Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 1947

Vol. 104 No. 17

Committee on Finance. - Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill, 1947—Second Stage.

Dr. Ryan

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill is largely covered by the National Health Insurance Bill which we have already discussed, but in certain respects it is necessary to have separate legislation. Part I of the Bill is principally concerned with definitions. Sections 4,5 and 6 of Part II deal with exempted classes, that is persons who are liable for widows' and orphans' pensions but who are not liable for national health insurance. It deals with persons who continued in good faith to pay contributions although they were above the insurable limit and the free period is extended from 12 months to 18 months. This Part of the Bill also deals with soldiers who had been exempted persons and afterwards joined the Army.

Section 7 relates to people who went to work in England during the emergency and whose period might have gone beyond the free period. Their period was extended as far as widows' and orphans' pensions were concerned, and it is now proposed to extend it further up to a date to be decided by an Order to be made by the Minister. A man might go to England and have lost any benefit due to him before he would come into benefit on the English side. If he died in the interim period, his wife would get no pension, either on this side or on the other side. It was rather an unfortunate position but the present proposal will keep such men in benefit until they come into benefit on the other side. A widow, however, who gets a pension from the British side will not get it on this side. It makes their position more secure. I do not think it is going to take very much from the fund but it will cover some very hard cases. The only other matter dealt with in the Bill is the investment of funds. They are to be dealt with on the same basis as the National Health Insurance Fund.

General Mulcahy

Can the Minister say what are the proposed alternative payments under the new proposals?

Dr. Ryan

There is a very long involved table but I can give a few examples. We are removing the food vouchers and giving 2/6 instead and then bringing the allowance up to 50 per cent. above the 1939 figure, to the nearest unit. We do not take half-pennies and pennies into account. For instance, a widow who was getting 10/- in 1939 will get 15/- now. A widow with one child who was getting 15/- will now get 22/6 while a widow who was getting 18/- will now get 27/-. These are some of the simple cases but there are some very involved cases. All I can say is that in no case are we giving less than 50 per cent. over the 1939 figure.

Mr. Norton

Can the Minister say where a widow with five or six children entitled to a contributory pension would come under that scale?

Dr. Ryan

I shall look it up.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand that the Minister is giving them 50 per cent. of an increase, inclusive of the value of the food vouchers?

Dr. Ryan

We are replacing the food vouchers by cash and we are giving them 50 per cent. over the 1939 figure.

Mr. Keyes

I welcome the provisions of Section 7, which remove a very great hardship on citizens who left the country, but the section still leaves unredressed a glaring hardship to which I should like the Minister to advert, if possible, in this Bill. I refer to the case of people who do not leave the country, who work all their life here in industrial employment, who contribute during all these years to the Insurance Fund and who retire at the age of 65. They cease to be insured persons on retirement and when they die their widows are not entitled to pensions. I have been dealing recently with the case of a man who, for 32 years, was employed by the Great Southern Railways Company and during all that time stamped his card. On his death his widow was left completely without any pension. She happened to have no family. She was a woman of 65 years, and she had neither a contributory nor a non-contributory pension. Surely the Minister should make some provision to cover cases of that kind. Would it not be equitable to make a provision that the widow of a man who had contributed to the Insurance Fund for a specific number of years should on his death be entitled to a pension? Take the case of that man, who had paid 32 years' contributions. Should not the State morally and in all equity be obliged to pay a pension to that widow? That is not an isolated case I hear a clamour, time after time, from ex-railway employees in regard to such cases. These men, having worked for years and retired at the age of 65, find at the end of 12 months that they cease to be insured persons. They are then in the same position as if they were never insured. I should like the Minister to insert some provision in the Bill to cover that point, namely, that a period of insurance of 12, 15 or 20 years, irrespective of when death occurs, should qualify the widow of an insured person for a pension. There would be nothing unjust, inequitable or unfair about that.

Dr. Ryan

In reply to Deputy Norton's question, a widow with five children would go from 27/- to 42/-.

Mr. Norton

And bear in mind that, if the ceiling is lifted from £400 to £500, that widow will in future get 42/-. That is why I want it lifted.

Dr. Ryan

What about the case mentioned by Deputy Keyes? A case was referred to me a few days ago of a widow who was not entitled to a contributory pension because there was some lapsing in the matter of the stamping of the card and who was not entitled to a non-contributory pension because she was under 55 years. That is the present position, and all I can promise Deputy Keyes is that, in our comprehensive scheme, we will try to cover cases of the kind, but it may not be possible to cover every case.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister interpret Section 4 for me? I take it that it has no other meaning than to cover a person in excepted employment, where contributions were irregularly paid, but nevertheless paid in good faith?

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Keyes

Could the Minister answer my point?

Dr. Ryan

I tried, so far as I could, to do so. The law relates to contributory pensions, for which cards must be in order and so on. If the cards are not stamped up to the proper date, the widow is not entitled to a contributory pension. If she has no children and is under a certain age—I think, 55 years—she is not entitled to a non-contributory pension and, therefore, she gets nothing. We certainly will have all cases of that kind considered when going into the matter in full.

Question put and agreed to.