One important factor in connection with this Bill that appears to have been overlooked by Deputy MacEntee is that it does provide the sum of £2,500,000 for old age pensioners and widows and orphans during the next financial year. That, after all, is the test on which it will be examined in the country. During the Budget debate there was considerable criticism of the fact that provision was made in the Budget of only £600,000, and it was suggested that that would mean a negligible increase in old age pensions. Under this Bill, £2,500,000 is to be paid and that is a good instalment by the Minister within a very short time. The Minister has stated very clearly, and it has been stated by Deputies on this side of the House, that this is only a temporary measure to tide us over the period until such time as the comprehensive scheme is available and I think it ought to be examined and considered on the basis of that explanation and that guarantee by the Minister. I do suggest, with all due respect to Deputy MacEntee, that he has weakened considerably the contribution he could make to this Bill.
Social Welfare Bill, 1948—Committee Stage (Resumed).
The Deputy is away on the Bill. We are on Section 44—contributory widows' pensions— and nothing else.
Then I will say that he has weakened considerably the contribution he could make on this section by his approach. Naturally, I am worried when I see an experienced parliamentarian like Deputy MacEntee making such tactical errors. I had hoped that I would gain some inspiration, some knowledge, from the approach that an experienced parliamentarian like Deputy MacEntee would make to this section. His contribution was condemned, and, as I said before the adjournment, it was clearly an artificial contribution. He made an extraordinary statement.
The Deputy is again on the Bill. Dragging in the word "section" does not put him in order.
I am dealing with the criticism of Deputy MacEntee. The Minister has read out a list of benefits that will accrue under this section to widows in the rural areas. I think Deputy Killilea agrees that, so far as his area is concerned, the provisions of this section, when duly implemented, will substantially reduce the hardships of a very large number of widows in his area. It is on those grounds, and those grounds only, that I support the section.
I do not understand why Deputy Cowan should have been so disappointed with the contributions which I have made to the discussions on the various provisions of this Bill, and in particular on the provision that we are dealing with, because I think I rather deplored the fact that, having regard to certain undertakings which were given to the people, the Bill does not go far enough. They are not getting the means test abolished or the pensions that were promised.
Is there a means test in the section?
There is. I deplore the fact that Deputies who were elected to this House on the plea that they would abolish the means test have steadfastly refused to bring any pressure to bear on the Minister responsible to get him also to honour the pledges which, like them, he made to the people in regard to this matter.
This Bill, of course, like the curate's egg, is good in parts and very bad in other parts. This is one of the parts which is reasonably good. We have endeavoured, however, to get the Deputy who has sat down to try and get rid of the parts which, to my mind, are bad. The Minister gave us some information when introducing the Bill as to the cost of this particular section. He was much more informative in regard to what the section was going to cost the Exchequer than he has been up to this as to what giving effect to the section is going to cost the insured workers of the country. However, we have had the statement from the Minister that the annual cost to the Exchequer of the proposals regarding non-contributory pensions will be in the neighbourhood of £860,000. Of course, that is only a half-truth and is intended to deceive, because these proposals are going to cost the Exchequer nothing. The figures which I elicited to-day in reply to Parliamentary Questions 4, 5 and 6 prove that. He said that the proposals would cost the Exchequer £860,000, but to offset that the Minister proposes to collect £319,000 more from the persons who have contributed under the national health insurance scheme, that he proposes to collect £251,000 more from the people who have contributed under unemployment insurance, and that he proposes to collect £219,000 more every year from the persons who have contributed under the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme, and as we know he is taking £450,000 from the contributors to pay the non-contributory pensions in this year. The three figures which I have given—£319,000, £251,000 and £291,000—total £861,000.
How is that relevant?
The Minister, when introducing the Bill, told us that Section 44 was going to cost the Exchequer £860,000. I am showing that it is going to cost the Exchequer nothing by reason of the fact that not only is he increasing the rates of contributions for all the persons who come-within the scope of these various social insurance schemes, but, that he also is withholding £860,000 odd which at the moment the Exchequer pays over by way of cash supplements. That is where he gets the money. In so far as my contributions to the debate on the various sections of the Bill have been disappointing to Deputy Cowan, they have been disappointing because I have tried to point out to him what he and those associated with him were doing when they went into the division lobby in support of the Minister on previous sections of the Bill.
What has Deputy Cowan's disappointment got to do with Section 44?
I am sorry that the Deputy has been disappointed by my efforts to improve the Bill. I am sorry also if he cannot persuade Deputy Cowan to attach himself once again to the Party and ensure that the cost of the non-contributory pensions will be borne by the Exchequer instead of by the contributors under the various social insurance schemes.
I should like to deal briefly with the racket that Deputy MacEntee has been endeavouring to maintain about a tax on the workers. I do not need to travel again over the ground that I have already covered. It is sufficient to say that every additional contribution which a worker pays will go into the pool. That will ensure to him a statutory right to scales of benefit portion of which at present depend on the whim of the Government in power. His rights and title deeds to higher rates of benefit will be enshrined in this measure and they cannot be reduced unless the Government are prepared to run the gamut of introducing an amending Bill and going through five Stages in this House and facing the Seanad as well, with all the possibility of public agitation in the meantime. We are giving, therefore, to insured contributors entitlement to a scale of benefit better than they have to-day from the standpoint of security.
You cannot discuss this Bill without adverting to what it does in an overall sense. You cannot discuss it section by section and consider one section as apart from the others. This is what the workers will know, and they will not be blindfolded by what Deputy MacEntee or others may say, that under this section a non-contributory widow in a rural area with one child will get 4/6 a week of an increase. If she has ten children she will get 21/6 a week of an increase. That will go into the pockets of non-contributory widows and orphans. That is a valuable concession.
They will appreciate this Bill and I doubt whether there will be found in the country a worker who will not gladly welcome the benefits conferred on him and the fact that £2,250,000 will go in the form of improved social services. There is not a worker who will question any request to him by legislation to pay an additional contribution for the benefits which under this Bill are now being stabilised in a statutory manner.
Amendment No. 36, being out of order, will not be moved.
On the section, I ask the Minister to consider that the section provides that a widow will receive an allowance if she has attained 48 years and has not attained 70 years. If she is under 70 and has one child under the appointed age she will receive a pension. There is undoubtedly a big gap in respect of the widow who is under 48 and has no child. I would ask the Minister to extend that section so that all widows will receive a pension. Take the case of a young woman whose husband has died or has been killed. She is left in the position that under this measure she is not entitled to a pension. Could the Minister include all widows under 70 in this section? I know it will cost some money, but it may not be so very much. The difficulty is that if she is not to receive this non-contributory pension what will she do? How will she live? I would much prefer to be in the position of having a statutory right to receive this non-contributory pension. I think she is just as entitled to it as if she were over 48. I do not know why the 48 has been mentioned.
As the Deputy will appreciate, where a woman is the wife of an insured contributor, on the death of her husband she automatically qualifies for a pension.
He having paid more than he ought to have paid.
It does not matter what he has paid, she is entitled to it.
Under this section I propose to make a radical improvement in the position. At present a widow under 55 can only qualify for a non-contributory pension if she has a child not more than 14, if absent from school, or 16 if attending school. When the child reaches 14, if the widow has but the one child, within six months from the date of attaining 14 the child goes off and by reason of that fact the widow goes off the State pension list as well. Under this Bill I am bringing down the qualifying age for the widow's pension, a childless widow's pension, from 55 to 48. By doing that I am making approximately 7,000 widows at present not entitled to a pension eligible for one and it will cost £210,000 to do that.
I quite sympathise with the point Deputy Cowan has made and I can travel a good deal of the road with him. I still have £2,500,000. If I give more here I shall have to take it away from some other place. Out of the £1,000,000 going in respect of improved non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions, £210,000 will go to qualify the additional 7,000 widows. That is as much as I could do this year.
I share Deputy Cowan's sympathies in the matter of bringing down the qualifying age. I hope that will come in due course. At the moment I am constrained to say that my £2,500,000 is absorbed by this Bill. If I am to yield anything I can only do it by taking benefits from somebody else.
This non-contributory section is a pretty-well balanced section. We not merely modify the means test, but we permit a widow to earn something and receive gratuitous payments; we set up benefits, reduce the qualifying age and increase the amount of the pensions. The whole thing hangs together and I am sure the Deputy will agree that I have tried to do the best I can to spend the money in a way that will confer the greatest benefits on the widest number of persons.
Is it not true that a widow under 48, without dependents, would be entitled to unemployment assistance? I thought that under the Schedule a widow without dependents in a rural area would be entitled to 8/6 a week.
The wife of an insured contributor can get a pension automatically when her husband dies. A woman whose husband was not an insured contributor may apply for and qualify for a non-contributory pension. She is not eligible at present for a non-contributory widow's pension unless she has one dependent child, not over 14½, or not over 16 if attending school. If she is a childless widow under 48 she will not qualify for a non-contributory pension. She may qualify for a contributory pension, but that depends on how the husband stood for insurances purposes under the National Health Insurance Act.
The Minister is once again on his mythical £2,500,000. He knows he has not got that money. There is a sort of undertaking in the Bill that in the next financial year increased non-contributory pensions will be paid, but the Minister is merely going to pay that out of the money he has stolen from the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund and other sources. He has not the £2,500,000 and nobody is aware that, in fact, whatever services are contemplated would cost £2,500,000. The Minister had better stop that type of propaganda. People are doubtful about what they will get out of the Bill, certainly so far as the workers are concerned.
I have placarded in every town in the country what they are going to get.
Could the Minister tell the House how much he expects this section is going to cost?
What point exactly is the Deputy interested in?
I am asking how much orphans' non-contributory pensions will cost when they are paid at the rates set out in Section 49.
This section will confer an orphans additional benefits which will cost £10,000.
Less than one-fourth of the total.
They will get £10,000 more from me than they got from you, and my money in this matter will be as good as yours.
The Deputy is not forgetting that he gave away £600,000 in the reduced price of drink.
That is what has you over there.
These second person exchanges are very touching but they are not quite in order.
Question agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:—
To delete sub-section (1)
This is a consequential amendement on the amendment to section 37.
I move amendment No. 39:—
In line 25, page 21, to delete "and" and substitute "Rule and in".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment No. 40 is related to Amendment No. 23 which has been ruled out of order.
It is, and I think it must be ruled out of order but I would like to point out that this Section 3 of the Schedule says:
"References in this and Rule 3 of this Schedule to the child or children of a widow shall be construed as references to the child or children of the man who was the husband of such widow."
There is no doubt about it, there is a limitation.
I take it the Deputy is not moving this?
You have ruled it out of order.
If the amendment were carried, the Deputy could not achieve anything by it.
I am only putting a suggestion to the Minister.
May I explain the position? I do not know exactly what children the Deputy wants to cover but I am conscious of the fact that he will do something, if his amendment is carried, which I think he will agree is undesirable. Obviously because of its character I do not want to discuss it in any detail but let me say this, so that the inference will be clear to the Deputy. Under this Bill a widow's children by her first husband will qualify for these allowances. If she marries again and again and again, all the normal children will qualify in the matter of their entitlement to the allowance. If the Deputy's amendment is carried then children born after her last husband died—a long time perhaps, after the last husband died— will also qualify. I take it that the Deputy does not want to do that.
I do not want to suggest that. So long as I am satisfied that all the children of the widow, whether by her last marriage or by a previous marriage, are covered, I am perfectly satisfied.
I move amendment No. 41:—
In sub-section (1), line 47, page 21, to delete "he" and substitute "she".
This is a drafting amendment. The person covered is really a widow or usually a widow.
I move amendment No. 42:—
To delete sub-section (2).
This is consequential on the amendment to Section 37.
I move amendment No. 43:—
To insert the following item at the beginning of Part II:—
|
1 & 2 Geo. V.c. 55 |
National Insurance Act. 1911. |
Paragraph (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 48. |
4th day of October. 1948. |
Paragraph (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the National Insurance Act of 1911 makes provision for the payment by the Exchequer of two-ninths of three-sevenths of the total contribution paid in respect of foreign-going seamen. As foreign-going seamen, resident in Ireland and employed in British ships, will since the 5th of July be insured under the British scheme of national insurance, the amount payable by the Exchequer under this paragraph will relate, after the 5th July, only to foreign-going seamen employed on Irish ships and will be so small that it is not considered necessary to provide for it. The total sum will be about £30 per annum.
At this stage might I secure permission from the House to move an amendment which is designed to meet a case of hardship? I can submit the amendment and give the Opposition a copy of it or, if we leave it to the Report Stage, I can have it circulated in the meantime, if the Report Stage is not taken to-day.
Is this the amendment to Section 38?
Yes, it is designed to meet a case of very obvious hardship.
I have no objection.
We had better take it on the Report Stage than go back on the Bill now.
All right, so long as there is general agreement to take it.