Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Jul 1935

Vol. 20 No. 10

Public Business. - Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill, 1935—Final Stages.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 3:—

Section 2, sub-section (1). After the word "instruction" in line 53 and as part of the definition of the expression "the appointed age" to insert the words "and except in the case of a child who on attaining the age of fourteen years is, owing to physical or mental infirmity, neither able to receive full-time instruction at a day school nor to engage in any remunerative occupation, when the said expression means the age (not exceeding sixteen years) up to which such physical or mental infirmity continues;"

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

This amendment, as promised, meets the case put up by Senator Farren and others at the last meeting of the Seanad.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. S. Robinson

I move amendment No. 4:—

Section 22, sub-section (2). To delete in lines 1-2 the words "two years", inserted in Committee, and to substitute therefor the words "six months."

Mr. Johnson

This amendment is put forward on behalf of the Ministry in order to revert to the provision in the Bill as originally drafted, that is to say, to put the widow in the position, provided she has not reached the age of 60, that the allowance when the youngest child reaches 14 is dropped, and the widow's pension also ceases. The Seanad agreed last week that that was an unreasonable proposition and that her pension should continue at least for two years. The case I made then should be repeated. I find by the Official Debates that I made reference, when giving an illustration, to the age of the widow as being 58 years. That was a slip. I might have gone down to 55 years or to 50 years. The point is that a widow who is not 59½ years of age and has children who are receiving allowances, loses her own pension as well as the children's allowances when the youngest reaches 14 years. The House agreed that that was unreasonable. The widow has lost all contact with the industrial occupations in which she might have been before marriage. She has reared three or four children, her husband has died, and she is left with, perhaps, two or three children under 14 years of age.

At the most difficult time of their lives, when they cannot earn or be of much value to their mother, and when she really requires assistance they lose the allowance. The widow's position ought to be such that she can reasonably maintain herself when the children are between the ages of 14 and 16. I think it is unreasonable to ask the House to go back to the provision in the Bill originally. I think that we should stand by the amendment which was carried here, because this period is the most crucial in the widow's life. It must also be remembered that there is a certain means test which may affect the income of the family. The widow's allowance should continue for two years after the allowance to the youngest child has ceased. When she comes to 60 the widow's pension will be automatically reallocated, and she will again receive her pension but, for a few years between reaching that age and the time the youngest child goes off the pensionable allowance, the widow is left at the mercy of the poor law, assuming that she has no other means. The whole of this part of the Bill is based on the assumption that she has not means enough to keep herself and her family. I ask the House to abide by the amendment carried on the last occasion and to refuse to accept the amendment moved by Senator Séamus Robinson.

Mr. O'Farrell

I think we should be given some reason as to why the House should reverse a decision which it took on the Committee Stage but no reason has been given. It is very unusual for the House to reverse a Committee decision on Report Stage unless that decision was arrived at as the result of an obvious misunderstanding. No special reason has been advanced in this case and I do not think that any misunderstanding could have arisen. The proposal is positively cruel. Take the case of a woman who has one child and is getting the pension until the child comes to the age of 14. When the child reaches the age of 14½, if the mother is still under 60, her pension ceases. The child is supposed to have secured lucrative employment by the age of 14½ years and to be in a position to help to keep himself and his mother. Alternatively, the mother is supposed to be able to go into the labour market and, at her age, secure employment, notwithstanding the times in which we live. When we proceed to help the widow and orphan, we should not be so pernickety as was evidenced in this Bill as it reached us and as is shown by the request that we should now revert to the original position. When a Bill like this, which has been overdue for so long, is introduced and when we try to flatter ourselves that we have been a little generous, we should not spoil that rather weak gesture of generosity by cheese-paring in the manner suggested here.

I wonder if the Minister has been supplied with any estimate of the amount of money likely to be involved in this case. I imagine it must be comparatively small. For the sake of a few thousand pounds per year I do not think we should take action which may impose incalculable hardship, suffering and humiliation on a respectable widow and her children, by having her go out to do char work or some menial service to which she was never accustomed, to cover the period from the time her child reaches the age of 14 until he gets employment. All the Committee did was to give her an interim period of two years. Even then, the child would be only 16 years. This amendment would fix the period so that the child would be only 14½ years. I earnestly hope the Seanad will affirm the Committee decision and reject this amendment.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I ask the Seanad to pass the amendment. My main reason is that the other provision would add to the cost of the Bill at least £20,000 a year. That is the minimum estimate I have got. From the point of view of human sympathy, I fully appreciate the arguments of Senator Johnson and Senator O'Farrell. I am sure that every other Senator who would address himself to this amendment would share the same sentiments. Many Senators would like to see not alone this amendment but other amendments passed. I myself should like to see many improvements in the Bill. As I said on a previous stage, this Bill has been long delayed. After many years of agitation it has been brought in, and it establishes the right of certain people—it is mainly an insurance scheme—to pensions. Whatever we may think of the details of the Bill, that is a big step in advance. To get it passed through the Oireachtas is a big thing. Unquestionably, sections in this Bill will, some time or other, have to be revised and improved. Unquestionably, as time goes on, more money will have to be made available. I took a personal and deep interest in this matter, and I made a great fight to get the Bill through. It is a very complicated measure, and the drafting of it took longer than I had anticipated. I made a fight to get it through and to get the necessary money put aside for it. Having got that and having got agreement, so far, I feel that it would jeopardise the coming into operation of the Bill at the earliest possible date if this amendment were not accepted.

I should not be carrying out fully my own bargain if I complied with Senator Johnson's request, and there would be danger that the Bill would not be put into operation on the 1st January next, as I hope it will. If we pass the Bill with Senator Robinson's amendment, and if the Dáil agrees to the final passage of the measure without delay, I hope to have the Bill put into operation by the 1st January— six months earlier than it might be put into force if delays are caused here. In that way, we shall be doing a great deal to help many necessitous widows and orphans. I appreciate fully the strength of Senator Johnson's case but I am obliged, because of the necessities of the case—financially and from the point of view of time—to ask the Seanad to accept this amendment. I think they will be doing the greater good for the greater number by getting the Bill into operation at the first possible moment.

Mr. Staines

I cannot follow the Minister when he says that the Bill would be delayed if this amendment were not accepted. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no necessity to delay the Bill. I cannot understand the Minister's objection to the amendment inserted in Committee. He says it will cost £20,000. There are millions squandered in other ways. Does he ask the Seanad to require orphans to go out at 14 years to work or to let their mothers do menial work to keep them until 16 years, when the ordinary boy is only expected to go out? That is the point we have to consider, and it is not a question of whether this provision will cost £20,000 or £50,000. I think the amendment passed in Committee should stand and I ask Senator Robinson to withdraw his amendment. I think that would be the decentest way.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 18.

Tá

• Chléirigh, Caitlin, Bean Uí.
• Connolly, Joseph.
• Fitzgerald, Séamus.
• Healy, Denis D.
• Keyes, Raphael P.
• Linehan, Thomas.
• Lynch, Patrick, K.C.
• MacEllin, Seán E.
• O'Neill, L.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• Robinson, Seumas.
• Ruane, Thomas.

Níl

• Bellingham, Sir Edward.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Counihan, John C.
• Dillon, James.
• Duffy, Michael.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
• Johnson, Thomas.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• MacLoughlin, John.
• Milroy, Seán.
• Moore, Colonel.
• O'Farrell, John T.
• Staines, Michael.
• Wilson, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators S. Robinson and MacEllin; Níl: Senators Johnson and O'Farrell.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Government amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are drafting amendments. It was not certain whether reformatories or industrial schools were regarded as being included in the word "institution." Amendment No. 5 is to make certain that they are.

The following amendments were agreed to:—

5. Section 25. To delete in line 34 the words "in case such child is not resident in an institution or" and to substitute therefor the words "in case such child is neither detained in a reformatory or industrial school nor resident in an institution nor".

6. Section 25. Before the word "resident" in line 42 to insert the words "detained in a reformatory or industrial school or".

7. Section 25. Before the word "institution" in line 44 to insert the words "reformatory or industrial school or".

8. Section 25. Before the word "institution" in line 47 to insert the words "reformatory or industrial school or".

Mr. Duffy

On behalf of Senator Kennedy I move amendment No. 9:—

Section 38, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) This section shall be construed and have effect subject to the modification that the contributions payable in respect of an employed contributor whose rate of remuneration does not exceed four shillings per day shall be paid wholly by the employer of such employed contributor and no payment in respect of any such contribution shall be made by such employed contributor.

The amendment speaks for itself. A man with a wage of less than 4/- a day is really not in a position to contribute towards this pension, and it ought to be free in his case. A great many people throughout the country, particularly those engaged in the agricultural industry, are receiving such poor wages that they cannot afford to subscribe to this fund. Therefore, I think the pension ought to be free in such cases.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I regret that I cannot accept this amendment. A somewhat similar amendment was debated in the Dáil. The suggestion there was that no contribution be asked for in the case of certain agricultural workers. This, in principle, is the same amendment although wider in scope. The principle underlying the Bill is a contributory one, although that has not been carried out to the extent of 100 per cent. At any rate it is the guiding principle in the Bill and one that I would be very slow to infringe upon for any class or for any purpose. I think it is a wise principle, even in the case of those who are poorly paid, and we know there are many such people in the country. But even for them I think it is a good principle. It is one that puts them on a proper footing. It means that they are not getting charity. They are in the insurance principle once they pay. They are getting something that they have paid for and that they have a right to. In that way it disassociates these widows' and orphans' pensions, in principle, from charity and from the outdoor relief that the poor have been accustomed to for so long. In principle, then, I would not favour the acceptance of the amendment.

Undoubtedly, the wages in certain industries, chiefly in the agricultural industry, are very low, so that the agricultural labourer has to see that he gets full value for every penny he spends. If we want to combat low wages in agriculture or in any other industry we ought to do it in a direct way and not in the oblique way suggested here. For these reasons I cannot accept your amendment.

The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.

Mr. Johnson

I think that this is not a new principle. The principle of exemption from liability on the part of an employed person, and particularly in the case of low paid workers, was introduced, I think, and still continues in the insurance code, and this is an adaptation of that principle.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 10 not moved.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 11:—

New section. Before Section 54 to insert a new section as follows:—

In granting relief, otherwise than in an institution, to a person in receipt of or entitled to receive a pension, a public assistance authority shall not take into consideration any such pension, except so far as such pension exceeds five shillings a week.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is to meet a point that was raised on Committee Stage by Senator Johnson. It is accepting in principle what the Senator wanted to achieve under amendment No. 10 which he has not moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 12:—

12. New section. Before Section 73 to insert a new section as follows:—

73.—Where—

(a) the employer of an insured person, within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Acts or this Act, is charged with an offence in relation to payment of contributions due by him under the said Acts or this Act, and

(b) the Court proposes to make an order under sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907,

the Court shall not make such order until it is satisfied that all arrears in respect of such contributions have been paid by such employer.

This is a redrafting of an amendment that was accepted in Committee.

Mr. Johnson

It meets a point that we sought to obtain.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment No. 13:—

First Schedule, rule (1), sub-rule (2). Before the sub-rule to insert a new sub-rule as follows :—

(2) In the calculation of the annual means of a person for the purposes of paragraph (a) or paragraph (d) of the immediately preceding sub-rule the yearly value of any dwelling house in which the applicant for a pension resides shall be calculated as follows, that is to say—

(i) The first twenty-five pounds of the capital value of the said property shall be excluded; and

(ii) The yearly value of the next three hundred and seventy-five pounds of the capital value of the said property shall be taken to be the one-twentieth part of the capital value; and

(iii) The yearly value of so much of the capital value of the said property as exceeds the sum of four hundred pounds shall be taken to be one-tenth part of the capital value.

On the Committee Stage there was an amendment discussed seeking to have the means of a widow who was applying for a pension under the noncontributory scheme assessed in such a manner that if she were the owner of the house in which she lived—the house being of a certain value—the value should not be taken into account in assessing her means. The new drafting that I have put forward to achieve the same result is based upon the existing law in regard to old age pensions. The method of assessing means for persons under the Old Age Pensions Act, which was introduced in 1932 by the Minister, has been taken as the method of assessing in respect of this particular class of persons. The point is that there is a considerable number of houses in the country occupied by persons who have bought them on the instalment system. They are the legal owners of these houses, and there is the danger, a much more serious danger than, I think, the Minister will allow, that in assessing the value of that property the assessors will follow the course indicated by the Minister for Finance, and say that the assumed income from that property is the difference between what is paid out and what could be gained by the letting of that property. Conceivably, a widow in such a house, after meeting all outgoings, might get £20 of a profit rent if she were to let that house at the highest rent obtainable. But this widow lives in the house. She has lived there and brought up her children in it. She has a property in the house, but not something from which she obtains income. It is merely the home that she occupies. I want to see that such an assumed income is exempted from any calculation of means, and to achieve that I have followed the guidance of the Minister himself when he adopted this method in the Old Age Pensions Act of 1932.

A widow has a house value for, say, £400. The first £25 of the capital value will not be taken into account; for the next £375 the annual value will be taken to be 1/20th. If the value of the property exceeds £400, then 1/10th of the excess will be taken into account. Whatever merit that formula has in regard to old age pensions, it has the same merit in this case. While it may not affect very large numbers—and it may not affect any—there is no security that the Finance Department's method of assessment is not to be followed, and, having regard to the warning we have had from the Minister of Finance, it seems to me that some such provision as this is very desirable. I think the most effective way of achieving the thing I spoke of is the Minister's own formula taken from the Old Age Pensions Act.

Mr. Farren

I second.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We debated the question of principle at considerable length on the Committee Stage. I was not able to see eye to eye with Senator Johnson then, nor am I able to see eye to eye with him in regard to this amendment. First, with regard to this amendment, where he refers to rule 1 (a), (a) there deals with people who do not reside in the house, and I take it Senator Johnson has in mind, giving advantage to a widow who owns or partly owns a house and resides in that house. I take it if a widow owned a house and if she did not reside in that house, that her property should be treated in the ordinary way as property and taken into account. I imagine the Senator would agree to that. But where the widow is owner or part owner, having several instalments paid on her house, Senator Johnson would like to have her dealt with in a more lenient fashion. That we are prepared to do. We propose to put that in regulations. Whatever advantage is given under the old age pensions method will be given to her. I have discussed the proposed regulations with the chief official concerned, and I think we will be able to draft it in a form that will be even more advantageous than that suggested in the amendment.

Mr. Johnson

That will satisfy me, and I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Bill, 1935, do now pass"—put and agreed to.