Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Mar 1971

Vol. 252 No. 11

Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare Services for Widows and Orphans: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann, being conscious of the grave hardships being suffered by widows because of the quite inadequate social welfare services available to them and their orphan children, calls on the Government to take immediate steps to provide a comprehensive social welfare code for widows and their families so that their standard of living will not be lowered by the deaths of family breadwinners.

—(Deputy R. Barry).

Mr. Tully

While a number of widows have pensions because their husbands were insured it is rather extraordinary that, as far as I know, a number of insurance companies have no widows' pensions for employees with the result that widows of some rather senior executives in these companies find themselves depending on the tender mercies of the State. This is something that should be taken up with the companies concerned. These rather rich companies—I am not confining this entirely to insurance companies—could do much more for widows of their employees by having them insured so that in the event of the employee dying the widow would not be dependent on a non-contributory widow's pension in many cases. In many cases these people would be over the limit of insurability under the State and would not qualify for the normal widow's pension.

It is hard to know which type of widow is worse off. The widow whose husband was insured, whether she has a small family or no family, if she qualifies for a contributory pension, at least has some income—I consider that it is far too small. If the husband was not insured—he was running a small business and being self-employed was not insurable—the widow must depend on a non-contributory widow's pension which is a smaller amount and harder to manage with. Even when we come to widows of those who have relatively decent incomes the first thing the widow finds if there is no income is that she must make up her mind whether to apply to the State for a non-contributory pension. Frequently, when the investigation is carried out she is found to be in possession of a motor car which she considered essential before her husband died. It is probably suggested that she should dispose of it. She then finds her house is mortgaged and she must find money somewhere to pay this off. It is extraordinary how badly off widows of people considered relatively wealthy can find themselves. I do not know what the State can do at this stage, but whether the widows are in the lower, the middle or even the higher income groups in some cases, they seem to be caught in every way. I have come across cases recently where widows with a house and very little else, perhaps a car that is relatively new, and because of the high value put on the house which might have been purchased at a relatively small figure a few years earlier, they are billed for death duties. The owner may have to sell the house in order to pay the State. Instead of the State helping her, she is expected to contribute a portion of the little she has to the State.

I am not blaming the Minister for Social Welfare for all these ills but I am bringing them to his notice because the only way anything can be done to improve the position is to have these matters raised again and again. It has been said that any group of people can make the case that they are not getting a fair share of what is going but I think the widows can truthfully say that they have been shabbily treated. In the Supplementary Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Justice I see a reference to the question of two new widows' and children's pensions schemes being introduced for members of the Force, a contributory scheme and a non-contributory scheme or ex-gratia pension. If these people are drawing widows' pensions, as soon as they get anything under one heading it is immediately taken into account and they lose it under another heading. The extraordinary case has been brought to the notice of various Ministers over the years of the Garda widows who are the first to be caught out with social welfare increases. As soon as there is an increase in the widow's pension from the Garda, the State takes account of this and reduces the amount.

Let me repeat that I think it is terribly unfair that the widow who has to go to work must pay the same amount for her stamp as her single colleague but if she becomes ill or unemployed she gets only half the amount of benefit. In this case the Minister is having it both ways.

In dealing with widows' pensions can the State not make some effort to do so more expeditiously? A woman whose husband is dead since 4th February came to me two nights ago. She had submitted all the necessary application forms and certificates. She has seven children, the eldest approaching 14. Although she did everything required she had not got her pension. As soon as the matter was brought to the notice of the Department of Social Welfare they immediately agreed she was entitled to the pension. She had not got it, they said, because something had happened and they had not got a record of the 1970 card. I believe this matter could have been cleared up without the intervention of an outsider. She had to come to me and say she was not able to live on the wind and therefore she wanted something done. The Department of Social Welfare have been very helpful with every case I have taken to them but I should not have to go to them. These people are entitled by right to what they get and they should get it without having to bring the matter to the notice of a third party. For that reason I feel the Minister should make an extra effort to see to it that widows, faced with the traumatic experience of losing a husband, should not have to suffer the degradation of living on an income of nil while deciding how they are going to live.

Mrs. Burke

Much has been said on this motion but surely it is a reflection on this House and this State that the plight of widows needs to be discussed? Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that this House has been dominated by men, who could not possibly understand or be expected to understand the financial problems which face many widows today. Added to the financial problems are the problems of loneliness and the change in social standing once the husband dies. When one realises that 75 per cent of our married women become widows one realises the size of the problem and the necessity for the Government and Members of this House to relieve the urgent and pressing financial difficulties that beset many of them.

We cannot lessen their grief but we can certainly help by easing the burden of worry and want. How could anyone exist on £4 10s a week plus 18s for the first two children and 13s for the third? Indeed the non-contributory pension is much worse, it is only £4 5s plus 15s for the first two children. With the ever-increasing cost of the essentials of life they could not possibly be expected to live on a miserable pension such as this.

Deputy Tully referred to the long delay in processing claims. A great deal of time is wasted from the time the application is made for a widow's pension until the final decision is made. It can very often take several months. These decisions could be expedited if the matter could be finalised at local level as a result of discussions with the local pension officers and the local social welfare officers and a provisional payment could be made.

Another problem which, thank goodness, does not happen very often is the case where a husband is killed and the authorities decide an inquest is necessary. It is very often nine or 12 months before the inquest is held and a death certificate cannot be issued until the inquest is over. Widow's pension cannot be paid until the death certificate has been issued.

The present widows' pensions are a false economy. Illness springs from undernourishment and mental anguish which are a direct result of the miserable allowances being paid to widows. I recently heard of a widow who had to abandon her children because she just could not cope any longer. No woman gives up her children easily and it must have taken something for this woman to give up her children and send them to an orphanage.

In conclusion I would like to ask the Minister to consider the position of widowers in poor circumstances because they too have to rear large families in some cases on their own.

Mr. Corish

This motion relates to a limited aspect of social welfare but I think it important to make a contribution towards it. We realise the Government's difficulties generally in raising money to do all the things that the various motions put before the House ask them to do. I should like to repeat something I said last night on the Supplementary Estimate and that was the proposal to the effect that, pending a new social welfare code, specific taxation be devoted to those dependent on social welfare.

I do not know what the future of social welfare in this country is going to be because we are not yet fully conversant with the social welfare code to which this country subscribed when it signed a convention passed by the Council of Europe. Neither are we in a position to know how widows, sick, old and unemployed people will be treated if Ireland becomes a member of the EEC but even if the social welfare code within the EEC were to be very much improved it would take some time to have it fully implemented.

There is a special case to be made for those who are the subject of this motion tonight, namely, widows. We should all take note of the contribution made by Deputy Mrs. Burke. I do not think any man could truly appreciate, although Deputies can more than other people, the problems of widows and their orphans when they lose their breadwinner. When this happens everybody is full of sympathy for the widow and her family, people send letters and telegrams and neighbours call round and try to be as helpful and as charitable as they can—and they are very helpful and charitable in this country when such an occasion arises—but the day after the funeral these women need not only sympathy, they need the wherewithal to provide for their children. If they happen to be notables in a particular district or if the husband died in tragic circumstances there is in many cases a generous response by people in an effort to provide for the widow and her orphans. Would that that type of consideration and charity were embodied in some part of our social welfare code. It is not that we would not like other social welfare recipients to have their allowances increased as well, but widows are in a somewhat different category. The widow with four or five young children finds it difficult, if not impossible, to integrate into some other section of the family, be it with in-laws, her own mother, or some other relation. Old age pensioners are in many cases looked after by their children. Recipients of unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and sickness benefit are in many cases members of families which have some source of income.

The means test operates more harshly against the widow with the non-contributory pension than it does against any other section. For every 10s per week that a widow earns by way of wages her pension is reduced by practically the same amount. It is most distressing for widows in receipt of non-contributory pensions that they cannot earn a little more than the meagre pension they get under the existing code. The number of non-contributory widows' pensions must be declining all the time. The number of old IRA are also declining and that has been used as an argument for giving them special consideration. Surely the same argument is equally applicable in the case of widows drawing non-contributory pensions?

Deputy Mrs. Burke referred to the frustration of the widow who has to wait three or four months before she gets her pension. In the meantime she receives a few pounds per week from the home assistance officer. There was a time when such money did not have to be refunded to the local authority. That has been changed and, as soon as the arrears of pension are made good, the unfortunate widow has to refund to the local authority the few pounds per week that she was given by the local authority while waiting for her pension. Perhaps the Minister might be able to do something to ensure that not all the moneys paid by way of home assistance would be deducted from accumulated arrears of pension. As Deputy Mrs. Burke said, the widow feels alone and neglected. She has to readjust to living. She has to readjust her standard of living. She feels she is being cheated when what she got by way of home assistance is deducted from her pension arrears.

Now that the Budget is to be introduced on 28th April this is an opportune moment for the Minister to approach his colleague—I know how difficult it is to get money from Ministers for Finance—to see if anything can be done on the lines suggested in the motion. If there were a motion in the Budget for a capital gains tax in some form or another and the Minister for Finance came in here with a proposal that this tax on wealth would be devoted to certain classes of social welfare recipients, not alone would he get the support of the House but he would be acclaimed by the nation for taking from the rich in order to give to the poor.

I know that deep consideration has to be given to various proposals that emanate from this House, but something on the lines of the tax I suggest should be introduced, not alone in respect of widows and orphans but also in respect of other people who are dependent on social welfare and particularly those who are dependent on social assistance.

Mr. Briscoe

It would be remiss of me to let this opportunity pass without contributing to the debate. All of us are agreed that the plight of the widow should be improved. There are many widows in difficult circumstances mainly because their late husbands did not take out life insurance. Thank God, there are many dutiful husbands who look after this aspect in the running of their lives. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in distributing the money available to him. He has to run his Department. There are approximately 136,000 widows and to give each an increase of 10s per week would run into something in the region of £3,276,000 at a rough calculation.

Mr. Ryan

The Deputy appreciates that 69,000 widows get no pension at all.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister will deal with that. It is obvious that the amount of money available to widows is not enough. The Minister has said so himself. He would like to give far more. There are things that could be done. There could be an extension of the free travel and free electricity schemes. Widows whose children are not school-going and who cannot go out to work because of that should get special consideration. I hope that in the Budget the Minister will distribute more money to this particular class of citizens. There is, too, the widow who cannot obtain work because of her years. As one speaker said last night, there is a reluctance on the part of many employers to employ widows. They tend to want to employ much younger persons although there are many widows who were quite capable secretaries before they got married and are still capable of doing a very good job of work. There are also the widows who could go back to the jobs they held formerly.

I would not waffle any further on this matter. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of the speakers here in their desire to get a better deal for widows.

Mr. Ryan

Our Constitution re-echoes the conviction of the majority of our people that the family is the fundamental unit of our society and, as such, is deserving of all protection the State can give. The reality of Irish society is that, on the death of the husband, the widow and her family are crushed by a multitude of economic and social pressures to the point at which family life becomes a nonentity, something which does not exist or, if it exists, operates under pressures which deprive the children and, indeed, the mother of the emotional bonds and the sense of security which should be theirs.

We in Fine Gael accept the desire of all Members of this House to improve the lot of widows. We would hope that the Minister and the Government will not express any resentment of our motion or the tabling of the motion. I understand, indeed, that they intend to accept it. That is the right attitude and I certainly hope that will be the Minister's declaration. We are all politicians and by nature we are responsive to public demands.

The purpose of this Fine Gael motion proposed by Deputy Barry, seconded by Deputy O'Donnell, and supported by other speakers, including Deputy Joan Burke, herself a widow, is to bring pressure to bear on the Minister for Social Welfare so that, at this critical time of the year, he can go to his colleague, the Minister for Finance, and say: "Look, we are on the spot. We have had this motion passed unanimously in Dáil Éireann. This pressure is building up. The widows of Ireland are no longer prepared to accept the position of fourth, fifth or tenth class citizens. They ask that Irish society should now honour in the spirit as well as in the letter the declaration of our Constitution that family life must be respected and that they should get from Irish society the financial and other supports necessary to put them, deprived of the breadwinner, in as good a position as it is possible for Irish society to support."

We believe that the allowances which are now paid to young mothers who have families to rear are appalling. Because of the Fine Gael conviction that widows are grossly unprovided for, when we published our detailed statement on social welfare policy as far back as January, 1969, we proposed a minimum pension of £5 a week for widows, not that we regarded that then as being the optimum, but because we regarded it as being a goal which could be achieved in the short run. We regarded it as the bare minimum for a widow with, of course, equivalent benefits for children. It was also with the same limitations in mind but, at the same time, compelled by the necessities of the situation, that last December the Fine Gael Party resolved that the widows' contributory pension should be increased immediately from a minimum of £4 10s a week to £6 a week, with payments for all dependent children increased from 18s to £1 10s weekly. In respect of non-contributory pensions, Fine Gael maintain that the minimum pension should be increased from £4 5s to £5 10s a week and that the support for children should be increased from 15s to £1 5s a week.

We appreciate that this will cost a great deal more money but we say that, if we are to have any respect for our society, we cannot ask our society to pay anything less to the widows and orphans in our midst. One of the least excusable scandals in our society is the provision in our law which drastically cuts or abolishes the non-contributory widow's pension if the widow earns more than £4 a week. That figure has been in application, if my recollection is correct, for a decade or more. When £4 a week represents less than two days pay that is a terribly mean means test to apply to widows. It surprises me, indeed, that the Department even bother to keep to such a paltry figure because it is so small as to discourage widows from taking even part-time employment to supplement what the State accepts as being an inadequate level of support for widows.

The Deputy from North County Dublin, Deputy P.J. Burke, took great delight in the humanitarian approach of the Dublin Health Authority which supplements inadequate State pensions for widows with payments from home assistance. I think he should feel a sense of shame that the Dublin Health Authority and other health authorities find it necessary to supplement State social welfare payments with home assistance. What is the definition of home assistance? It is a payment which is made by law to people who are unable by their own industry or other lawful means to pay for the necessities of life, food, clothing and shelter. The lawful means available to widows who are not working are their pensions. Here we have a situation in which local authorities find as a matter of law and fact that widows dependent on State pensions are unable by their own industry or other lawful means to provide for the necessities of life. Our society can do a great deal better than that and must live up to its responsibilities.

We appreciate all the disadvantages of throwing social welfare supports into the general pool of taxation. As long as necessary support for widows and other necessitous people in our midst is in competition for funds with everything from the revival of Irish to the Institute for Advanced Studies, the widows will come last in the queue. That is the reality not only in our society but in all other societies in which social welfare is thrown in as something which does not take priority over everything else. That is why we in Fine Gael have argued and will continue to argue for the establishment of a family fund financed out of identifiable insurance contributions and out of identifiable taxation so that it could not be touched no matter what other demands might be made by the many other activities which are proper to the State. The only way in which we will ever have adequate social welfare provision is by setting aside identifiable funds which are financed in an identifiable way.

One of the drawbacks of our whole social welfare code is, of course, that we limit the number of people who are compulsorily insured. This is no longer justifiable. Everybody who has an income in Ireland should be contributing towards the social insurance fund. We are sick and tired of listening to all the differences that are supposed to exist between Ireland and the rest of the world. We are supposed to have more farmers, more independent employed people, more self-employed people; we are supposed to be so utterly different from the rest of mankind that we cannot bring in a scheme of universal insurance. We do not accept that, and it is because we do not accept it that we have been pressing for a properly financed welfare fund and if this came into existence, then we believe that adequate provision would be made for widows.

We know for a fact that the inevitable experience of Irish society is that out of every five women who marry, four will be widows and of the women who will be married, 45 per cent of those widows will have very young children to rear, from the age of seven years or under, at the time their husbands die. These are things which have been established by the statistics available to us and there is a clear obligation on our society so to arrange its affairs that we provide the necessary financial security for such people. It is no answer to say that we are free to arrange our individual insurances to provide against widowhood and for orphans. We are, and so are we free to provide for our health expenses and so we are free to provide against the many other unavoidable consequences of the sins of Adam and Eve, but human nature being what it is and human experience teaching us certain lessons, we know that the majority of people will not make provision for these things. Indeed, the people who need most of all to have provision made for these inevitable hardships of life are often times not in a position to pay for them themselves and so the money must be collected from those who are in a position to pay, and here the State has a clear obligation which our State has not as yet fulfilled.

I appreciate that our present Minister is a kindly man and wishes to do more. I anticipate that that will be the tenor of his remarks. He can be assured as far as Fine Gael are concerned that we will not in any way withhold support from him now or on the day of the Budget for the provision which is necessary but we say that he must if he is to get better support and acceptance for increased taxation or increased insurance contributions, isolate the money coming into an identifiable fund so that people will know what they are paying for. I think there are very few causes in Ireland which have a greater support across the board to all sections of the people than the cause of our widows and here I think a tribute is due to the Association of Irish Widows for the manner in which they have, in a most dignified and conscientious way, made their case during the three or four years of their existence. Let us not ignore their plea. We know they are justified.

I suppose there is no Member of this House who is not aware, within his own circle of associations and family, of widows. Does the heart of everybody not go out to the widow in her-distress at the time of the death and, indeed, the days and weeks and months immediately following but how soon we tend to forget the widow? She is invited hither and thither and cared for and advised in the weeks immediately following the death of the spouse, but how often this concern evaporates with the passage of time and one feels that the widow is now adjusted, is now all right and able to look after herself, and she suffers from what Deputy Burke referred to as something of a lesser standing in our society. This should not be so, and on reflection, each of us as an individual would agree that it should not be so, but unfortunately, it is the tendency and it was because of that tendency the widows themselves organised, so that they could lean on one another and learn from one another; but this is a terrible reflection on us all, and we must make great amends so that we can banish this feeling of insecurity and this sense of isolation which our widows at present inevitably feel because society is not supporting them and encouraging them in the many ways in which it should be doing it.

I am going to anticipate a further argument of the Minister who will probably point out that the rate of pensions has not only kept pace with increases in the official cost of living index but has, in fact, outdistanced the official cost of living index. I would say to the Minister, as I have said before, that it shows you just how utterly inadequate the cost of living index is as a measure of the standard of what life should be. The truth is that pensions of all kinds have not kept pace with rising living standards, and, of course, the standards in our society have improved and it is proper that they should have improved, but it is because pensions have not kept pace with rising living standards that the void between the pensioners and people who are in more comfortable circumstances grows and that makes hardship, that makes loneliness and that makes the insecurity of widowhood all the more difficult to bear. We must, therefore, as a society take substantial steps to improve that situation. There are other ways in which the widow's lot could be improved, of course, and one of these would be to increase substantially children's allowances. We in Fine Gael have already pointed out that we have the lowest children's allowances in Europe and if children's allowances were to be increased, as we believe they should, by at least two-thirds, it would be of some substantial benefit to widows and orphans.

Deputy Tully and others very properly spoke about the difficulties of widows in what are sometimes called the middle income group or the middle classes. The aim of any social welfare code should be that in the event of the death of the breadwinner, the standard of living of the family should not be lowered in any way. Those words are contained in our resolution, that the living standards should be maintained, and if a widow has had the good fortune while her husband was alive to live in a purchase house which carries considerable rates, then we should provide sufficient income for that widow that she does not have to sell the house; but we do not and again and again, if there is not a family available to provide the necessary money to pay rates, widows have found themselves obliged to sell out the house and to use the capital, which should be there to provide a home of money to pay rates, widows have found themselves obliged to sell out the house and to use the capital, which should be there to provide a home of equal standard for herself and her children, to pay rent on a flat, which at present rates means that the capital very quickly declines, and often times a widow finds herself in considerable distress at the end of it.

The reality is that the scheme of rates remission is of no assistance to any widow who has not more than the bare subsistence level paid to non-contributory pensioners. If a widow earns, or even receives from her connections, as much as £1 a week above the bare level of the non-contributory pension she is deprived from getting any assistance under the rates remission code. This is not a criticism of the rates remission code. It is a criticism of the gross inadequacy of the widows' pensions and the other welfare services which we should be offering to widows.

One of the great shortcomings of our whole social welfare code is that there are 16 different means tests. Most of these do not affect people who are in relatively comfortable circumstances throughout their lives. They do not have to submit to these tests as long as they have an adequate income. What is the plight of the widow who has had a comfortable income when her husband is alive and then finds herself thrown into the loneliness and distress of a home in which there is no man to look after her or to counsel her, and no partner to help her? In most cases she does not know where to turn. She does not know what she is entitled to. She does not know how to go to the various welfare offices, the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Health, the local health authorities, the local county council, or the Department of Education in order to get the many benefits to which she, in her poverty, becomes entitled.

There is a great deal to recommend a system under which the Registrar of Deaths would notify the local health authority or the welfare authority in the event of the recording of the death of a man leaving a widow. In such cases the welfare officer could call around to the widow and could assist in the preparation of a claim for the widows' pension, the medical card or home assistance, if that should be necessary, and of the claims for the many other benefits to which the widow would be entitled. We ought to end the system which operates in this country under which the welfare code is operated in a conspiracy of silence. We do not adequately advertise our available to them and their orphan welfare schemes. It is a pity that the whole welfare and pension code are phrased in language which makes it impossible even for well-lettered people to understand. The Minister for Social Welfare should make a special effort to remedy this position. We are quite well aware of the fact that the Department of Health, the Department of Social Welfare and the home assistance authorities are now paying out far more money to more people than they paid two, five or ten years ago. To some extent this is because of the growth of the various societies, such as the societies which look after old people, the schemes like meals on wheels, the home visiting committees and, of course, our local authority-operated domiciliary welfare scheme. Why has the demand increased? As the welfare workers increased and went about their work they found pockets of poverty and individuals who were suffering destitution, neglect and impoverishment through sheer ignorance of their entitlement. A great deal more needs to be done in this sphere if real help is to be given to our people in our time in the quantity to which they are entitled. That is why I strongly advocate that once it becomes officially recorded anywhere that a breadwinner has died the local authority should send a welfare officer to assist the widow in the preparation of her many claims. One cannot rely on relations or friends. In a large number of cases the relations and friends do not themselves know what help is available. There are many Deputies in this House and members of local authorities who did not know what benefits people were entitled to until they became members of public authorities and found it necessary to make inquiries. It was only through their experience in looking after people that such people became untrained and then more experienced welfare officers. That is a very clumsy and utterly inadequate way in which to operate a welfare service and one that no progressive society should be satisfied with.

The motion asks Dáil Éireann to be conscious of the grave hardships suffered by widows because of the quite inadequate social welfare services children and calls on the Government to provide a comprehensive social welfare code for widows and their families so that their standard of living will not be lowered by the deaths of family breadwinners. May we urge on the Minister to receive the motion in the spirit in which it is put before him? It is not put before him for the purpose of scoring political points. I do not believe that the widows are in the least interested in any of us scoring points or taking credit for anything we have done in the past, or trying to blame others for not doing more. Together we must try to do a great deal better. Deputy O'Connell queried the wording of the motion and expressed disappointment in it in that it was not more specific. The Deputy knows the difficulty which faces members of the Opposition of the House and back-bench members of the Government side. They are prohibited by the rules of the House from moving any motion which may impose a charge on the public funds. Even though we in our hearts and in our heads are convinced that this country can at least afford £6 a week for widows, we cannot table a resolution asking Dáil Éireann to pay £6 a week to widows. That is the reality. If the Minister comes in with such a proposal on Budget day and if he earmarks the tax which has to be collected to pay that sum, I am sure that no one in this House will vote against such a necessary resolution. It is necessary because it is not going to provide any immense degree of comfort or any wonderful security or even rid widows of fears but it at least would be some indication that we want to bring the widows a little higher than they are at the moment and that is below the poverty line. That is no way in which to treat the families in our society which we guarantee in our Constitution to protect. We are not protecting or even safeguarding them. It is really a miracle that the widows of Ireland have done as well as they have. Some of the best of our citizens, as we know, have come from homes in which the father has died while the children were young. These people have performed miracles and we know that only saints perform miracles. That is why I believe that the widows of Ireland are the unrecorded and unhonoured saints of Ireland. We cannot honour them in this life but let us at least provide the widow with some little degree of comfort by providing a more adequate pension than our welfare services have done in the past.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I will intervene but briefly because I know that there are others who are anxious to speak. I will say that at this stage I can see no objection to the motion before the House and I only hope that it has been tabled with the utmost sincerity and that all the speeches made in relation to the widows are quite sincere. To me the widows are another section of all those who come under the social welfare code. By saying that, I am not saying that I do not share the views of those who have expressed themselves in rather extreme terms with regard to the position in which widows find themselves. I suppose we could make a similar case for every other section of our people who come under the social welfare code, if we wanted to do so. The widows have a good case but they are not the only ones who have. As the years go by we find the public conscience becoming more and more sensitive and more ready to accept responsibility for those whom they feel they have an obligation towards—the weaker sections of the community. It is now becoming easier for a Minister for Social Welfare to deal with these matters than it was, I must admit. There is not always quite the same atmosphere in the lobbies when new taxes are imposed. Indeed for whatever laudable purpose they may be imposed at the time as soon as people have to pay more in terms of extra prices that good cause, for which the taxes were originally imposed, seems to be forgotten and the Government are flogged with the accusation of unnecessarily creating taxes.

I am very pleased with all the assurances that I have got and I can assure Deputies that my sympathy is no less and, I hope, equally sincere. We have some 125,888 widows and almost half of these receive old age pensions. Some 54,695 receive pensions as widows, and 48,350, as persons over 70, receive old age pensions, leaving some 22,000 widows without pensions and not 69,000 as Deputy Ryan mentioned across the House some time ago. But these figures do not prove anything. There is a fairly strong lobby at present in favour of widows and they have an association which is exerting itself and trying to develop a sense of priority in the matter of social welfare benefits as far as widows are concerned. I would have liked to have seen the approach in this matter a little more selective or more discriminatory than it is. There is a vast difference in the types of widow we have to deal with and to whom society has an obligation. My first sympathy goes to the widow with dependent children. She cannot at all be put in the same category as a young widow with no dependants, who is not much different from a single girl.

In England a widow under 40 who has no dependants receives no pension and a widow who is aged between 40 and 50 receives only a limited pension. You come back then to the higher bracket and you have half the widows in the 70 and over category who qualify for old age pension. That is why the scheme as it is is very much biased in favour of those with dependants. I should like any future improvement in the scheme to take that important factor into consideration and it would be my intention that we should make the greatest progress in that direction.

Some time ago on television I was accused of saying "A widow with over £10 a week, a widow with five children" which was the number of family being mentioned at the time, but what I did say was "over £10 from social welfare", that was adding the children's allowances to the widow's pension. A widow with five children gets £10.25 from social welfare at present. I am not saying that that is an adequate amount but it is a lot better than what some people would have us believe they have to live on. Prior to 1935 this country made no provision for widows and I do not know how they managed. From there on the amount has increased progressively. Ten years ago it was 23s but it is £4.30 today for the non-contributory pension. Those speakers who said that the increases only took into account the increased cost of living, that they were based merely on the consumer price index increase on the previous year, were not correct. The amount granted in each successive year has been far in excess of the increase in the consumer price index, if it were justified merely on that. I hope that this is part of the pattern towards which we hope to move in order to reach a figure which would be considered adequate. I do not think that anybody in this House would say anybody under the social welfare code is getting enough. It is always something about which we say "That is not bad but it is not enough". I suppose that will always be said.

When I was talking about the pressure being exerted with regard to widows at present in order to give them priority in the social welfare code I should have said that the figures are not always made known properly to the public generally. Deputy Corish was right when he said that the tendency is for the number on the contributory pension to increase. That is so and they have gone up to 75 per cent. Seventy-five per cent of total widows' pensions at the moment are contributory and these pensions are not subject to a means test. These people can work to their hearts' content, they can have any type of employment or occupation that they wish and still draw their pensions, so that it is not fair to apply that employment test to 75 per cent of these. Only 16 per cent of the total number of widows getting pensions have children.

Mr. Tully

The Minister is referring to those who apply for pensions.

Mr. J. Brennan

Yes.

Mr. Tully

We are talking about all those who do not apply because under present legislation they cannot get them. The Minister knows the people we are talking about?

Mr. J. Brennan

We are talking about those who have them at the moment. Only 16 per cent of the total have dependent children. These people are identifiable immediately as the most deserving in the whole range of widows in the different categories—contributory, non-contributory, young widows, childless widows and older widows who have reached 70 years of age and move on to old age pensions.

At the moment pensions cost the State £15½ million and of course to double the figure, as somebody suggested, would cost another £15½ million and, as my colleague would say, that is not beer and skittles when you are talking about £15 millions.

It must be remembered that there are many other people to be considered also. We must think of people who have not yet come under the social welfare code. I am not saying this in an effort to denigrate the case made for widows here yesterday and today. Do Deputies ever think of the married woman, with a family, whose husband is a permanent invalid and who has to struggle on and who may not have any social welfare contributions on which to call, or any income whatever and who is left completely to the mercies of the home assistance scheme? This is only to mention one case, the type of case about which we could say a great deal. If I went on to give cases like this I would probably be accused of trying to eclipse the great case that has already been made for this particular section. However, I do not want to hold up the House all evening because other Deputies want to speak and as well as that I have to return to the Seanad after the tea adjournment, but I do want to say that I have every sympathy with the motion and I want to emphasise that what is involved is £15 million odd. I have tried to outline the progress that has been made within the last ten years and which I think is tremendous progress. I have tried to point out that there are many other sections that we must also think of. When one is dealing with figures of this magnitude a few shillings a week rapidly mount up to a great many pounds. To give every widow in the State £1 a week without any increase for dependent children would cost almost £7 million. I think it was in the Budget before the last that we were able to extend the allowance for dependent children to the age of 21 where they are still at school. I had many letters from grateful widows whose children's education was at the most expensive stage. They found that extension of tremendous benefit.

The tendency has been and, please God, will continue to be to devote a higher percentage of the State's resources to these necessary benefits. I hope that if and when the House is called on to vote moneys for these deserving purposes the Members will, as they have been promising in this debate, support generously any necessary taxes for that purpose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair wishes to point out that at 7.15 the speaker from Fine Gael is to be called on to conclude.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have been designated to reply to the debate. May I give five minutes of my time to Deputy McLaughlin?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. McLaughlin

I shall not delay the House but I wish to say a few words in this important debate. The Minister's constituency is in my area and he knows the conditions in the poorer parts of Leitrim and Donegal. When a widow is left on a small farm in a village where there is no employment, or in similar circumstances, the Minister knows how hard it is for her to live. In the ordinary way, families are having a hard time due to rising costs and prices. It is much harder for the widow. No doubt the £11.25 or £10 the Minister mentioned for a widow and five children is a generous allowance but when that must cover food, clothes, books and boots and the other expenses involved in a household, each week, including perhaps a doctor's bill and medicine and other odds and ends, the sum provided must be handled very carefully by the widow. I agree with what other speakers have said. We know of friends left in this terrible position of having to face life with six, seven or eight children. It is not so serious if one of the children is able to earn money, but it is very serious for the widow with five, six, seven or eight children, all dependent on her.

Cases have come to my notice of widows making a genuine effort to live and provide for their children by supplementing their pensions by going out to work and they discovered the pension was either stopped or reduced. That is one provision in the Act that should be remedied. If a contributory worker qualifies for a pension after reaching 70 he can still earn money while drawing his pension. Surely his situation is not as serious as that of a widow with a family to look after?

The widow's pension is altogether too low. We know of people who are finding it very hard to live. The Minister represents my area and he knows that particularly in some of the towns in Sligo and Leitrim, widows are very sorely pressed in trying to eke out a living.

Mr. O'Donnell

When seconding the motion I said I felt sure that the motion sponsored by my three colleagues and myself on behalf of Fine Gael would meet with general acceptance on all sides of the House. The debate clearly confirmed my hopes in that regard. The general tenor of the debate and the constructive approach adopted by every speaker reflects the concern of the Dáil in regard to the problems and hardships of this most deprived section of the community. I am also pleased by the Minister's approach to the motion and it is only proper to thank him for having spoken so constructively and realistically on the various points raised. It is no harm to make this point by way of conclusion: the one thing that has come out of the debate is the urgent and crying need for a review of the entire social welfare code. We on this side of the House agree with the Minister that the widow with young children should be our first consideration if it is a question of priorities. That view of the Minister will find general acceptance.

I realise the Minister's difficulties and I realise the claims on the public purse are many and varied but I believe we have a responsibility not merely to ensure that all sections of the community will enjoy an adequate standard of living but to make provision for ensuring that that standard of living is maintained to a reasonable degree in the event of any unexpected happenings such as sickness, unemployment or, as in the case of the motion under discussion, the loss of a husband.

I hope this motion will strengthen the Minister's hand in his fight with the Minister for Finance in the crucial days before the Budget. I sincerely hope we shall see in the Budget that practical expression has been given to the sentiments expressed by the Minister for Social Welfare here this evening.

I believe it is possible to effect major improvements in the pensions and allowances payable to widows immediately. I realise of course that the formulation and implementation of a modern and realistic social welfare code is something more long-term but I sincerely hope the day is not far distant when we shall have a realistic social welfare code covering all classes of social welfare beneficiaries.

Reform is most urgent and improvements are most badly needed in the area of widows' pensions and allowances. I hope the Minister will find it possible to secure a rather bigger slice of the national cake for this section of the community in the next Budget.

The Minister did outline certain statistical information in relation to widows and he stated the proportion in receipt of contributory pensions and the proportion in receipt of non-contributory pensions. Deputy Ryan has pointed out that there are a huge number of widows in receipt of no pension at all. While a certain number of those not in receipt of any pension may be in the fortunate position of being well provided for financially and materially by their husband before he died, we must not lose sight of the fact that under the existing means test a considerable number, running into several thousands, of widows are deprived of any pension because their means exceed, in some cases by a nominal amount, the statutory limit.

I believe the first and most urgent step that the Minister should take is to modify the means test in respect of non-contributory widow's pensions. This is long overdue particularly in the light of the rapid increase in the cost of living. A strong case can be made now for a complete reassessment of the general rules and regulations relating to the means test in so far as it applies to widows. If a widow in receipt of a contributory widow's pension works and pays insurance contributions she should be entitled to the full allowances when she falls ill. It is a shame that such a person should be deprived of the maximum social welfare benefits in view of the fact that she is contributing.

Most aspects of the problem have been covered during the course of the debate and I do not want to repeat what has been said but this motion has served a very useful purpose in that it has focused the attention of Members of Dáil Éireann, the Minister for Social Welfare and the Government on the fact that there is a large section of the community in need of assistance which only the State can provide.

We in the Fine Gael Party were pleased with the Minister's reaction to the motion and we wish him well in his fight with the Minister for Finance. We hope he will succeed and that widows will get a fair deal in the Budget.

Question put and agreed to.