On behalf of our Party, I beg to move the amendment to the motion standing in our name:—
To delete all the words after the word "provide" in line 3 and to insert therein the following words, "that pensions at the rate of ten shillings per week, with proportionately increased allowances for children, will be paid under the non-contributory Part of the Act to the widows of (a) men who were insured or were deemed to have had an insurance status under the National Health Insurance Acts at any time during the five years prior to the date of their death, (b) men who at any time during the five years prior to the date of their death carried on a small business in the capacity of independent contractors, and (c) men who were small holders immediately prior to the date of their death; and that so far as concerns these beneficiaries the provisions of the Act relating to a means test shall cease to have effect."
The members of this Party are not prepared to accept the motion standing in the name of Deputy Doyle because of the limited nature of the demand made therein. That demand calls for the inclusion of classes which have been left out of consideration under the existing Act. The amendment put down in the name of the Labour Party seeks to extend the scope of the present measure, and to increase the miserable pittances that are made under it, especially under the non-contributory sections. This Party has been advocating the provision of pensions for widows and orphans since it was founded as a political Party. Whenever we thought fit to put forward that demand, either inside or outside this House, we always had in view that the State pension so provided should be at least a living allowance. Deputies who have any knowledge of the administration of the Act, and particularly of its non-contributory sections, must be aware that, as administered, the Act does not provide a living allowance for those who qualify for benefit under it. In answer to a question which, I addressed to the Minister in the Dáil, on the 4th inst., it was stated that the number of claims for widows' pensions received up to the 23rd of October last was 26,944, and that the number of widows' pensions sanctioned for payment up to that date was 14,198.
I would like to know from the Minister, when he is replying, if he can say how many of the 26,944 applications have been rejected because of the fact that they do not come within the terms of the existing Pensions Act. I am informed that thousands of applicants have been completely cut out of consideration of any kind. I am sure that the Minister has available the latest figures, and I would be glad to know from him the number that come within that category. In reply to the same question, I was told that the number of claims for orphans' pensions received up to the 23rd of October last was 890, and that the number of such claims sanctioned for payment up to that date was 349, covering 559 orphans. In the case of orphans, I would also like to have information from the Minister as to the number of applications that have been completely cut out because it was held they did not come under the terms of the Act.
The worst point of all in regard to the administration of this Act is that regarding the average rate of pension paid to the applicants who come under the non-contributory sections. In reply to my question on the 4th of November, the Minister stated that the average weekly pension paid to a childless widow is at the rate of 4/9. But Deputies, I think, will admit that worse still is the average pension paid to a widow with one child. This amounts to 7/4 a week, which means that the allowance for the child is at the rate of 2/7 a week. I hope the Minister is not going to get up in the House and stand over such a miserable, niggardly pension allowance to persons so circumstanced. It will be pointed out by the Minister, I suppose, that the means test is responsible for reducing the average pension payment to such a low figure. In this amendment we are calling for the complete abolition of the means test which, under this Act as under other Acts, is administered in a most niggardly manner.
I have come across cases where a young officer has been appointed to carry out investigations in connection with the administration of this Act. He goes into the country and finds a widow with one or two orphans. He discovers that she keeps a couple of dozen hens. He calculates, from his own elastic imagination, that the hens produce so many eggs in the year, and that her income is so much from the sale of the eggs; but his calculation is based on the retail price at which eggs are sold in the local shop rather than at the price which the widow and other local people receive from the local shopkeeper when they sell their eggs to him. In some cases this young officer puts a market value on the eggs that would flabbergast the experts on the Opposition Benches, and that would meet with the disapproval, I am sure, of even such an optimistic agriculturist as Deputy Corry. I am sorry that the Deputy is not present to give his views to the House and to the Minister as to what his experience has been of the administration of this Act in his own area.
I would like to know from the Minister, who, I am sure, has a fairly decent personal outlook on matters of this kind, whether he stands over the average pension payments that are now being made to childless widows and to widows with one, two, three or four orphans. I am sure that the figures given to me in the Minister's reply on the 4th November are absolutely reliable, and will not be challenged by any speaker in this debate. I have personal knowledge, and so, I am sure, have other Deputies, of cases where the payment to widows and orphans, as the case may be, under the State pensions scheme, have been found to be less than was previously given by the local authority. If the Minister has any right to call the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act a State pension scheme, the pension payment should be fixed at a rate far and away beyond any payment previously made to such persons at the expense of the local ratepayers or by the local authority. I do not think that any Minister or Government claiming credit for the existence or operation of a State pension scheme should boast about payments which are admitted by the local authority to be below a living standard and which require the local authority, as a result of that consideration, to supplement the State pension allowance. I am sure that Deputies in every part of the House and representing every constituency can cite cases of that kind, and that large numbers of cases of that kind can be found in the files of the Minister's Department. I should like to know what action the Minister proposes to take to put such matters right; whether he believes the local authority should, in any case where a State pension is paid, find it necessary to supplement the State pension allowance.
I do not know whether the Minister or the Department has very much knowledge about the operations of the investigating officers who report to the Revenue Commissioners, I presume, and, in turn, to the Department of Local Government, under the section dealing with the means test. I do not know whether he would be willing to give the House any glaring cases where the means test is not working in accordance with his own wishes, or whether there is an intention on his part to abolish the means test in the proposed amending Bill which he promised to introduce in the near future. I think I am not wrong in saying that the Minister promised to introduce this amending Bill over six months ago, and I noticed with pleasure that he gave an assurance to the recent Ard-Fheis to bring in this Bill in the near future. This is the place and the time to give us reliable information, and I should like to hear from the Minister whether he proposes to introduce and pass that amending Bill before the Christmas adjournment.
Under the Act as it now stands, a number of cases of a most deserving nature appear to be cut out of consideration of any kind. We have applications for pensions from the widows of tailors, blacksmiths, shoemakers, country carpenters, cattle-drovers, chimney-sweeps and carters employed by local authorities. As far as I can ascertain, all these classes, although belonging to the wage earning class, and not being insured under the National Health Insurance Act, are out out of any kind of consideration under the law as it stands at present. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he proposes in the amending Bill to make provision for the payment of pensions to the widows and orphans of persons included in these classes, because I think the widows and orphans of tailors, blacksmiths, shoemakers, carpenters, drovers, chimney-sweeps and carters employed by county councils are entitled to as much consideration as has been given to widows in receipt of pensions under the contributory section of the Act. I am not by any means enthusiastic about the allowance provided under the contributory section of the Act. I think there is room for improvement there, if there is an admission by the Minister, and by Deputies who support this demand, that State pensions should be provided on the basis of a living allowance. I hope we will hear something interesting from the Minister as to what he intends to do under the amending Bill.
I daresay the Minister will justify himself by saying that we will have to wait and see, but I think that this Party is entitled to make the case that the existing Act has not, in its administration, covered all the deserving or necessitous cases. I hope that the amending Bill, when it becomes law, will provide State pensions at a decent living standard for all necessitous applicants. I do not want to see anybody with £1,000 a year provided with a pension under the Act—such people can look after themselves—but I think that the Act, as it now stands, does not meet the reasonable requirements of the majority of the members of this House. The members of this Party put forward about 50 amendments to the existing Act during the Committee Stage, but we were precluded by the rules of the House from moving these amendments, because no private Deputy has the right to move an amendment to a Money Bill of that kind which would increase the charges on the State. I am sorry the Minister did not see fit to take the responsibility on his own shoulders of including many of the amendments put forward by the Labour Party, because if he had been wise enough to do so, he probably would not have found it necessary to promise the early introduction of an amending Bill. I hope that the mover of the motion will accept the amendment in the name of Deputy Norton moved by me on behalf of this Party and that the Minister will see his way to meet the cases which I have cited and other cases, perhaps of a worse type, which can be cited by my colleagues on these Benches.