Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1928

Vol. 27 No. 1

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS. (Resumed Debate.)

Motion moved by

Deputy TADHG MURPHY

"That this House is of opinion, having regard to the inadequacy of the provision at present made for widows and for orphans bereft of their breadwinners, and to the desirability of removing all stigma of pauperism in such cases, that the establishment of a scheme of insurance to provide pensions and allowances for widows and orphans would be desirable, and accordingly requests the Executive Council to prepare and present to the House a report upon such schemes of insurance and estimates of the cost."

Amendment moved by

Deputy HUGH A. LAW

To delete all words after the word "House" and insert the words "requests the Executive Council to take into special consideration, whether, without imposing an excessive burthen on productive industry, further provision can be made for widows and orphans bereft of their breadwinners; in what manner (by insurance or otherwise), this can best be achieved; and what may be the net cost of such provision."

Debate resumed on the amendment.

Dr. WARD

There have been from all sides of the House speeches strongly in favour of the terms of this motion. It affords me much pleasure to support the motion moved by Deputy Tadhg Murphy. The enthusiasm of Deputies from various quarters of the House appears to be controlled or damped by one factor alone, and that is the possible financial commitments of a scheme such as one in the terms of the motion. When we come to examine the possible cost of this pensions scheme for widows and orphans, we would require to be in a position to estimate the amount of money already expended in the various forms of relief for that section of the community. There ought not to be any difficulty in ascertaining the exact amount of money expended on home assistance or in institutions such as orphanages, industrial schools, county homes and other institutions availed of by orphan children or by widows.

A greater difficulty will be experienced in arriving at anything like an approximate figure of the amount of money contributed by the ordinary taxpayer and disbursed by charitable organisations. Before we would be in a position to form a reasoned judgment as to whether the resources of the country could bear an additional strain at the moment we would require to have these detailed figures before us. Such charitable organisations as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Society for Distressed Protestants, and the various other charitable organisations distribute an enormous amount of money that I believe would surprise the members of this House, and probably surprise the Ministers concerned in this particular motion, if we were able to arrive at anything like approximately accurate figures. Personally I believe that when these figures are placed before the House we will come to realise that a State scheme of pensions for necessitous widows and orphans will not inflict the heavy burden on the tax-paying community that some members of this House would ask us to believe it would inflict.

There are obvious disadvantages attached to the various existing forms of relief. The Minister for Local Government, when he spoke on this motion some days ago, seemed to be under the impression that a system of outdoor relief, properly administered, ought to meet all the reasonable requirements. I cannot think that anybody who has any knowledge of the method of administration of home assistance, in rural Ireland at any rate, will agree with the Minister for Local Government that it is a desirable form of relief. There is no doubt about it that the taint of pauperism is attached to this particular form of relief. The fact that circumstances have changed somewhat in this part of Ireland does not remove the taint of pauperism that is associated with the medical charities system, and the system of what was formerly outdoor relief, and which is now called by the more acceptable term home assistance. In most of the areas there are the same relieving officers administering this money that administered the outdoor relief under the old regime. It is a well known fact to anyone who has been in any kind of intimate touch with local administration down the country that this question of outdoor relief is a matter which is very keenly debated at present by public bodies.

I know myself, from Press reports and debates, where one area of a county is compared with another, and the area that has the biggest amount of expenditure in relieving this particular form of distress is held up to public ridicule by public representatives. In fact, in some areas I think they have almost gone so far as to threaten to publish a list of widows and orphans, and such classes of people, who are in receipt of home assistance. I submit that is a disgraceful state of affairs. The disadvantages of the system of relief distributed by charitable organisations are equally obvious to anyone who has examined this question any way closely. I do not think anybody will suggest that charitable organisations do not fulfil a very useful function in this country. I think we would be all very sorry that charitable organisations should cease to exist, but the widows and orphans should be taken out of the domain of public charity. That much at least is due to them. If they were removed from the domain of public charity, there would still be plenty of scope left for the charitable organisations among the remainder of the existing poor. The great drawback I see in this particular method of relief for widows and orphans is that the drain is very often borne by the people who cannot best afford it, the people who are charitably disposed, and who have perhaps more human kindness in them than their neighbours; or people who for one reason or another are in close contact with these charitable organisations, bear the burden of supplying the finances, whereas the materialistic, indifferent and selfish section of the community that perhaps could better afford to contribute towards the upkeep of the widows and orphans are allowed to go scot free.

I think that some form of State scheme that would secure a more universal distribution of the burden is certainly desirable. No matter how well institutions are run, no matter how well these various institutions that are being utilised by the destitute or necessitous orphans at present — no matter how well these are run the result cannot be the same as the result that is achieved in the home. Everybody will, I think, agree that the children reared in these institutions bear a certain hall-mark that is not an asset to them in life. I think every sensible man in this House will agree that the influence of the mother in the home cannot be replaced in any institution. That is an aspect of the question that we ought to keep in our minds when we are considering the possibility of a financial burden that any scheme that we might devise would inflict on the people.

It has been stated in this House that if we adopt a scheme of insurance or a contributory scheme of pensions the burden will have to be borne by the small farmers and small shopkeepers. I would like to say, and I think there are many Deputies in this House on these Benches and on the other side of the House will agree with me, that any scheme of pensions that will have our support will be a scheme that will be for the benefit of the widows and orphans of small shopkeepers and small farmers if they are in distress or if they come under the head of "necessitous." The motion standing in the name of Deputy Murphy asks the Executive Council to present to the House schemes and an estimate of the cost of such schemes, and in that connection I would like to draw the attention of the House to a statement by the Minister for Finance on the 17th October last. The statement appears in column 493 of the Official Report in which the Minister says:—

"I think it would be a good thing for the Executive Council to examine the matter, to get out such figures as could be got out to prepare the best estimates that could be prepared of the cost of applying to the Saorstát the scheme which is in operation in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, and to examine what modifications, if any, would be necessary to make that scheme properly applicable here, having regard to the fact, for instance, that the proportion of people in health insurance is less here than in the North. I think it would be, as I say, quite proper that the Executive Council should conduct that examination and should lay the results of it before the House so that a motion or a Bill dealing with this matter could be more satisfactorily discussed by the House."

Later on in the debate, in reply to Deputy J.X. Murphy, the Minister for Finance indicated that in his opinion he would require from two to three months to be in a position to put such figures as he mentions here before the House. The Minister for Finance may be deserving of criticism for not having gone into this question during the past twelve months while this motion was on the Order Paper. The fact remains, however, that he did not do it, and that he now admits the desirability of going into this question and putting the figures before this House. Personally I do not think that the detailed information that we would require before we could form an opinion on this important question can be available in a less period than two or three months. Deputy Law professed to be anxious to avoid a party attitude on this question. His own action in introducing the amendment, that will very probably prove acceptable to the Government, is certainly calculated to give this debate a party tone. I am surprised that Deputy Law should lend himself to such a manoeuvre if it would be correct to describe it in that way. If his amendment were carried it would mean that the question was going to be shelved in all probability for the lifetime of the present Government. Deputy Law's amendment requests "that this House requests the Executive Council to take into special consideration whether, etc., etc." Deputy Law requests the Executive Council to take certain matters into special consideration. That does not bring us any further—to take these matters into consideration. What this House requires, and what this House is asked for in Deputy Murphy's motion, is that certain figures be laid before this House in order that this House may make up its mind whether the burden can be shouldered or not. The House is not asked to affirm that anything in particular should be done. It is asked to affirm that it is desirable that a certain thing should be done if it can be done.

We will probably be told that money is not available for this particular object, and, however desirable it might be, that the money cannot be found to give us a scheme as generous as the scheme in existence in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We must face the fact that money in plenty is available for matters that are not as important as widows and orphans. There is no scarcity of money when it comes to supplying pensions to ex members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, to ex-civil servants or ex-members of the Saorstát Army. But when it comes to a question of improving the social conditions of the poor the money cannot be found. That is a state of things that has to be altered. I think we have had ample evidence during this debate of the necessity for a careful examination of this question. Evidence was supplied by the extraordinary discrepancy between the figures placed before us by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health estimates that a scheme of pensions such as is in operation for the North of Ireland for a particular class would involve a cost of two and a half million pounds——

General MULCAHY

Nonsense.

Dr. WARD

That is how it reads: I will quote the Minister's own words from the Official Report:—"If even fifty per cent. of these were to come in under the pensions relief scheme analogous to the old age pensions the cost of them and their children would probably run to £2,500,000."

General MULCAHY

That is a very different statement from the statement the Deputy made.

Dr. WARD

That is the statement I meant to make. I am sorry if it is not the statement I made. The Minister for Finance informed us that the maximum amount would be £750,000. There is room, at any rate, regardless of how the Minister for Local Government and Public Health would explain his figures, for a detailed examination of what the actual cost would probably be. I do not think the House can refuse to insist that this question be examined. We are asking for nothing more. We are committing ourselves to nothing. We express that it is a desirable thing that a pensions scheme should be inaugurated. The House is asked to express its opinion that such a thing is desirable, and in order to show whether it is possible to put such a scheme into operation or not, we are asking the Executive Council to place all the facts and figures that are available before us. These facts and figures will be examined and analysed by the House, and I believe that when they are examined and gone into, if we are not in a position to give as generous attention to the widows and orphans as they get in the North of Ireland, that we shall certainly, without inflicting any great burden on the tax-paying community, be able to remove the taint of pauperism and give a scheme of pensions that will have the advantage of being universally distributed, and have the added advantage of a certain amount of uniformity.

Mr. MOORE

I think there will be general agreement that this debate has been remarkable, up to the present, for curious reasoning on the part of the Government Front Bench. Reading the speech of the Minister for Finance one wonders by what curious system of logic he can decide that the passing of Deputy Murphy's motion would be undesirable, while at the same time he has no objection to an understanding that the Executive Council will consider the matter and publish a White Paper on the subject; or he would welcome the introduction of a Private Member's Bill dealing with the same matter. There must be very few Deputies who can follow subtleties of that kind. No less remarkable was the speech of the Minister for Agriculture, who started off by misrepresenting the speeches of those who had favoured the motion and, not satisfied with misrepresenting Deputies on this side, he very seriously misrepresents his own leader. The chief point made by the Minister for Agriculture was that the small farmers and traders would have to bear the whole burden of this insurance scheme if it be agreed to pass it and put it into operation. The small farmers and traders, mind you. There is nothing at all about the labourers' portion of it. One wonders why he says that the small trader and farmer will have to bear it and excepts the big portion that the labourers will have to pay.

Not long ago ex-Deputy Johnson made a calculation in a weekly paper in which he showed that a Dublin working-man earning and spending £3 a week, spending it in an average way, would contribute something like fifteen guineas a year in taxation, and that is equivalent to two shillings in the pound, allowing nothing for abatement. We all know that poor as the country is there are great numbers of workingmen earning and spending three pounds a week. The Minister for Agriculture, who is, of course, considered a very sound economist, makes no mention whatever of the burden that Labour must bear of this charge if it be decided to impose it. But it is not that point so much that strikes one in connection with the statement of the Minister for Agriculture as his complete repudiation of a very important speech made by the President some twelve months ago when we were considering unemployment here. Deputies will remember the President went to great pains in reply to some remarks by Deputy Clery to show that a farmer who was patriotic, who did not buy clothes of foreign manufacture, did not deal in stocks and shares, did not enter into litigation so that he would not be buying stamps for legal documents, need pay nothing towards the upkeep of the State; that he was practically free from the burden of taxation. It is a remarkable thing that twelve months after one of the President's chief lieutenants should say that practically the whole burden of taxation was borne by the small farmer. It looks a rather serious thing to see such a wide divergence of opinion on a matter that is fundamental to the whole system of Government, that is fundamental to every detail of our work here. After all, the thing of importance in anything we consider is, who is going to bear it; on whom does the burden fall? One would think the Executive Council would give a lead in enabling us to decide that; that they, with all their experience, would be able to say definitely where taxation ultimately finds its basis.

What is the ordinary Deputy without experience to think when he finds such a wide divergence of opinion between two Ministers? To make it all the more remarkable, in that same speech in which the President made that pronouncement, he expressed his impatience at having to listen to more economic heresies than ever he had heard before. Now, the Minister for Agriculture says the President is himself an arch-heretic. It was in that same speech that the President announced he was embarking on an educational campaign for our benefit. It is a very sorry thing if all his efforts to educate us have been on wrong lines, if they have been on a totally wrong basis, as we are now to understand from the Minister for Agriculture. The President must not think that we object to being educated or that we resent his efforts to educate us. We are glad to acknowledge that we have learned a great deal both from himself and his colleagues since we came here. The only trouble is that we can never hope to see the debt repaid. It is an established though a sad truth, as the Minister for Education is aware, that wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.

However, to go back to the main question, it is a very important thing indeed to ascertain in connection with this motion who is going to be responsible for it. Whether the country can afford it or not is one of the first things to consider. Is it worth while passing the motion even if it were desirable? Is it worth while passing it if it appears that those who will have to bear it are already bearing the utmost burden they can bear? We are getting no light from the Executive Council. We have to make up our minds for ourselves, because obviously the Front Bench is divided on the question. It seems to me there are two questions to be decided in connection with the motion. One is whether a means can be found of getting money for this service without making life too hard for the labouring population, the small farmers and other producers — for all who are rendering useful service to the country, in other words. The other is whether or not that service is the most important one on which such money can be spent. If we think there is any probability that these questions can be answered in the affirmative, then I suggest that there is no reason why the motion should not be passed. There is, perhaps, a further question: whether it would not benefit the State if the money which is voted each year for the payment of pensions to a number of privileged people could not be partly devoted to meeting humane requirements such as this. We believe that there are economies that can be made in the working of the State, and the question is whether it would not be advantageous to the country if we endeavoured to bring about these economies so that a humane service like this would be established.

There is one matter which I think the Labour Party should consider very seriously in connection with the motion. It would obviously be much more easy to agree to put a service like this into operation if it were clear that the money was going to remain in the country, that the money was merely going to be transferred from one person to another. We all know that, in present circumstances, out of every ten shillings that may be given for any service of this kind probably six or seven shillings will ultimately leave the country. That is what to my mind makes all these services especially difficult in the circumstances of the country at present. I put it to the Labour Party that the ideal which has been put forward from these benches so often, of making a much more determined effort to put the country in a position where it would be self-contained as far as necessities are concerned, should appeal to the Labour Party more than to any other party, if it were only for the fact that the social services would then be very much easier.

Mr. CORISH

That is what we always advocated.

Mr. MOORE

I do not know that what the Deputy says is correct. I do not think the Labour Party had that ideal in their economic programme. It seems to me the most regrettable thing about nearly all the expenditure in this country at present that it is often good in itself, but that it often means a tremendous drain of wealth out of the country. I think there would be less discontent with regard to the salaries of civil servants and other State servants, for instance, if it were clear that the money which the country is paying to support State servants was being spent on Irish goods and was going to the support of Irish producers ultimately. As it is, it is very often merely a subsidy to British industries.

Reading over the terms of the motion and the amendment, I can see no excuse for the amendment. I do not think Deputy Law did himself justice in drafting such an amendment. His amendment adds nothing; it does not help anyone in any way with regard to the motion. If the Government is content to be saved by that sort of method, then they are easily pleased. I can see nothing in the motion that any Deputy can have any hesitation about voting for. I think he would be a very hardhearted person who would say that this proposal for better provision for widows and orphans bereft of their breadwinners is not desirable. I do not think anybody would, in his own conscience, object to a proposal of the kind. I fail to see how it will embarrass the Government in any way if it is passed, because it is only when the figures are produced and we examine the probable costs and go into possible methods that may be suggested for giving effect to the resolution that we will be able to see whether the country can afford it or not. Personally, I hope sincerely it can — I believe it can. I believe that when we come face to face with a problem of this kind and realise that in turning down such a motion we would really be passing a vote of confidence in the present lop-sided civilisation that prevails, none of us will have any hesitation as to how we will act. After all, if we refuse to pass the motion, and if nothing more is heard of any scheme of insurance for people who have not failed in any way in their duty to society, then I think we will be face to face with an extraordinarily curious situation. We will have, on one hand, a luxury that is probably equal to the luxury that prevails in any other country — an extravagant and useless expenditure on the part of a certain number of people, and everything that civilisation can offer—golf, continental holidays, and big motor cars, everything that the richest people in any country can have. You will have that on the one side, and on the other you will have to admit that your resources are so small that they cannot make provision for people like this, whom Providence has placed in an unfortunate position. It seems to me that if we come to that conclusion, we are passing a vote of no confidence in ourselves and certainly a vote of no confidence in the country. I trust that will not be the result of the debate.

Mr. E. DOYLE

I desire to support the motion requesting the Government to initiate a scheme of pensions for widows and orphans. It is unnecessary for me to say much on the matter, because I believe that the Labour Party, and particularly the mover of the motion, has made an unanswerable case for it. The motion deserves the serious consideration of every Deputy, particularly of Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies. It is one of those questions which Deputies should decide on the evidence before them. Evidence of the untold sufferings of widows and orphans is very manifest. They are compelled to live lives of abject misery, due to the fact that having lost their sole means of support, they have nothing to fall back upon. A considerable number of these widows and orphans are living in thickly-populated centres, in miserable homes where only poverty, misery, want, degradation and wretchedness are permitted to enter. That condition of affairs is not conducive to the physical or moral welfare of the people. This respectable section of our community, because of the miserable pittance given to them by way of home help, on which they are solely dependent, and which is entirely inadequate to provide them with the bare necessities of life, are making a fierce struggle for existence under circumstances which are scarcely known to the Minister for Local Government, who is now smiling, but are known to ordinary Deputies, who know their condition, and, if I might say so, have lived with these people and worked with them.

General MULCAHY

I should like to say, by way of personal explanation with regard to the Deputy's remark, if I was smiling I certainly was not smiling at anything he was saying.

Mr. DOYLE

This home help assistance is not the method by which this section of the community should be dealt with. It is a system that was handed down to us from an alien Government and, if I may say so, is now being administered in the same fashion by a native one. It is only capable of giving a miserable penny per meal to each person in the family. I have been a member of a Board of Health and of a Board of Guardians, and I have known where the pittance paid out to these widows and orphans only reached that miserable standard of one penny per head per meal. Nothing was left to buy boots, school books, clothes, light or fuel and pay rent — no alternative for these people, none whatever, except the extraordinary position whereby they can only have one of two alternatives, either to go to the workhouse or that other institution which would give them more per week.

Poverty, misery and want, all those damnable, soul-destroying agencies that bring about the physical and moral degradation and wretchedness of people not alone in this country, but in other countries, whether civilised or uncivilised, are evident where people are deprived of the means of existence for themselves and those depending on them. Will we ever realise that the human health and happiness of the people are the most precious assets of a nation, and that the more people we have of that class living under humane conditions the better for every nation? How can modesty bloom in circumstances such as I have referred to? How can morality and good citizenship be maintained where the means of common decency are denied? How can we have proper education amongst the children of those people when they have no means to educate them? These are questions widows and orphans of this country are asking to-day. They are appealing to this House from the rural cabins, from the slum dwellings, workhouses, and other institutions in which they are at present to do something to alleviate their sufferings whereby they can keep themselves and their dependents within the limits of common decency.

Notwithstanding these appeals, and despite the sad state to which these people, through no fault of their own, have been reduced, there are those who are not wanting in their endeavour to controvert the position by cheap scepticism, by assuming, as the Minister for Agriculture did, that most people in this country are in poverty through their own fault. Surely the Minister does not contend that the widows and orphans are in poverty through their own fault. If he does there is no use in discussing the matter with him, particularly in view of the fact that he is a bachelor and has very little knowledge of the position of those afflicted people now struggling for existence under extraordinary circumstances. If that is to be the treatment meted out to the widows and orphans, and if that is the manner in which their case is to be dealt with, then I have little hope for the economic uplifting of those people.

In 1919 we were told that there was such a thing as an economic policy, and we were told that no child should go hungry or naked and that they were to be the first call on the State. These statements are only used for political purposes and as catch-cries for the purpose of getting into positions. The widows and orphans have still to suffer in the Free State as they did under a monarchy. The statement of the Minister for Agriculture reminds me of what Ruben said when breaking up Solomon's kingdom, "My father has beaten you with whips and I shall beat you with scorpions." That is not the manner in which the case of the widows and orphans should be dealt with, and as regards people being in poverty through their own fault, the meanest intelligence knows that no one is in poverty because he likes it. On the contrary, they fight against poverty until they are fairly beaten, and when they are beaten it is the duty of this or any other Government to come to the rescue and to do something to help them and to put them into a position in which they can live within the bounds of common decency.

We were told by the Minister for Local Government that by increasing the home help benefit to those people to the extent of something like 7d. or 8d. in the pound it would give them the same right of maintenance as given under the widows and orphans scheme in Northern Ireland and England. I contend that is not doing the best for the widows and orphans, because instead of uplifting them and putting them in a better way to happier lives and surroundings, you are casting them down by inflicting upon them the brand of pauperism and bolstering up that Poor Law system which is costing millions in an endeavour to remove the effects of a cause which was criminally neglected. The cause is simple. While you have badly fed and clothed and badly educated children, and that degrading and damnable system which now exists, they cannot be a benefit to the State. This is an important question in this country at the present moment. I said I would not detain the House long, and so, in conclusion, I appeal to Deputies, particularly on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches, to accept this motion. It will be a step in the right direction towards alleviating the suffering of this section of our people. By passing this motion you will be helping to keep the widows and the orphans in their homes instead of in the workhouses. It will make their homes places where morality, good citizenship and cheerfulness, which are essential to happiness and contentment can be maintained. In that way you will have done something for justice. It will have the effect of averting the frightful perils which beset these poor people who are dependent on the home help system, which is entirely inadequate to meet their requirements. By the acceptance of the motion; with a view to setting up a scheme of pensions, the effect, at least, will be to bring to an end the privation, want, misery and all the other things which are a danger, not alone to the people concerned, but to the Executive Government. What bright rays of sunshine would enter into the homes of many widows by the acceptance of the motion, homes that are now dark, miserable and dreary, because of want of means to buy food, clothing, and to house themselves in a manner which would reflect credit on the Government. By providing such a scheme the children will benefit, and they will not alone respect and honour the Government that put them in a way that they can live better and happier lives, but into a condition to which they are entitled because of their humanity.

Mr. KENNEDY

I am on the side of this motion. There are a few matters that I would like to deal with, particularly with regard to the speech made by the Minister for Local Government, who, if this motion was passed, would be the principal person to deal with it. The Minister said:—

Deputy Hogan suggested that there is nothing more in this motion than what is on the face of it. But there is, whether it is intended or not, and the speeches that have been made have shown us very clearly that this motion has been moved because, with regard to the whole system of home assistance, whether for widows or orphans or for other poor people, the local people are not facing up to its proper administration.

For the last four or five years there has been a big decrease in the cost of administration of the various social services, but there has been no decrease noticeable in the cost of home help itself, and, if anything, from my short experience of boards, home help is on the increase. That is the biggest answer to those people on the opposite benches who talk about prosperity and about the country having turned the corner. Every day the local boards are met with demands for more and more home help, because the people have no work. The Minister went on further and said that the solution of this might be met, for instance, in West Cork, by raising the rates from 3/6 in the £ to 4/1; in Wexford from 3/3 to 8/1., and in Donegal from 2d. to 7/6 in the £.

General MULCAHY

I think the Deputy is misreading. He is quoting 3.6d. and 8.1d. for Wexford, and 2d. and 7.6d. for Donegal.

Mr. KENNEDY

I accept the Minister's correction. Anyway, these increases are much smaller than I at first thought. The Minister must realise that any increase in the present rates under local administration would be unbearable. The facts are that the people are hardly able to pay the present rates and are crying out for a reduction. To increase them by one penny, twopence or threepence in the £ for one service alone would bring about a state of things that the people would not be able to bear. From my short experience of public boards and from what I have seen at the Westmeath Board of Health the one service during the past year that has gone up and exceeded the estimate is home help. The Department of Local Government wrote down recently telling us to build a medical residence in a certain district. The Board wrote back that owing to the finances of the county they could not do so. The Department replied that if there was proper economy on the councils and boards that medical residence could be built. The Minister for Local Government advocates increased rates here for a certain scheme of home help. How can his Department talk about economy when he advocates such things? The Minister talks about administering home help in a Christian way, and about people facing up to the situation. I do not know if that is the term he used, but he talks about doing this in a Christian way, and his Department talks about economy. You can have economy like the Dublin Commissioners have it by screwing the faces of the poor and cutting down home help. The Minister talks about economy or about administering this fund through home help, but the pets of his Department — the Commissioners — are the very people who are cutting down home help wherever they are administering local government. I believe that the more local rates increase the less chance there is for industry to progress, that where local rates increase for local services, as has been advocated by the Minister in order to administer this particular fund, you crush local industry, whereas general taxation has a less detrimental effect. As regards footing the bill, there are dozens of ways to foot the Bill, but if I went into them I would open very controversial paths and I would probably be held up by the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. O'HANLON

As it is getting rather late, and I think there is a general feeling that this debate should come to an end, I will not stand very long between the mover of the resolution and his closing speech. We have to deal with a motion and an amendment and, after listening to this debate very carefully, I find that the weight of argument, as I see it, is undoubtedly on the side of the motion; that the merits of the case are on the side of the motion. I hope that when a decision has to be come to, if we are to divide, the House will answer by expressing the view that it is desirable some provision should be made, by way of insurance or otherwise, for widows and orphans bereft of their breadwinners.

The amendment would be no expression of the opinion of this House, and when we are asked to express our opinion on the merits of the motion we should not be afraid to do so. On the question as to whether it is financially feasible or not we are not asked to express an opinion at all. I do not know that anybody has yet given us an indication of what the financial commitments on this motion would be, but we are only asked to express an opinion as to whether it is desirable that widows and orphans, bereft of their breadwinners, should, by an insurance scheme or otherwise, have some provision made for them. I can hardly imagine how the Government can resist taking this matter up and reporting to us what would be the probable cost of putting it into effect.

This motion commits us to nothing at the moment, and even its mover, if the figures were of such magnitude to show that such a scheme was not feasible at the moment, might be the very first to say: "Well, I did not think that this would run into so much expense, and such being the case, I think we should adjourn it until the country is in a better position to deal with it." Still, I do not think that the figures would be so astoundingly great as to make it impossible to frame some scheme for providing for widows and orphans, and as the mover very properly said, to remove the stigma of pauperism from these poor people. I could enlarge very much on the question of home help and other things, but it is now ten o'clock, and I think it is only fair that the mover of the motion should get ample time to conclude. He made an excellent and a moderate speech, and I would like to compliment him, and all others who have spoken, particularly those who spoke on the motion.

Mr. H. BRODERICK

I want to say a few words in support of Deputy Murphy's motion. I know of no system by which the people mentioned in the motion can be relieved except one, and that is the system of home assistance. To me that system is degrading, no matter how sympathetic the boards of health are to the people mentioned in the motion. I am a member of a board of health, and I know the degradation through which these people have to go in order to obtain this home assistance. Everything in connection with themselves and their children is inquired into by the home assistance officer, and when that has all been done they have to go before a doctor and get his certificate before they can be given relief. As I said, no matter what relief they get, it is degrading.

General MULCAHY

I would like to remove the impression that may be created by the Deputy when he says that in order to get home assistance a person has to go before a doctor and get a certificate from him. That is not a fact.

Mr. H. BRODERICK

Well, that is a fact in the case of the board of health of which I am a member, the Westmeath Board of Health. It is the general practice there, and therefore I think I am correct in making that statement. That is the only system I know of. That system has been handed down to us by the British Government, but they themselves have abolished that system, as far as widows and orphans are concerned, by a scheme which provides for pensions, and that is also the case with the Northern Government. The question of obtaining funds by insurance or by a pension scheme, to provide widows and orphans with the necessary amount of money to maintain themselves seems to be the trouble. I know of one trade union and friendly society which, by a contribution of one penny per week by its members to a particular fund, is able to give a pension of from 7/6 to 12/6 a week to widows and orphans of its deceased members. I do think that if the Government — and I sincerely hope they will — consider formulating a pensions scheme for these widows and orphans they will be wise in doing so. I am sure that there are a number of Deputies on the benches which are occupied by this Party, and Deputies on other benches, who would be only too pleased to put suggestions before the Minister to assist him in formulating such a scheme.

Mr. CORRY

I rise to support the motion. I think that any means that we can adopt to remove the taint of pauperism from widows and orphans is worth while considering. I think, further, that when this motion only asks the Executive Council to prepare and present to the House a report upon such schemes of insurance and estimates of the cost, this motion should be passed without any opposition. The Minister for Agriculture, I notice, said that it is not out of production this money will have to come, and if this was an Executive Council that was taking any interest whatsoever and devoting any attention to economy I would give some consideration to that suggestion. But I know that if I wanted to economise I would go through the list of Estimates, and I would find many ways of raising the wind to provide money for such a proposal as this. The Government lightheartedly voted £18,000 towards the upkeep of the Governor-General's establishment. Surely if they put £16,000 of that towards a scheme like this it would be more in keeping with the needs of the country, and they could do a lot of carving on such things as this £15,000 police barracks that I alluded to the other night. I want to go a step further——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We cannot go back on that. We have had all that.

Mr. CORRY

The whole question raised by the principal speakers on the Government amendment was where they were to find the money. That was their demand, and I have a few suggestions in that way that would be no harm. If they took every salary from £400 upwards——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot talk about Government economy at this point. Deputy Kennedy realised that he could not do it, and I cannot allow Deputy Corry to do it now.

Mr. KENNEDY

The Ceann Comhairle does not know what was in my mind.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am only going by what the Deputy said.

Mr. CORRY

We have been challenged to show where we would find the money for this scheme. The excuse that was put up by the Minister for Finance was that he had not the money for it, that he had no way of getting the money for it. I am making a few good suggestions as to where he would get the money to finance the scheme if he was prepared to put it in force. I consider that there is expenditure in the Departments and on salaries which any Government should economise on, if they wanted to economise on anything. There is in that proposal the whole groundwork for providing money for such a scheme. I would say, without fear of contradiction, that you could provide very close to £200,000 by reducing the cost of living bonus on salaries of £400 and upwards, which would go towards providing for such a scheme. The cash is there, and I think any Government which has to vote £15,000 for a police barracks and a million and a quarter for pensions going out of the country should——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is the third time. The Deputy must now come to the motion.

Mr. CORRY

I am coming to the motion. I am showing you where to find the money.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The trouble is the Deputy must satisfy me, not himself. I know he is quite satisfied himself.

Mr. CORRY

The trouble the Minister for Finance has is where to find the money. I am showing where the Minister for Finance can find the money. If I am not allowed to proceed along the lines of showing where the Minister is to find the cash, there is not much use in my proceeding.

Mr. S.T. O'KELLY

Ní bheidh mé i bhfhad. Níl morán le rá agam. I heard, I think, the Minister for Local Government say in reply to Deputy Corish that there was no reference in the democratic programme adopted by the first Dáil to this question of widows and orphans, and I was surprised to hear him make that statement. I have taken these two small paragraphs from the democratic programme. One says:

It shall be the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual welfare of the children, to secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food, clothing or shelter and that all shall be provided with the means and facilities required for their proper training as citizens of a free and Gaelic Ireland.

General MULCAHY

I would refer the Deputy to Deputy Corish's reference in column 498 in which he said:

I think an Executive Council composed of men like the Minister for Finance and the President who were members of the first Dáil Eireann who made a proclamation in January, 1919, that their first duty was to look after the widows and orphans of the country should be able in this year 1928 to say to the House that they had made up their minds as to what their policy is as regards the starving women and children of the country.

I said there was no such statement there and it would be well generally if the Deputy would look at the reference.

Mr. O'KELLY

I think, while it does not state here that it is our first duty it is very definitely and clearly laid down that it is the duty of the Government whether it be the first or the second duty. I think this House will agree that where a question of poverty arises it is our duty to maintain people of that kind. I think Deputy Corish was right in saying that those of us who accepted the democratic programme of the First Dáil were bound in honour and conscience to do everything within our power to provide adequately for the poor, the destitute, the homeless, and particularly for the children.

General MULCAHY

Deputy Corish made a very specific and pointed statement which was not a fact.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is a question for argument.

Mr. O'KELLY

The Deputy's view of what are and are not facts is very strange. I believe the House, having heard the democratic programme, will agree that what Deputy Corish has stated is a fact. The Minister, however, can maintain his opinion of what a fact is and we will maintain ours. The strange part about it was that I had forgotten the fact until I looked at the proceedings of the First Dáil, that the Deputy who is now Minister for Local Government was the member who proposed that.

General MULCAHY

That Deputy does not forget the fact.

Mr. O'KELLY

How often am I to be interrupted? If the Deputy wishes to make a speech I will sit down.

Mr. CORISH

He is becoming as bad as his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. O'KELLY

I have one or two more points. The Minister for Local Government asked members of the Labour benches why they did not put up a scheme. I think that comes very badly from him or anyone occupying his position. He has the whole officialdom of the State at his disposal, and in particular he has the officialdom of his own Department at his disposal. Some of the officers there have been in the service for a very long time and they must, in the course of some twenty years or so, have gathered a great deal of experience in dealing with matters of this kind. If they cannot produce a scheme let them come to Labour; they may go to Labour and Labour will produce it. If they cannot produce a scheme it is a blue look-out.

The same Minister challenged us with producing ill digested Bills, Bills made a mess of. He knows, as far as draftsmanship is concerned, it is one of the things, to put it mildly, in which there is not a surplus of specialists here, and that any draftsmen there are in the country, and there are not many, are in the service of the Government, employed and paid by the Government, and not at the disposal of anybody else. Knowing these facts, he comes to the Labour Benches and taunts them with not producing schemes, whereas he has all the officials to produce what he wants.

I do not want to delay Deputy Murphy in his reply, as I presume there is probably going to be a vote on this matter, but I want to say one word in reply to Deputy Doyle. He made an excellent speech in favour of the motion except for one point, and that is, in my opinion he talked too much of and over-emphasised the question of the moral, physical and spiritual degradation of the poor. I know the poor of this city. I was born and reared in Dublin. I say of them that they are poor, and very poor. There is poverty amongst them, but they are not degraded. They are not moral, physical or spiritual degenerates. I think that was overdone. They may be poor, and they are, but their standard of morality is high and can compare with that of the richest and the best society people in the land. With that little protest, I wish to say that those of us who accept the first Dáil's programme generally believe that all of us should stand behind the principles enunciated when the Republic was first founded and will back the motion and not the amendment.

Mr. BRADY

Before Deputy Murphy replies, perhaps I will be permitted to correct a false impression that is likely to arise from a statement made by him in his opening speech. I do not believe that he intended to create such impression by his remarks. I am quoting from the Official Debates, page 484. Deputy Murphy said:

"I agree that perhaps often the industrial schools do very good work, but we have an alarming number of failures amongst the children turned out by industrial schools."

I would like to point out that, so far as the County Dublin is concerned, it is only right that it should be mentioned that we have, I believe, the largest industrial school in the world. I refer to Artane where they have between 900 and 1,000 boys and the percentage of failures from that institution is no higher than the percentage of failures from the largest college in any part of Ireland. I think it is only fair to the Christian Brothers and to the pupils and their parents that that statement should be made. As I have said, I do not believe that Deputy Murphy intended to create that false impression.

Mr. CONNOLLY

As this is a matter of great importance to the country in general, to the future welfare of the people, and to all future Governments in this country, I think we should not be called upon to-night to say "Yes" or "No" to this motion. I do not think that Deputies have been given reasonable opportunity of making up their minds as to what they should do in regard to it. The matter was introduced at 9 o'clock to-night and is now about to be decided at 10.30 p.m. As a matter of fair play to all Deputies, the question should be adjourned to give them an opportunity of considering the motion in all its moods and tenses. It will reflect either credit or discredit on the party who introduced it, and will also reflect credit or discredit on the Government of the future who will have to deal with it. Under these circumstances I respectfully suggest that the matter be adjourned to give Deputies an opportunity of considering it. It is not fair to have such a big issue decided in an hour.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Is the Deputy aware that this motion has been on the Order Paper for twelve months? Surely that should be sufficient time to enable the Deputy to make up his mind.

Mr. CONNOLLY

We have heard no arguments as to the benefits or otherwise to be derived from it.

Mr. LEMASS

Why do you not come into the House?

Dr. RYAN

It has been under discussion for the past month.

Mr. COBURN

I wish to support the motion. In the experience of the oldest Deputy in this House the question of providing for widows and orphans has, I think, been one of the chief planks in the programme of every political party. I cannot see why the Government should object to accepting the motion as, to my mind, there is absolutely no difference between it and the amendment. It has been stated over and over again by Deputies on the Opposition and Labour Benches that this is only a question of the desirability of the Government making provision for widows and orphans. I would go so far as to ask the Government to accept the motion, and I would say that each of the political parties here, both Fianna Fáil and Labour, should make contributions towards the financing of the scheme, because it is a scheme that affects not alone the supporters of the Government, but those of all parties here. It is one of the social reforms which has been long overdue. Having achieved the measure of freedom we are now enjoying, we cannot afford now, to say the least of it, to lag behind our neighbours in Great Britain or Northern Ireland in the matter of social reform. Our chief boast previous to the Treaty was that if we were rid of British rule, not alone would we be able to maintain old age pensions but increase them. Those promises have been made, and it is most unfair to taunt people who are in favour of this motion with more or less making political capital out of the sufferings of the poor. Each party has promised this reform to widows and orphans, who are as much entitled to pensions as those young men whose names I have seen on the Order Paper as being in receipt of pensions from £280 down to £50 and £60 a year.

I appreciate the point of view put forward by the Minister for Finance, namely, that this is a very important question affecting taxation. I appreciate the difficulty of the Minister for Finance and appreciate and sympathise with his point of view, but that does not excuse him or his Government from making suitable provision for the widows and orphans in the State. I am not going to go into details in connection with the scheme, nor to refer to the speeches of other Deputies, but I think the Minister for Agriculture has stated what are not facts when he said that the small farmers and shopkeepers would be called on to bear this extra financial responsibility. What, after all, is the small farmer or the shopkeeper but a worker? He is nothing better than the ordinary worker. He is a worker all the time. If this scheme materialises I can envisage the widow of the small farmer coming under it. I know cases in my constituency where widows of small farmers are in a very bad financial position. They have been left with young families and very small farms of from three to four acres. If they let that land the most that can be got out of it is anything from £15 to £20 per annum, and when the annuities and rates are paid very little is left for the widows and the orphans. Surely that type of person will come under any provision made by the Government in regard to this question.

In my view the Government would be well advised not to divide the House on this motion. It is true, of course, that it has been introduced by a member of the Labour Party, but that does not make very much difference. That Party is not going to claim any credit for it and is only carrying out its promises to the people, namely, to make provision for widows and orphans. I think that the Government would be wise to get away from party in a matter of this sort and allow the House on this occasion to be unanimous in passing a motion which commits it to nothing definite. I must candidly say that I would oppose anything in the nature of increased taxation, because it is well for us to remember that increased taxation means increased unemployment. The revenue derived by means of taxation is taken out of industry, and I would be very slow in voting for anything that would increase taxation, because we must remember that we have a considerable number of workers in the Free State who are dependent more or less on the speculation of money by people who have a little money to speculate.

Unless they can make use of that money with advantage to themselves, the chances are that they will not invest that money and, incidentally, you might be imposing a hardship on the fathers and mothers of families whose members might not be able to obtain employment. I do say that the Government should make an effort to provide for the widow and the orphan and accept this motion without throwing the onus of dividing upon the House. I think it is about time that the Government recognised that it is not on party lines that questions such as this, any more than the question of unemployment, will be solved.

I was glad to see that the leader of the chief Opposition Party in this House put down a question recently dealing with unemployment. He made certain suggestions that I am glad to say were readily accepted by the President. I should like to see a little more of that spirit displayed in this House. I think there could be no more opportune time for the display of that spirit than on the present motion. I confidently expect that the Government will fall in with the suggestion made by Deputy O'Hanlon and accept the motion unanimously. After setting up a committee to inquire into the financial details in connection with the scheme— a committee which would include members of the Fianna Fáil Party — if it was found that it would impose too great a financial burden on the industries of this State to make provision for the widows and orphans, there would be no more about the matter. I am sure the Deputies in favour of the motion would be the first to admit that, in these circumstances, it would not be wise to proceed to make provision for the widows and orphans. But let us make a beginning. Let the Government accept the motion and let a committee representative of all parties be set up to work out the financial details.

Mr. T. MURPHY

I think I had better move the adjournment of the debate.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy J.X. Murphy rose a couple of times to take part in the debate. However, if you move the adjournment we may be able to arrange for Deputy J.X. Murphy to speak before you.

Mr. T. MURPHY

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.