Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Dec 1935

Vol. 59 No. 17

Committee on Finance. - Vote 73—Widows' and Orphans' Pensions.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim £250,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1936, alos an Chuntais Súncála Pinsean [an tAcht um Pinsin do Bhaintreacha agus do Dhílleachtaithe, 1935 (Uimh. 29 de 1935) Alt 42 (2).]

That a sum of £250,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1936, in respect of the Pensions Investment Account [Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1935 (No. 29 of 1935) Section 42 (2).]

The object of this Vote is to make available the £250,000 which the State is to contribute to widows' and orphans' pensions under Section 42 of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1935. This £250,000 will be paid into an account known as the Pensions Investment Account under the control of the Minister for Finance. All moneys collected as contributions under the Act will be paid into the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund, and all pensions payable under the Act will be paid out of that fund. If at any time the moneys in the fund are insufficient to meet current liabilities the necessary additional moneys will be advanced from the Pensions Investment Account, while any moneys standing to the credit of the fund which are not required to meet current expenditure will be transferred to the Investment Account. As payment of pensions will commence in the first week of January next, before money begins to accrue from contributions, it is essential that this Vote should be passed before the rising of the Dáil.

Mr. Norton

I only want to make one or two observations on this matter, arising out of the Minister's reply on the previous Estimate. I said in the course of my remarks on the previous Estimate—and I want the Minister to take a note of it—that so far as the non-contributory pensions scheme is concerned it is a cruel illusion to existing widows.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is not what the Deputy said before.

Mr. Norton

The Minister must know that all my remarks were entirely confined to the non-contributory section of the scheme. The Minister must also know that when the Bill was going through the House I complimented him on the contributory side of the scheme and I denounced the non-contributory side as being inadequate. My views, at that time, were not very far removed from those of the Minister. My remarks here were in relation to the non-contributory scheme, and yet the Minister made what might appear to him to be a very useful debating point but which was, I think, not quite fair, in saying that my arguments were a gross exaggeration. I think the facts, the stubborn mathematical facts, prove conclusively that the non-contributory side of the scheme in respect to existing widows is merely an illusion. There are 134,000 widows in this country, but so far the claims received are under 20,000, while only 1,500 have got pensions.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

None of them has got a pension yet.

Mr. Norton

I shall deal with that. Out of 134,000 widows in this country only 1,500 have yet been awarded pensions, and at the rate at which claims are at present being guillotined it will be a long time before the 20,000 who have applied will get pensions. The Minister is surprised that he is not getting applications at a greater rate. The advertisements published in the Press, the statements published in newspapers and the broadcasting announcements all seemed to express a kind of amazement that claims are not made for non-contributory pensions. Is the explanation not simple? If the Minister would ask the investigation officers to ascertain the view of existing widows and orphans in respect to this Act he will find a very simple explanation as to why the Department is not deluged with applications for pensions.

Numerous widows have written to me asking what they would be entitled to under the non-contributory section of this Act. I have had to tell them what they would be entitled to if they are in receipt of money either in the form of home assistance or outdoor relief. I have had to tell them that if they are more concerned with the amount of the income which they receive than with the way in which the income is handed to them, it is better for them to continue to receive outdoor relief or home assistance than to make application for a pension under the non-contributory section of the Act. I could produce my files and show the Minister numbers of cases in which persons seeking widows' and orphans' pensions have been told by me that if they look for a widow's or orphan's pension under the non-contributory scheme, they will lose their outdoor relief or home assistance as the case may be. If they once get a widow's or orphan's pension, I am quite sure from the attitude which has been adopted by boards of health generally that they will get no supplementary allowance from a board of health. That is also true of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce on one occasion told the House that if a person in receipt of unemployment assistance found that the sum allowed him was inadequate to sustain him, he could apply to the board of health for home assistance. I should like to see the recipient of unemployment assistance who would go to a board of health and ask for a supplementary grant. I do not believe that a single investigation officer in the service could discover such a person in the country to-day. I could produce cases in which the amount of home assistance given to widows and orphans is considerably more than the pension which they would receive under the non-contributory scheme. That is a simple fact. That is the explanation why the Minister has only got 19,000 cases when according to himself he was expecting twice or three times that number of claims. If the Minister would introduce his amending legislation——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order, even on a main Estimate, to advocate amending legislation. It is much less in order on a Supplementary Estimate. Neither is it in order to discuss the merits of legislation on an Estimate. So far the Deputy has been discussing the merits of an Act passed by the Oireachtas. That is not in order.

Mr. Norton

It was not with that intention——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is the fact that counts; not the intention.

Mr. Norton

It was not with that intention I rose, but the Minister seems to suggest that he was rather astonished at only getting 19,000 applications when he should have got twice or three times that number. To take the Department and the Minister out of the dilemma I was endeavouring to offer to the Minister a possible explanation as to the dearth of applications.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the merits of the Act.

Mr. Norton

Unfortunately, the merits of the Act had some slight bearing on the matter, but it was far from my desire to discuss the merits of the Act. On the non-contributory side it has very little merits. If the Minister wants to test the accuracy of my statement, and if he wants to be convinced that these are the absolute facts, gleaned by having my fingers on the pulse of the people concerned, the only thing that he has got to do is to offer greater benefit and he will be no longer astonished as to why he is not getting more applications.

Mr. Brennan

Unlike Deputy Norton, when this Act was going through the House I had no illusions about it, absolutely none. I did not expect much from it, and I was amazed at Deputy Anthony after all his fine anticipations, saying that he was disappointed at the manner in which the Act was working. I think it is a bit soon to start criticising the administration of the Act as far as the Minister is concerned, and he has my sympathy. The Minister has received only 19,000 applications up to the present, and we have been told that the Department have already rejected over 9,000. Even if you say that 10,000 are to get pensions at the rate of 5/- per week— which I think is a pretty high estimate, in view of the case cited by Deputy McMenamin, in which a widow-woman with a child under 14 only got 1/- per week—the pensions would not absorb more than half the amount we are allocating this evening, namely, £250,000. However, that is supposed to be the Government contribution, and I presume we are bound to make that contribution. Even at the moment I have no illusions about this measure. I did not think much of it at any time. It was clearly intended to be a redemption of a promise, and that was all that was in it. The Minister told us about a certain number of claims in which the applications were wrongly put in. I did not exactly catch what he endeavoured to tell the House as to the manner in which they are dealing with them. I should like if he would repeat his statement. I know there are many people who filled in their application forms wrongly, and I hope they will not suffer as a result.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think there is anything more to be said. The points made by Deputy Norton had been previously made by him and answered by me. I do not know the point that Deputy Brennan wants information upon. If he will formulate his question I will do my best to answer him.

Mr. Brennan

I think the Minister, as a matter of fact, already explained it, but I did not catch it. I referred to certain applications which were improperly filled. What has happened to these?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There were 1,330 applications incorrectly filled and they have been returned to the persons concerned. The officers probably will call on these persons and go into the claims with them.

Mr. Brennan

My only point was that I did not want these people to be penalised.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No.

Professor O'Sullivan

There is a possibility of emendation with the help of the officers in these cases?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Certainly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution reported and agreed to.