I move:—
That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that the Government should take steps immediately to amend with retrospective effect Section 7 of the Army Pensions Act, 1943 (No.14 of 1943) so that sums payable in accordance with the terms of Section 7 by way of Special Allowance in respect of a wife or children and because of the needy circumstances of the family while the husband pensioner is living, shall not be discontinued on the death of the husband when inevitably the general family needs and financial difficulties have become greater.
The case I have to put before the Seanad is a very brief and a very simple one.
The section of the Act of 1943 was spoken of by the Minister when introducing the Bill on the 4th March, 1943, in the following terms (column 959):—
"...the fifth purpose of the Bill is to deal with the very special problem created by the passage of time and by economic circumstances of men and women who fought during Easter Week, 1916, and who are now incapable of self-support by reason of age or permanent infirmity. Section 7 applies to every person who is in possession of a military service certificate in respect of service during Easter Week, 1916, or who is in receipt of a disability pension in respect of a wound or injury received or a disability contracted during that week, provided that the person is incapable of self-support by reason of age or permanent infirmity of mind or body and that his or her yearly means from all sources do not exceed a certain sum. For a single man or woman that sum will be £78 a year; if married, £97 10/- a year, and for each child the sum is raised by £10 8/- a year. In other words, if a single person be totally destitute he or she will be entitled to £78 a year, or if married of £97 10/- a year and £10 8/- a year will be added in respect of each child. On the other hand, if the person be not totally destitute, but be in receipt of a service or disability pension, his means will be brought up to the scales of allowances mentioned. It will thus be seen that every person qualifying under this section will be entitled from all sources, if single, to 30/- a week, if married, 37/6 a week, and to an additional sum of 4/- a week in respect of each child."
The Minister took this action because, as he indicated, a very special problem arose with regard to a limited number of people who are entitled to recognition for service during 1916 and whose means were inadequate. Now, the Bill was introduced on the 3rd March, 1943, and it became law on the 27th April, 1943. Normally, it might be thought that no very special difficulty would arise under it but, in actual practice, a very serious defect has been shown up. I submitted an amending Bill to deal with the matter in a systematic and clear way, but the decision was given the other day that that Bill could not be introduced because it was a Money Bill. I am now asking the Seanad, after hearing the details I am going to put before them, to ask the Minister to amend the Bill so that grants which the Minister considered should be provided even while the father was living, should not be discontinued simply because the father dies. Since the passage of the Bill one particular case has come to my notice. This was the case of a man who, about 1941, met with such an accident that he became permanently disabled for life. Under the Work-men's Compensation Acts he got a sum of £300 or something less than £300, and after two years maintaining himself and a wife and seven children under 15 years of age, there was very little of that money left. He had a pension of £35 a year and, in fact, immediately before he died his pension was being supplemented by a payment of 25/- a week from the home assistance authorities in the City of Dublin.
If he lived until the Act was passed, he would have been entitled to have his money increased so that he would have a total income himself of 30/- a week. Actually, his pension amounted to about 13/- a week, but in addition to that 30/- from the pension and supplementary pension he would have been getting 7/6, as well as seven times 4/-, or 28/- a week for his family. Between the additional allowance for himself and his wife of 7/6 and his allowance of 28/- he would have received in respect of his wife and children 35/- a week and that income would be coming into the house because of his wife and children as well as his basic income of 30/- a week. The family were looking forward to this measure and to the additional income they would obtain, but about three weeks before the Bill was passed, the man died, and even if he had been in receipt of a pension at the time of his death, the whole pension in respect of himself and his children would have stopped. The proposal made in the Pensions Act was deliberately put forward for a special class and special circumstances and it dealt with the case of a man himself, his wife and children. It meant that there was nothing coming into the house.
Under a non-contributory pension scheme the widow would be able to get 7/6, the same amount as is contemplated in the Army Pensions Bill, but, in respect of the first child, she would receive only 3/6 and in respect of the other children only 1/6. Under the widows' scheme she would only receive 20/- a week, and contributions will be paid only up to 14 years of age or to 16 if her children were going to school. Under the Army Pensions Act they would be paid up to 18 years of age. Again, under the non-contributory widows' scheme that 20/- would be reducible by 1/- a week for every 1/- the family was able to earn in any kind of way up to 12/6. If the man had been a little longer disabled, the widow would have come in under that scheme, but due to the particular length of the period he was disabled, and, I think, due to the friendly ingenuity of Senator Foran, who has considerable experience of national health insurance and widows' pension matters, it was decided that the widow was entitled to a contributory widows' pension. Under the contributory widows' pension she was entitled to 10/- a week, for the first child 5/- a week, and for each of the six others 3/- a week, so that actually by the chance of the husband not having been too long disabled and the friendly advice of Senator Foran she was getting 33/- a week.
Under the Army Pensions Bill she would have got 35/6 a week, but children's allowances under the contributory widows' pensions scheme are payable only for children under 14 years of age, or under 16 if they are going to school. In fact she was able to get one of these boys employed as a telegraph messenger. He is just 15 years of age, and inside the next 12 months he will be entitled to sit for an examination that may make his employment permanent, but if he does not pass the examination, he will be affected by the Post Office rule not to keep on young fellows over 16 who are not eligible for continuous employment by the Post Office. There is just a chance that the boy may find himself disemployed at the end of the year and, instead of 4/- a week paid to the widow in respect of the boy, the boy will be able to get nothing. In a very special way, the Minister makes provision that the children's allowances should cease completely because the man is dead. That is both unreasonable and unsound. If it was considered under the Act that, when the man was living, the seven children should be entitled to 28/- a week for their maintenance with his basic of 30/- a week to keep the house over them, it is wrong that the widow should now be reduced to 23/- a week with the man dead and the basic 30/- that would keep the roof over their heads gone. There is the additional disability that the grants will relate only to children under 14 years of age or 16 years of age if going to school. The Act contemplated that, if the man were alive, the increased grants would be continued up to 18 years of age. I think it is a great weakness when we consider the small number of cases—I doubt if there can be a single other case in which actual payments are made. I do submit that the Seanad should urge on the Minister to make the amendment I suggest to the Act, and to allow that the children should get the allowances contemplated after the man's death and so long as his children are under the age of 18.
