Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 1938

Vol. 70 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 72—Widows' and Orphans' Pensions.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £200,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1938, chun íocaíochta leis an gCuntas Suncála Pinsean (Achtanna um Pinsin do Bhaintreacha agus do Dhílleachtaithe, 1935 go 1937 (Uimh. 29 de 1935 Alt 42 (2) agus Uimh. 11 de 1937, Alt 21)).

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £200,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1938, for payment to the Pensions Investment Account (Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1937 (No. 29 of 1935, Section 42 (2) and No. 11 of 1937, Section 21)).

The Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1935, provided for the payment into the Pensions Investment Account out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of a sum of £250,000 per annum for each of the ten financial years beginning 1935-36. This annual sum represented the estimated equalised subvention over the first ten years of the operation of this scheme of pensions established by the Act of 1935 in order to meet the estimated net excess of expenditure over income during that period.

Under the Act of 1937, which considerably extended the scheme of non-contributory pensions, the annual sum of £250,000 was increased to £450,000 for the year 1937-38 and each of the succeeding years. The sum of £200,000 now asked for is to supplement the Vote of £250,000 already made under the Act of 1935, so as to make the full provision for the year 1937-38, required by the Act of 1937.

There are just a few words which I wish to add respecting the working of the Act up to date, and I am giving the position as it stood on the 31st December, 1937. The claims for contributory pensions received amounted to 4,210. Many of these claims were made in respect of persons who were not insured under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, and after being formally rejected under the contributory provisions, they were transferred to the non-contributory class. In addition, there was a number of cases where the qualifying conditions for the payment of a contributory pension were not satisfied, and these also were treated as claims to non-contributory pensions. The total number of cases transferred from the contributory to the non-contributory class was 1,877. Out of the remaining 2,333 cases, contributory pensions were awarded in 1,983 cases, and there were 332 cases under consideration. Eighteen claims were withdrawn.

The number of claims received for non-contributory pensions was 36,574. This figure includes 1,877 claims for contributory pensions which were either not properly within the contributory class or which failed to satisfy the qualifying conditions for the grant of contributory pensions. Out of these 36,574 cases, pensions have been awarded in 28,879 cases; pensions were refused in 5,453 cases, 944 claims were withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn, and there are 1,298 claims under examination.

There are in course of payment 1,929 contributory pensions at a weekly cost of £1,444, and 26,359 non-contributory pensions at a weekly cost of £8,026, a total of 28,288 pensions amounting to £9,470 per week. These represent payments in respect of 27,543 widows and 20,732 dependent children and orphans. Appeals to referees against decisions that pensions were not payable, or were payable at reduced rates, have been received in 5,495 cases. The appeals have been decided in 4,137 cases, and there were still 1,358 cases awaiting decision on the 31st December, 1937.

Mr. Dillon

There are two points to which I would like to refer in connection with this Estimate. It was understood, I think, that contributory pensions were to be made available to the widows of all men who were paying into the National Health Insurance Fund at the date of their death. It now appears that that is not true — that if a person paying into the National Health Insurance Fund died prior to January, 1935, his widow is not eligible for a contributory pension. That, I think, is a lacuna which was not perceived when the Act or amending Act was passing through the House. I do not quite see on what basis that arrangement is made. I think it is a mistake. When dealing with a class of persons which cannot grow, I think it is a great mistake to exclude any part of the class. I can see that you must set some limits if the class you are dealing with may increase in the future but, in this case, there is no such danger. By omitting the widows of certain insured persons while granting pensions to the widows of other insured persons who died before the passing of this Act, one creates a great deal of ill-feeling and misunderstanding because it is extremely difficult to explain to the average widow who feels the need of this relief, when she imagines her circumstances to be identical with those of a neighbour who is receiving a pension, that she herself is not entitled to a pension.

As regards the other matter to which I desire to draw attention, we are in the presence of rather an unsatisfactory arrangement because the Revenue Commissioners are responsible for determining the means of an applicant for a pension, but, at some stage, the Department of Local Government and Public Health comes into the question. Therefore, I submit the difficulty to the Minister of that Department. Officers charged with a task of assessing the means of claimants to non-contributory pensions have made it their practice to regard as income casual gifts received by parents — including widows — from their children. In the West of Ireland that means that if a widow has children in America and gets a few pounds from them at Christmas or other seasons, that gift operates to exclude her from the benefit of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. I think that that practice was taken over from the old age pension scheme, and I submit that where a parent is in receipt of casual gifts from her children or relatives the payment of which she is not in a position to enforce, they ought not to be taken into account as means for the purpose of rendering her ineligible for a pension under this or any other Pension Act.

Mr. J. Flynn

I wish to refer to the question of the means test and to protest, on behalf of the people I represent, against the method adopted by the investigation officers. We receive many complaints in this connection, and we can show that the value placed upon certain receipts by these investigation officers is unfair in every way and that their interpretation of the Act is altogether too drastic. The principle of the Act and the benefits which it was intended by the Government to bestow upon the recipients have been defeated by the system of computing the means. This system is contrary to justice. I appeal to the Minister to have inquiries made with a view to having a more lenient view of the means test taken by investigation officers and some adjustment of the system carried out. In the cases which come before us, the investigation officers have gone beyond the limit. Not alone have they taken upon themselves the role of interrogator in the proper sense, but they have adopted the rôle of detective officers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that the Minister for Local Government has any control over those officers.

Mr. Flynn

I am just making a protest and pointing out that the system of investigation is defeating the whole principle of the Act and defeating the intentions of the Government. The value placed upon the means of applicants by the investigation officers is out of all proportion to the real value as it is known to be in these districts. I appeal to the Minister to get somebody to go into the whole question, if at all possible, as we are receiving numerous complaints with regard to the matter.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

With regard to the first point made by Deputy Dillon, I do not think there could be any doubt as to when the contributory pensions commenced to operate. They began to operate from the date specified in the Act — 1st January, 1936. The people who were then making national health contributions were regarded as contributors for the purpose of the Act. Those who had ceased making contributions even a week before are not, unfortunately, regarded as eligible for contributory pensions. That is an unfortunate position, but some date had to be fixed. It is a hardship on those who have not the benefit of the new scheme, but, as I said, some date had to be chosen. Of course, those who come under the non-contributory scheme are not as well off as those who are getting the benefit of the contributory scheme. I do not see at present, in view of what we have done in the last two years for widows and orphans, much chance of getting a further increase unless the House makes a very strong claim.

Mr. Dillon

Would it be easily possible for the Minister to make inquiries as to what it would cost to give contributory pensions to the widows of men who had been paying into the National Health Insurance Fund prior to 1st January, 1936?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I shall ask for that information, and perhaps the Deputy would remind me of the matter by putting down a question. As regards casual gifts, to which Deputy Dillon and Deputy Flynn referred, a small allowance is made—£6 10s. 0d. That figure was fixed so that it would be in line with the allowance under the Old Age Pensions Act. If there were different amounts under the two Acts, there would be an anomaly. Means tests are everywhere unpopular, but there would be greater anomalies if some means tests were not provided. There are always difficulties and complaints about the items that are taken into consideration.

I have had a number of complaints examined as to investigation officers, and I am of opinion that they do their work well, honestly and efficiently.

Mr. Dillon

I should not wish the Minister to take me as suggesting that investigation officers or appeal officers are unduly hard. I think that some of the investigation officers are very stringent, but I find the appeal officers consistently reasonable. I raised, however, a net point, as to whether receipts from emigrant children by way of gift, which are not enforceable by the widow, should be taken into account as means. I do not think they should, because they are not means in the true sense of the word. The remedy is in the hands of the children — to withhold the gift — and that is surely not a desirable thing to bring about.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister look into that question of gifts from children?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I will speak to the Minister for Finance about it.

Mr. Dillon

It is a special problem, as the Minister will realise, and in the West of Ireland particularly.

Vote agreed to.

Report of Supplementary Estimates agreed to.