minister was very much concerned about the people who are not widows, about the working man and the working woman, who would have to contribute towards the cost of the increase we suggest. The Government or the Fianna Fáil Party were not so concerned when the Minister for Industry and Commerce pledged this House to the putting up of £20,000,000 to be handed over to one man to run the railways of this country a few weeks ago; but when it is a question of people who have been left without their breadwinners, when it is a question of starving children and starving widows, when it is a question of taking the proper steps to prevent the spread of tuberculosis, these people get nothing but figures and statistics.
I should like to see in print the statistics put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not suggest that he is telling lies, but I certainly would question the accuracy of his figures. One is very doubtful of their accuracy when one remembers that, when pressed, he refused to give the information we asked for. Nobody interrupted him unreasonably—any interruptions that were made were made to elicit proper information. Deputy Morrissey and I were the two people who interrupted him and we did so in all good humour, being anxious to get the figures he quoted—figures placed in his hands by officials and which, in my opinion, he had not studied himself. If that is the treatment that this Government is going to mete out to the poor of this country, then the sooner the poor take cognisance of it the better.
The poor Deputies!
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 50.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Corish; Níl: Deputies Kissane and O Briain.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Furlong, Walter.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Cléirigh, Mícheál.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn
Question declared negatived.
|
Bennett, George C.Blowick, Joseph.Cafferky, Dominick.Cogan, Patrick.Coogan, Eamonn.Corish, Richard.Cosgrave, Liam.Davin, William.Doyle, Peadar S.Flanagan, Oliver J.Keating, John. |
Keyes, Michael.McMenamin, Daniel.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, Timothy J.Norton, William.O'Donnell, William F.O'Leary, John.O'Reilly, Thomas.Reynolds, Mary.Spring, Daniel. |
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. Wednesday, 31st January, 1945.