Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Mar 1939

Vol. 22 No. 13

Widows' and Orphans' Pensions.

Mr. Tunney

I move the motion on the Order Paper in the name of Senator Byrne and myself:—

That the Seanad is of opinion that the Government should introduce proposals for legislation with a view to amendment of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts as follows—

(a) to provide that all widows and orphans derive equal benefits statutorily;

(b) to provide that widows resident in rural areas receive benefits similar to those resident in urban areas; and

(c) the omission of the "contributory" and "non-contributory" provisions.

I am sorry that this motion is being taken so late and I do not intend to delay the House very long. I would appeal very strongly to Senators on behalf of what I consider the most deserving class in this country—the widows and the orphans. These are people who have been left without their breadwinners. That is bad enough, but it is much worse when they are left in straitened circumstances. I appreciate what has been done by the Government in introducing the previous Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill. That was a step in the right direction. But the Bill, in so far as widows and orphans resident in rural areas are concerned, did not go far enough. Even in the cities and towns, there was reason for complaint in certain places but not to the extent that exists in the case of widows and orphans residing in the rural areas. I refer to the widows of cottage tenants, rural workers and small farmers. I should like members of the Seanad to realise, as I am sure those from rural areas already realise, that the small farmer is a worker and a hard worker. To make ends meet, he has to work very hard and, if he happens to die, his widow, if the valuation of the holding is over £8, gets no help. Picture that poor woman trying to live in these circumstances, with a large family depending upon her. One of the blessings the poor generally have is a large family. She is not in a position to employ a man to work the farm for her and she is not able to work it herself. Therefore, I hold that that widow of a small farmer is as badly circumstanced as the widow of the ordinary labourer. In fact, she is sometimes worse off. Therefore, I ask the Seanad to recommend this motion to the Government. I believe that a Government that has gone so far in this direction will go all the way and treat the widows, whether they reside in Balbriggan, Mayo, Kerry or Cork on an equal level. I do not, of course, include widows of means—widows who have been left house property or who have an income which would exceed the present allowance. I refer only to widows in the position I have described.

The present Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act is good up to a point. But, unfortunately, under the contributory pension scheme there is a distinction made between the widow of an agricultural worker and the widow of any other worker. That is a terrible shame. In the pamphlet sent out from the Minister's Department giving the amount to be paid to the widow of a worker, a clause says: "Provided she is not the widow of an agricultural worker." I think it is a pity that that distinction is made. On the other hand, people are being encouraged to remain in the rural areas. The Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act extends no encouragement in that direction, because a widow residing in a rural area is not as well treated as a widow residing in a city. If we were really serious in encouraging people to remain in the rural areas, the least we could do would be to give widows the same treatment. When the orphans of widows in the country grow up, they will be workers in the rural areas. Instead of that, they are given every encouragement, under present legislation, to move into the towns and, particularly, the cities. There are widows in the rural areas whose pensions are cut down as low as 1/- and 2/-, whereas, if they were residing in the city, they would get, at least, 7/6. That is most unfair. There is, then, the case of the widow who is under a certain age and who does not happen to have any dependents. She gets no pension at all, which is unjust. Consider the case of a person who gets married young and who has her family reared when she loses the bread-winner. She has no dependent and she may be in bad health. She is not provided for at all under present legislation. It is wrong, therefore, to call the statute the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act because it does not apply to every widow. Some people say they are provided for. I have here proof that they are not provided for. In the rural portion of County Dublin, you had 171 non-contributory widows in December last, when we put down this motion, who had to be assisted from the local rates. Is not that a terrible shame? Before any person can get poor law assistance, the relieving officer must be satisfied, from week to week, that he or she is destitute. Otherwise, he cannot give assistance. He himself is accountable to the auditor. In Balbriggan area, there were 20 of these cases; in Lusk, 18; in Swords, 20; in Dunlaoghaire rural district, 62, and in Blackrock and Stillorgan, 33. Taking all the rural districts, the total was 171. Is it not hard that a poor person should have to go to two sources to get what is barely sufficient to keep body and soul together? If proof were needed in support of my case, I think it would be furnished by that fact — that there are 171 widows in one county in receipt of non-contributory pensions so destitute that they must get assistance from the relieving officers from week to week. That argument should satisfy the Minister that there is need for equal treatment. As regards the others, we have only 13—that is to say, 171 non-contributory and 13 others. That is my reason for putting this motion forward. These people would get 7/6 from one source and they would have to go to another source to get 2/6 or, in some cases, 3/-. That is why I ask the Seanad to pass this motion and recommend it to the Minister. What the relieving officer gives is only what he is satisfied is sufficient for food. He does not take into consideration clothing and boots. There was a reference to school books in this motion, but I am glad that, in the meantime, the responsible Minister has come to the assistance of these poor people.

It is proof of what a great measure the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill was and how much in sympathy the Irish people were with it that there was not a dissentient to its passing amongst any Party in the Dáil. Whether inside or outside the Oireachtas, nobody could be found to say that it was wrong to pass such a Bill, though the Labour Party complained that it did not go far enough. Otherwise it was unanimously received. That is proof that if the Minister could see his way to treat all widows alike, he would have the approval of every fair-minded person in the nation. Some of these non-contributory widows are very badly treated. I should like to refer to one case. A widow of an agricultural labourer was in receipt of 5/-, widow's pension, and this letter was sent out from the Minister's Department to her on the 15th October, 1938:—

"With reference to the non-contributory pension payable to you under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, I am directed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to inform you that, as a result of our investigation, it has been decided that your net weekly means, as calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act, amounts to 5/4. As this sum exceeds the rate of pension (5/- per week) to which you would be entitled if you had no weekly means, you cease to be entitled to a pension as from the 31st October, 1938."

That widow had a son who worked for a farmer last summer and, because her means were taken into consideration for that period, she cannot get back her pension now. Apparently, the means test stands for 12 months. Her plot of ground is calculated at 9d. per week, though the poor lady was not able to work it at all. If a plot of ground attached to a labourer's cottage at Blanchardstown is worth 9d. per week, Senator Counihan must be one of the wealthiest persons in the country. Working out the matter in proportion, the people who have big farms must be extremely wealthy. When the Old Age Pensions Act was brought into force—it was not brought in by a native Government—no distinction was made between the pensioners. Whether they were living in Connemara or Dublin, they got 5/- per week. More people are leaving the rural areas at present than ever left before in our time and that is another reason why we should give the residents of the rural areas, at least, as much as those residing in the cities, if not more.

Certainly, if I had anything to do with it I would give more. If we are really determined and sincere we should give more. I am sorry the Minister is not here, as there was another case that I wanted to bring to his notice, concerning the widows of British ex-servicemen. There are hundreds of these in this country, and because their husbands got into bad health fighting for the freedom of small nations, and got small pensions, their widows cannot come under the contributory scheme here. Many of them are in bad circumstances. A great case can be made to the people they served so that these widows should not be left destitute. Many widows of ex-servicemen are being subsidised at the expense of the ratepayers of the City and County of Dublin. That is no great credit to the mighty nation they fought for. These women are neglected. They do not come under the contributory scheme owing to the fact that their husbands were not working, and the pensions they had ceased at the husband's death. There was a case of a widow on a holding in Mayo who, though she had no means, was offered the mighty sum of one shilling a week as a pension. It would be hard to expect her to take a shilling when, if she moved to a room in Dublin, she would get 7/6.

My principal reason in bringing forward this motion is to encourage the people to stay on the land. It does not matter how prosperous the cities are, if the young people leave the land there is no hope for this nation. Most Rev. Dr. Browne, Bishop of Galway, pointed out recently that the real strength and wealth of a country, its human beings, were disappearing at a rapid rate. He said that if the position was not changed, the next century would see the extinction of people on the land. That statement of an eminent scholar supports my appeal on behalf of the widows and orphans. There is every inducement to leave the rural parts and to come to the cities. It was also stated in Galway that the number of school-going children had gone down by almost 2,000 in ten years. I appeal to the lady members of this House to support this motion because the cause I advocate is a just one. We should at least give equal treatment and thus help to keep people in the rural districts.

Mr. Byrne

I second the motion, and reserve the right to take part in the discussion on another occasion.

Mr. Quirke

I ask the proposer and seconder of the motion to withdraw it, for the simple reason that it must be obvious it is not feasible or workable. I am sorry the Minister is not here to deal with it. I understood the Labour motion would be taken first, and that this one would follow. I informed the Minister accordingly. He had left when Senator Tunney moved the motion. I am sure that the Minister would oppose it. Senator Tunney gave various reasons for his proposal, and if it could be worked, it would appear that all the widows and orphans in the country, regardless of their circumstances, would be given pensions. Possibly Senator Tunney would have a parade and a couple of bands outside Leinster House in favour of it. We would all like to follow Senator Tunney into the lovely "Valley of Avillon, where falls not hail, nor rain, nor any snow." I suggest that he should get into touch with the Rip Van Winkle Party which has at least in common with him the policy of keeping people on the land. He should see what could be done to keep people on the land, and maybe when the new Party takes the field the means test could be abolished. Of course, if the test is abolished in connection with widows' and orphans' pensions, it must also be abolished in connection with old age pensions, and with regard to people who have substantial incomes of £200 or £300 a year and who may be driving in Rolls Royces to draw the widows' and orphans' pension or the old age pension. I would be surprised if Senators were serious about pushing the motion as it stands. I would be terribly disappointed if they were. In the name of common-sense, I ask them to withdraw it and, if necessary, at a later date to put forward a motion worded on lines that would suit the situation which exists. I understand if this motion were accepted it would mean the revolutionising of the whole policy of widows' and orphans' pensions, and old age pensions, and that it would cost the State the fabulous sum of something like £750,000 or £760,000 per annum.

Mr. Hogan

I think Senator Quirke was not serious in suggesting that Senator Tunney should have a parade of widows and orphans outside Leinster House who had incomes from £100 to £2,000 a year.

Mr. Quirke

The Senator is wide of the mark when he suggests that we would have a parade of widows with incomes of £2,000 a year. What I said was that if Senator Tunney were to be taken seriously we would have a parade of genuine widows and orphans.

Mr. Hogan

I understood that Senator Quirke said that Senator Tunney wanted all widows and orphans to get pensions. What is wrong in the suggestion that the case of widows with from £100 to £2,000 should be considered? I agree that the motion is loosely drawn, and that several things could be read into it, but we must take it in conjunction with the statement made by the mover. He made it perfectly clear that he wants certain alterations made in the present legislation. He pointed out defects that want remedying. Anyone who knows the operation of the present legislation knows that remedies are needed and that these cannot be removed by administration alone, but would require legislation. These remedies come under two or three heads. Take the case of a widow between 30 and 40 years old and who has two or three young children. What is there inherent in her case that would not entitle her to a pension? Has she not the same responsibility and the same burden as a widow of another age? Is there any reason why the case of the first widow should not get consideration? I do not know of any reason. I am sure Senator Quirke will agree that that type of case deserves consideration, and that is the type for which Senator Tunney made the case.

Mr. Quirke

I admit that the difference can be very considerable, but I suggest that this is not a motion which will get things improved.

Mr. Hogan

I am asking that the motion be considered in conjunction with the statement made by Senator Tunney.

Mr. Tunney

The motion clearly points out that all widows and orphans should be provided with equal benefits, provided they comply with certain conditions. I never intended that widows with £200 or £300 would be looking for the widows' and orphans' pension. I am opposed to such people getting pensions as long as there are poor people in need.

Mr. Hogan

Senator Tunney has made the point clear. I wish to point out that a widow of a certain age has as much responsibility in respect to her children, as a widow who is qualified to receive the pension, inasmuch as her breadwinner is gone, and she has no support. The local authority has the same responsibility towards a woman who is not qualified for the pension, as one of more mature years. I think that a case has been made by Senator Tunney, and that he has tightened up the terms of his motion by his statement. Let us take up the means test. It is evident that the manner in which the means are ascertained is open to question. I disagree with the statement that a woman who has £200 or £300 should be asked to draw on that until it is spent, and that she can then get the widows' pension. If a few hundred pounds have been saved by scraping, these people should not be asked to draw on it, and perhaps be in great want when it is gone. The manner in which means are calculated is open to examination. Where will five per cent. be got at present on invested money? That is what is taken by the authorities in respect of the first £250 of a widow's capital. They say that she can get five per cent. on the first £250 invested, and 10 per cent. on anything beyond that. Senator Quirke has experience of business, and he knows something about finance, but I think he will agree that that return will not be got on such an investment. Therefore, the manner in which pensions are granted on the means test is open to investigation. There are contributory and non-contributory conditions. The non-contributory pensioners will be dropping out, as the contributory method comes more into operation. There is no reason why that distinction should be made between widows who have contributed towards the scheme, by way of national health insurance, and those who did not.

The fact that a man was paying into the National Health Insurance Fund does not mean that his widow was any the poorer when he departed this life than the widow of a man who was not paying into it. Take the case of a poor woman who is left with a few children in a side street in the town or in a cottage on the side of a country road whose husband was not paying national health insurance—let him be the local tailor or the local carpenter or anything else. Surely that man's widow is entitled to get as much consideration as the widow of a man who was paying into the national health insurance? We always agreed that the amount paid was not at all adequate. It is entirely inadequate, in the first place, to meet anything like the demands that a woman with a couple of children would have to meet.

We think that this whole thing requires examination. I am in entire agreement with the motion as amplified by Senator Tunney's statement. All these things require examination, and I say that if it would only require the expenditure of £150,000 the Government should immediately jump to it and provide that money. If that is the only burden which would be put on the taxpayer I think it would be very well recompensed by taking a large number of these poor women out of the degradation of having to live on the rates. When people have to live on the rates or on home assistance or poor law relief, notwithstanding anything you may say, that carries a certain amount of degradation, and it is for that reason that I ask that this motion should get consideration from the Government. With Senator Tunney, I regret that we have not the advantage of having the Minister for Local Government and Public Health with us to express his own views and the views of the Government on this matter. I am perfectly certain that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is sympathetic towards the reconsideration of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. I believe that the Government also is sympathetic, because anybody who has examined that Act can see that there are certain defects which cannot be removed through administration alone, and that it is necessary, therefore, to introduce proposals for legislation.

Mr. Quirke

As worded in the motion?

Mr. Hogan

In the motion, as amplified by Senator Tunney's statement. If Senator Quirke puts it to me that way, I am quite prepared to admit that the motion is very loosely worded and that it should be drawn in better fashion, but if Senator Quirke objects to it only on that ground I do suggest that the motion has been tightened up considerably and amplified by Senator Tunney's statement. For that reason I hope that this House will recommend the motion to the Government.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It seems to me, Sir, that the proposer of this motion wants the motion to be amended, and Senator Hogan seems to want to talk about it as if it were already amended. Now, according to paragraph (a) this means that the Government should introduce proposals to amend the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts in order to provide that all widows and orphans derive equal benefits statutorily. That could mean that orphans should derive the same benefits as widows, or else that anybody who is a widow and an orphan would derive equal benefits according to the statute. Now, I understand that the proposer of the motion does not want that, and the supporter, Senator Hogan, has carefully indicated that he is not speaking to this motion but to one which he presumes has been amended by the remarks made by Senator Tunney. It seems to me that what we are asked to do here is to say that we, the Seanad, ask the Government to change the law under the terms of (a), (b) and (c), as set forth in the motion, but the proposer and supporter of the motion seem not to be clear as to what should be the proper wording, or the proper course to be followed, and I therefore suggest that an amendment should be proposed to the motion before we consider it further, or that the motion should be withdrawn until it could be more properly worded.

Mr. O'Donovan

I suggest that we should continue. At any rate, we could deal with No. 2 in the motion.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Well, No. 1 clearly indicates that equal benefits should be provided for all widows and orphans, and No. 2 provides that widows resident in rural areas should receive benefits similar to those resident in urban areas.

Mr. O'Donovan

That seems to be all right.

Mr. Fitzgerald

That seems to be exactly what the proposer wants, but I should really have to look up the original Bill, because the proposer does not say at all what clause in the Bill this is referring to. Anyhow, we cannot pass this motion without passing paragraph (a), and the proposer does not want (a). Therefore, we should either amend this motion or withdraw it.

Mr. Quirke

Would it not be better if the proposer and seconder of the motion would agree to withdraw this particular motion and submit an amended motion on the next day we meet? I am quite sure, as Senator Hogan has suggested, that the Minister would be more than anxious to do anything he could for the widows and orphans of the country. I myself believe that there is room for improvement in the Bill in connection with certain cases, but as this motion as it stands before us now is not a proper motion, or not properly worded, I would ask that it should be withdrawn and that another motion should be put in later on.

Mr. Tunney

I am sorry that Senators have taken the view they have taken on this motion. It may not be properly worded but, after all, this is my first motion before the Seanad. I am honest enough to admit that it is not worded in the proper legal phrases, but as far as I am concerned I shall try in a couple of words to make Senators understand what I mean, and if they once understood what I mean, it should be comparatively easy to have the motion properly drafted. My idea is that if a widow is a non-contributory widow, the highest amount she can receive in a rural area, within the law, is 5/- a week; that is, if she is non-contributory and resides outside the City of Dublin, and in a rural area, the highest amount she can get is 5/-. If she is contributory, she can receive as high as 8/-. Now, my point is that a widow in Dublin who is contributory can receive 8/- or 10/-a week, and I say—and I would like Senator Quirke to bear this in mind— that not alone is that good, but that in certain cases it is even lavish. My reason for saying that is that I can give at least one case of a woman who was married for seven months and then lost her husband. She holds a position in which she is earning £3 10s. 0d. a week. After the husband's death, she goes home to reside with her mother and she comes back to her position, at £3 10s. 0d. per week, and gets a pension of 10/- a week. I am quite satisfied that the Minister would give consideration to such a case. Not alone that, but even if that particular woman should happen to win £30,000 in the sweepstakes—her name in the papers and all that—she would still be entitled to draw her 10/- a week. I think that my case is a very just case, and that if there is any question of a means test it should apply to the contributory people also. As far as the contributory people are concerned there is absolutely no means test. They could be publicly owning £10,000 or much more and still could get their pensions according to law. Yet here you have the case of a poor farmer's wife who, because she has 5/-, cannot get it. I admit that my motion is not worded properly, but I am trying to make my case as plain as I can. I know that the Minister is a Christian and sympathetic man, and I also feel that if this Seanad would be generous enough to make this recommendation the Minister would take up the case and bring in an amendment that would satisfy every member of the Seanad because the case is so just and reasonable. Of course, if I could help it, I would like to have preferential treatment for the widow and orphan residing in a rural area. Senator Fitzgerald has said that I am looking for equal pensions for widows and orphans.

Mr. Fitzgerald

No, I did not say that. What I said was that as the motion is worded it would mean that all widows and orphans would get equal pensions.

Mr. Tunney

Well, a circular sent out by the Department regarding the rates of orphans' contributory pensions says:

"Where the parent in respect of whose insurance the pension is payable was normally engaged in non-agricultural employment, the rate of contributory pension is 7/6 a week. Where the parent was normally engaged in agricultural employment, the rate is 6/- a week."

According to that, the man who remains in agriculture is not being fair to his children or to his widow, if he should die. I should like Senator Fitzgerald to understand what I mean there. I mean that where the person was engaged in agricultural employment the rate is 6/- a week, and where the employment was non-agricultural the rate is 7/6 a week. I hope the Senator understands what I have in mind. I am not advocating pensions for widows who have means. I am satisfied that there are very few of them. I am concerned with cases, however, such as Senator Byrne and other Senators must be aware of, in Galway and other such places, where people who have small holdings of land are left, as a result of the death of the father, with a large weak family, so to speak, and who are in very bad circumstances, and if their valuation was increased by a certain amount they could not get a pension at all. I am quite sure that there is not a Senator here who would not support this motion. It may not be properly worded, but I would appeal to Senators to pass the motion. I have no doubt that the Minister is charitable—he has proved himself to be so—and if Senators will pass this motion, I am sure the Minister would accept it and put it into the proper words.

Mr. Byrne

I would suggest to my colleague on this matter that, as Senator Fitzgerald has suggested, we should either bring in an amendment to the motion or withdraw the motion and hand in another one later. I agree that we could not expect the Seanad to pass this in its present form. As far as I am concerned, I agree with Senator Tunney that the Act is causing considerable difficulty in rural Ireland owing to this matter of the contributory and non-contributory basis where you have one widow receiving 8/- and another widow beside her drawing 10/-. I realise that perhaps the financial aspect of the motion would need to be looked into. The only way now for Senator Tunney is either to withdraw the motion or to adjourn it and have it amended.

Mr. Cummins

I think that the House might pass the motion. Senator Tunney has covered very fully in the arguments that he put forward the object that he seeks to achieve in this motion. Even if we assume that the motion is not worded perfectly, I think it would be no harm to pass it. The Senator has made an overwhelming case for it. I imagine that if the Minister for Local Government were here he would not turn it down. While the motion may have been loosely drawn, I think that Senator Tunney, in his speech, made the object that he has in view quite clear, and I am sure that will be perfectly understood in the Department of Local Government if it be decided to give legislative effect to what is sought in the motion.

Mr. O'Donovan

The Senator should remember that it is what is written down that this House passes and not elucidations.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think that if Senator Tunney wants to press the motion now that he should only ask the House to pass Section (b) of it. He seemed to me to make a very good case for that particular clause, especially when he told us that a widow in Dublin with £3 a week can draw a fairly heavy pension, whereas a widow with land in the country, if the valuation of her holding is more than £8, can get nothing. As far as that is concerned, I agree that some change ought to be made in the law. I gathered from the Senator that he does not want the law changed as proposed in clause (a) of the motion. In view of that, I do not see how we could act in so futile a way as to pass a resolution recommending the Government to do something and at the same time tell the Government that nothing could be further from our minds than that they should do the very thing we ask them to do. I think that the motion should be amended in some way or else withdrawn.

Cathaoirleach

Perhaps Senator Tunney would agree to the suggestion made by Senator Byrne, namely, that he should now withdraw the motion, and table it at a later date in an amended form.

Mr. Tunney

I am agreeable to that course. May I say, in conclusion, that I am glad Senator Fitzgerald sees my point.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.35 p.m. until Wednesday, 15th March, 1939, at 3 p.m.