Vol. 42 No. 7
I move:—
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of any expenses incurred in the payment of pensions under any Act of the present session to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 to 1928, and the Blind Persons Act, 1920.
I am given to understand that two amendments in my name are not in order by reason of the fact that they would impose on the Exchequer a charge greater than that contemplated by the Minister, as the Bill stands.
That is so.
I would like to make certain references to them. With regard to my first amendment, which is to Section 4, I would like to point out that in the Bill it is proposed in Section 5 of the Act of 1911 to delete the words "United Kingdom" and to insert the words "Saorstát Eireann." My amendment seeks, instead of inserting the words "Saorstát Eireann," to replace the words "United Kingdom" in Section 5 of the Act of 1911 by the word "Ireland." On the Second Reading I pointed out that the restriction of the reading of that section to "Saorstát Eireann" as against "Ireland" would mean that an old age pensioner living in Monaghan, or born in Fermanagh, Tyrone, or Armagh, who desired to cross over the Border for a short time to the place of his birth or to see some friends, would have his old age pension stopped for the period while he was on the other side of the Border.
Section 5 of the Act of 1911 sets out that a sum shall not be paid on account of an old age pension to any person while absent from the United Kingdom or if payment of the sum is not obtained within three months after the date on which it becomes payable. The section as amended by the Bill will mean that no sum shall be paid on account of an old age pension to any person while absent from Saorstát Eireann. I hardly think that the Parliamentary Secretary, in the spirit in which he suggests the Bill is drafted, means to impose such a restriction on an old age pensioner. I suggest he should consider the matter and, with the powers he possesses, he ought to make such an amendment as I suggest, on the Report Stage. He can do so by recommitting the Bill. That would prevent such an occurrence as I have indicated.
The second amendment bears on another matter. The Bill makes provision for an old age pension even to the full amount to persons who may be very comfortably situated, particularly in rural districts. A person may have a large farm, running into 100 to 200 acres. That person may dispossess himself of the farm and pass it over to his children. He may even have capital up to £337 and yet he may receive an old age pension, widening the scope of the Old Age Pension Acts to a very great degree.
We are faced with another aspect of the restrictions in the present position bearing particularly on town dwellers and persons who earn their living by a trade or craft. Most of the old craft organisations or unions had a scheme by which, after a certain number of years of membership, and paying the necessary fees, on reaching a certain age the member of the union or craft received a small pension. As the Old Age Pensions Act stands at present that pension was taken into consideration from the point of view of means, and any sum paid to such a person as an allowance or pension from one of these trade unions or craft bodies of over 6/- a week was taken into consideration. The proposal I make here is that it is inconsistent with the spirit in which the present Bill is drafted that members of some of those old societies, that continue to give small pensions to those of their members who have been members of the society for a period, should be subject to the restrictions to the extent they at present exist. There are many such societies—the Woodworkers do it I know; the Bricklayers, I think, and some others; and I think it is inconsistent with the spirit in which the Minister said this Bill was drawn that such workers who are not in the position that they can live in the comfortable surroundings of a large farm, by which they could amass a capital sum of money up to, say, £300 or £400 or £500, should be penalised by the taking into consideration of the sum they receive from their society. It would be only in keeping with all that the Minister has said from his side that if——
I would like to know is this discussion in order seeing that the points raised by Deputy Mulcahy cannot be embodied in the Bill.
Oh, they can.
The Deputy discussed this matter with the Chair in advance. The Minister certainly has power to embody No. 3 amendment in the Bill. There might be some question as to the acceptance of amendment No. 4, but Deputies are within their rights in debating the suggestion contained in it.
It is for the purpose of explaining the tremendous discrepancy in the Bill as between different sections of the people that I am discussing this matter now and asking the Minister to investigate it and to consider, between this and the Report Stage, whether it would not be entirely out of keeping with the spirit that he has enshrined in this particular Bill to have, in the case of those who have earned their living by a craft, who are of old age pension age, and who are drawing a small pension from their society—that pension taken into consideration in so far as it may be above 6/- a week in deciding whether they should be entitled to the 10/- a week as regards the old age pension.
Again, in order to put it in its proper perspective, take the case of the person with 200 acres of land. Such a person can divest himself of his farm to his children according to this Bill. He may have a capital sum of £337 10s. and get an old age pension of 10s. He might say to himself: "Well, I have a ten years' lease of life and I can exist on my capital at the rate of £30 or £40 a year"—and such persons can spend £30 or £40 a year out of their capital and can still draw their old age pension of 10/-, whereas the town dweller, living by his craft, and living in very much more restricted and poorer surroundings, has no capital and can draw no more than the 6/- a week he gets from his union if he is not going to be cut in his old age pension.
I meant to raise this point on the Second Stage, as I am familiar with one particular aspect of it. That is the custom of certain trades unions of making a certain superannuation allowance. I want to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government and Public Health that the old age pensioner who deserves most sympathy is very emphatically the dweller in Dublin, or in any other city, who is dependent entirely upon the 10/- a week. More than any other type of pensioner in the State, it has always seemed to me that the particular person I am referring to, such as a working trade unionist in, say, the building trade who, from the nature of his work, does not get regular employment, and is not able to save money, particularly if he has a high standard in the raising of his children, deserves our sympathy. When such a man comes to the age of 70 it is very difficult indeed for him to get employment of any kind, and the law sets the allowance which he may get from his union in the way of superannuation against his old age pension. At any rate, that particular sum is counted against his getting his pension—it either prevents him from getting it at all, or ensures that he gets only a portion of it. It is a most inequitable thing that that class of person, who has worked at a craft all his life and been a member of a trade union and, therefore, acted decently and honestly by his fellow workers all his life, should be at a loss when he comes to the age of 70 to the extent of the superannuation allowance over a certain figure he is getting from his union. It is impossible to understand that the Parliamentary Secretary should have drafted a Bill which allows one type of person to get rid of a large farm and does not make full allowance for the type of person of whom I speak.
Further, there is the case all over the country, and certainly in Dublin, of well-established firms who are good employers and who at a certain age put their employees out and pay a small pension. Very often they are reluctant to do that because if they do it the State either does not pay, or reduces, the old age pension. It is really a substantial lessening in the standard of life of these people and it seems to be altogether out of harmony with the arrangement the Parliamentary Secretary makes in the Bill for those in the country in the cases I have mentioned. I would like to know also about the case of a person in the city or elsewhere who owns a house. Am I right in saying that, if an applicant for an old age pension owns a house in the City of Dublin, when his means are being calculated for an old age pension, the house is valued under the Bill at 5 per cent. of the capital value of the house, and that that is taken into consideration? But a person in the country, as Deputy Mulcahy has said, may have a sum of money which is not taken into account, and it seems to be entirely ridiculous that a farmer can dispose of his farm to qualify for a pension and that a town dweller who has worked all his life and succeeded in buying a cheapish house in the poorer part of Dublin, worth, say, £300, should have the valuation taken against his pension. It is quite inequitable. On the specific point raised by Deputy Mulcahy there seem to be incomes of that description and other things not provided for in the Bill. Although the Parliamentary Secretary himself cannot do it I think he could bring pressure to bear upon the Minister to move an amendment with a view to meeting the case that Deputy Mulcahy has raised so that persons with very small incomes should not have these calculated against them when their means are being calculated in connection with the granting of old age pensions.
There is a point I want to make.
This matter arose from the fact that on the Financial Resolution Deputy Mulcahy has raised certain points contained in two amendments of his that have been ruled out of order since they would increase the charge. We should not have a reiterated Second Reading debate now. If the Deputy desires to refer briefly to the particular matter that has just been discussed, I am prepared to hear him, but we should get on to the Committee Stage of the Bill as soon as possible.
With all possible respect, I submit that on a Money Resolution there is no time limit, and it is quite competent that a Deputy should discuss any matter covered by the Resolution.
Quite so, but not matters which are not covered by the Resolution.
I submit the whole Bill is covered.
But not matters irrelevant to the Bill as approved on Second Reading.
I submit that this Bill amends Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1911 which deals with quite a number of things. It deals with the whole question of how the means possessed by the old age pensioner should be assessed. I take it, that an amendment of that throws the whole of Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1911 open to discussion addressed to the way in which the means of the person applying for such old age pension may be assessed, on a discussion of the Money Resolution.
The Deputy is quite right in his contention.
I submit it would be practically impossible to proceed further with the Bill unless the House has a Money Resolution to provide for it. The House, before coming to a discussion as to how to provide the necessary finance, has a right to discuss all the points in the Bill.
Except to increase the charge, and that is precisely the point at issue.
I submit we have a right to ask the Minister if he means to make such provision, as he is the only person from whom an amendment of that sort could be accepted.
Such questions or requests may be submitted to the Minister.
This is the point I wanted to make. In the Official Reports, Volume 2, 31st May-3rd June, 1932, Column 67, I said in welcoming this Bill "many persons make provision through the medium of trade unions and other agencies, such as insurance companies, for benefits or allowances when they reach a certain age. In the majority of cases they are struggling workmen or workwomen who pinch and scrape to make provision for old age."
That is the type of thrifty person referred to by Deputy Mulcahy. I understood on that occasion, judging by a gesture the Parliamentary Secretary made, that he would amend the Bill to include the persons I indicated on that occasion. I have actual contact with the type of persons suggested in the amendment, which appears in the name of Deputy Mulcahy. I am an unpaid person who is administering and advising in matters of this character. I belong to a trade union which has ramifications all over the world, and where they provide, amongst other things, for superannuation for members of this trade organisation by means of weekly subscriptions towards the superannuation fund. The vast majority of these, in fact all of them, are men of some education. They are not overpaid, but a very large number of them make provision for their old age. That is the kind of thrift that is going to be penalised. Whereas the farmer, who is prepared to hand over his farm of twenty, fifty or five hundred acres, to his son, can be brought within the ambit of this Bill, the poor working, professional man, or craftsman, and a good many hard-working skilled and unskilled labourers who contribute to such funds are to be penalised. I understood from the Minister when introducing this measure that, in the largeness of his heart and the spaciousness of his outlook he would not debar such persons as I have mentioned from coming within the provisions that apply to farmers and others. The type of persons mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy are those with whom I have come in contact. Many of them, debarred in law from obtaining the old age pensions, were looking forward to the introduction of a Bill, on the lines of this introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might, at least, extend the same terms to the hard-working and thrifty tradesman and craftsman in the cities and towns, that he is extending to some of the well-to-do people in the country under this Bill. I have, in brief, outlined the type of persons who will be ruled out of this Bill, and I ask the Minister, when he touches upon the matter again to give some indication, because I believe he has no intention of ruling these people out, that he will include them. This is not the stage at which he could bring in a Money Resolution to include them, but I hope to hear from him again upon the subject.
I want to say a few words on behalf of a number of workers. I am not familiar with the provision made by trade unions for craftsmen, but I know that there are a number of employers in the country who, when they find employees that have been in their service for 30 or 40 years are no longer able to continue at work, give them small pensions of anything from 8/- to 10/- per week. That has happened in a number of cases in my own constituency. I think it would be very hard that where employers, who have been grateful for the services of men who had been in their employment for 30 or 40 years, decided to make them a payment amounting to 10/- a week either in cash or in kind, that that should be brought up against those men when making application for an old age pension. As one who welcomes this Bill, I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that if a person with a capital of something like £300 is entitled to a pension that the unfortunate employee who, because of his faithful service over long years, has got an allowance from his employer, should not have that calculated against him. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that matter very carefully. I am quite satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to differentiate between the old age pensioners in the towns and cities and those in the rural areas, and I think that if he is to be consistent he will have to have some regard, at any rate, to the points that have been made on the Money Resolution regarding this particular type of person.
Another point which, of course, can be made is this, that it is much more essential that these allowances should be made to applicants in the towns and cities than to applicants in the rural areas. We all know that applicants for old age pensions who are living in rural areas, whether farmers or farm labourers, have many advantages, from the point of view of the cost of living and other things, over the person living in the City of Dublin or the City of Cork or in any of the provincial towns, and I think that if the case can be made—and I believe a good case can and has been made—with regard to the small farmers and farm labourers in the country, a much better and a much stronger case can be made in respect of applicants from the towns and cities, and I would ask the Minister to consider this matter carefully and see if he cannot meet the views put forward by Deputy Mulcahy and other speakers.
I should like to support Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Morrissey. Deputy Morrissey mentioned employers who, after old and trusted employees have reached the age at which they become entitled to an old age pension and the age at which they are, generally, no longer able to give their service, give these employees a certain weekly pension. If these pensions—if you like to call them pensions—are to be used against an applicant for an old age pension it is unfair and will very often militate against the just treatment of a good citizen and a good worker.
I also wish very shortly to endorse what has been said by the last speakers. I can never see the morality or the justice of estimating in the means of a retired labourer or a retired worker a voluntary contribution granted by a late employer, by a relative or by a friend. Like Deputy Morrissey, I have known numerous instances where such voluntary contributions have been granted by employers or by friends or relatives, but, whether granted by friends or relatives on the one hand or by an employer on the other, I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be entirely inequitable to count that contribution in calculating means. I have seen cases in which this occurred, and I have seen cases, not at all infrequent, where the flow of charity has been stopped by the fear of interference with an old age pension. I have known people to say: "There is no use in my helping him or her, because if I do it will only be interfering with the old age pension," and the money is kept in the pocket of the employer or of the friend, and is not allowed to go where it ought and could go if the ordinary dictates of charity were free to operate. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to make it clear in the Bill, clear beyond doubt, that voluntary contributions, no matter from what source they come, are not to be counted in estimating means.
I find it very hard to realise that Deputy Mulcahy, who has made the plea to-day for an extension of the scope of this old age pensions measure, is the same Deputy Mulcahy who, two years ago, resisted to the point of resigning his membership of the Executive Council the giving of effect to a Bill that was not nearly as far-reaching in its relief as the Bill at present before the House.
We are dealing now with discrimination as against classes.
Deputy Mulcahy's argument in a nutshell is that, since we have widened the scope of the old age pensions code, we should stop at nothing.
Oh, no.
That is the gist of his argument, and I think that Deputy Morrissey should leave Deputy Mulcahy to defend himself.
I must defend my own position, because I was not following that line.
Neither was I.
Why bring personalities in? Why not get on with it?
There are some things that can only be answered by personalities.
Deputy Mulcahy complains, in his opposition to the Money Resolution, which, incidentally, if carried to its logical conclusion, and the money is not provided, will ensure that there will be no improvement——
There is no opposition to the Money Resolution. Remember that.
I am glad to hear of it. Deputy Mulcahy complains that a person residing in County Fermanagh, or anywhere in the Six Counties, who goes into the Free State area will have his pension stopped.
No, vice versa. If a person residing in Monaghan and drawing a pension, goes into Fermanagh on a visit for a couple of months, his old age pension is stopped while he is there.
I do not think the Deputy fully realises the effect of the amendment he proposes.
I agree that my amendment may have a wider effect than the intention I speak of there, and that wider questions may arise on it, but the only way I could see to draw attention to the position that exists is by putting down the amendment I put down. I would be quite satisfied if the Parliamentary Secretary, in considering the points I have raised, would endeavour to find an amendment to meet my simple point, and not to deal with the wider matter that would be covered, if the amendment were put down exactly in the form in which I have put it down.
The effect of the amendment suggested by Deputy Mulcahy would be that a person could come in from the Six County area, without any "residence" qualification in the Free State area, and qualify for an old age pension under the "residence" clause, whereas a person going in from the Twenty-Six County area to the Six County area cannot.
I am not pleading for the amendment of that at all.
We have already provided that temporary absence from the Saorstát area for a period of six months shall not cause the pension to be interrupted. We have also provided, that, in calculating "residence" for old age pension purposes, absence during which contributions are made to the support of dependent relatives in the Free State area, shall count as residence for old age pension purposes. I think that these two provisions ought adequately to meet the matter of residence that Deputy Mulcahy has in mind. I do not think the Deputy himself realises the reactions that the suggestion contained in his amendment would create. The other amendment put forward by Deputy Mulcahy, and supported by other Deputies, would in actual fact secure that a person with £1,000 invested at 5 per cent. would be entitled to the full old age pension. It is argued that because a farmer is allowed to divest himself of his farm, and to hand it over to his son, it is unfair to deprive a town dweller, who is in receipt of £1 weekly, or who has £1,000 invested at 5 per cent., of a pension. I submit there is no analogy.
Or 8/- weekly.
I submit there is no analogy for the reasons I outlined on the Second Reading. If a farmer divests himself of his farm at 70 years of age and hands it over to his son it should be remembered that that son has worked there for thirty or thirty-five years, and has given his labour free. If that labour was estimated at its normal value the son has already bought out that farm, and the father has ceased to have any moral claim on it.
That is a new theory of ownership.
It is an amazing argument.
It is an amazing argument to find Deputies, who insisted two years ago that charity should be taken into account when estimating claims, arguing that a man with £1,000 in the bank, or £1 a week, should in addition get the old age pension. That is amazing to me. It is an amazing thing on the part of people who insisted that, if persons entitled to the old age pension had to enter a poor law institution, they had to become paupers when they entered, had to remain paupers while there, and had to take steps to apply for the old age pension again when they came out. These are the amazing things that have come out in this day's debate. I do not think Deputy Mulcahy or Deputy Hayes are aware of the full reactions of the repeal of paragraph D of the Act of 1911:
Account shall be taken of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the claimant.
I am advised that by the repeal of that section the class of pension mentioned by Deputy Hayes, and I think that mentioned by Deputy Morrissey —a pension to which the claimant is not entitled as a legal right; a pension that is given as a matter of sentiment, or as a matter of kindness by an employer—will not be taken into consideration in estimating the means of a claimant. That section insisted in taking into consideration charity as means. I think that ought to go a long way to meet the point raised by Deputy Hayes.
If the person is not entitled to the pension, but gets it ex gratia it is not. Does that cover the case of trade unions?
That is the point I want to raise, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary has forgotten it. I was dealing with thrifty persons who, through trade unions, have provided for their old age. I feel also that the Parliamentary Secretary was not addressing his remarks to me when he said that there were certain people unsympathetic towards the previous Bill he introduced. At the time I supported the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am supporting the present Bill, but I am very much concerned indeed about the position of men who have, perhaps for 30 or 40 years, contributed to trade unions towards superannuation schemes. There seems to be considerable sympathy for men who work for nothing. I have not met any of them. I met thousands of farmers, but I have seldom met a man who worked for nothing. I do not know any farmers' sons who work for nothing, even in County Monaghan. They are fed and clothed. I am concerned with those who contribute to trade unions, and that is the point I ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to lose sight of.
In a case where a company gives an old retainer, or an employee who gave loyal service for a certain period, a small weekly allowance in the form of a pension, will that fact militate against the claim for the old age pension?
No. I assume that the allowance is something to which the employee is not legally entitled, but is given as a matter of kindness or gratitude for long service.
That is the case I am concerned with.
It will not be taken into consideration.
May I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is sympathetic to the idea that the superannuation benefit, as it is called, that men receive from trade unions should not be taken into account? As to whether they are legally entitled to it I am not in a position to say.
A man is entitled to it by law as he has been paying for it.
It is possible that in some cases he is not entitled as a matter of right, but the Parliamentary Secretary has machinery to discover that. Will he undertake to discover whether that superannuation benefit is legally payable, in the full sense of the word legally? It may not be as simple a question as Deputy Anthony thinks. If it is legally payable will the Parliamentary Secretary take steps to see that it is not taken into account? There is no use telling us he wants to do something and then to discover when the Bill is passed that it cannot be done. The Parliamentary Secretary has machinery to discover what "legally" means in the context.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary has put the position very clearly. He has told the House— and I respectfully agree with him— that where allowances are voluntary and not legally enforceable they are not to be counted. On the other hand a man's legal income must be calculated against him unless it is provided to the contrary by legislation. There is another case of which I have known one or two instances, and that is where an old employer has made provision in his will for an employee. From the Parliamentary Secretary's answer an employee will be prevented from excluding in the calculation of his means the pension under a late employer's will. In the present position I do not see how the Parliamentary Secretary could get rid of it in such a case as I mentioned. The Parliamentary Secretary will see that it would be legally enforceable.
Many points have been referred to with regard to means. The pension officers in rural areas act on a wrong basis of assessment, inasmuch as they value things, not at the rate current in the locality, but on the basis of what they would be worth in a city or a provincial town. I would respectfully suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to bear that in mind and that in future, when the new Bill will be in operation throughout the country, the pension officers should adopt a fair basis of assessment. The other point I wish to mention is in regard to the residence test.
Of course the Deputy is aware that this point cannot be discussed now.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary give me an answer in regard to what he means to do about trade unionists?
I think I have made the position as clear as I could. There was just one point which Deputy Hayes raised that I did not refer to—the case of a house in the city where a man has put his life's savings into it. The income from that for old age pension purposes is to be calculated at 5 per cent.
I understood that was so.
Deputy Hayes appears to think that that is scarcely fair. My only regret is that Deputy Hayes was not an ordinary member of the House in 1929 instead of being in the Ceann Comhairle's Chair, when I tried to get the method of calculation which was then in force changed and which insisted on a 10 per cent. estimate as the income from such property. When I tried to get that reduced to 5 per cent. I had not the assistance of Deputy Hayes.
You missed a great ally.
I am delighted in having the assistance of Deputy Hayes in bringing it down to 5 per cent. from the 10 per cent. which the Cumann na nGaedheal administration insisted on. Perhaps we would have the assistance of Deputy Hayes in bringing it down still further later on.
I shall assist the Parliamentary Secretary to-day or tomorrow. I would love to be assisting him really. We are getting on delightfully together,
We are doing splendidly. Deputy Wolfe appears to understand me better than Deputy Hayes.
On the contrary, I understand the Parliamentary Secretary perfectly but he is not answering me at all. He prefers to abuse Cumann na nGaedheal instead of answering my question.
Deputy Wolfe wants to know whether emoluments would be taken into consideration in estimating means. I am not taking it upon myself to define who is legally entitled to a pension in this State. I do not think it is part of my business in connection with the Bill or the Money Resolution, but I will say this, that if a person is legally entitled to a retiring allowance of 30/- or £1 per week, and that that claim is legally enforceable, I do not feel it is up to us to provide a pension for such a claimant. I do not think that anybody in the House could assume in approaching this question that any such amendment could be acceptable to the Minister.
The Parliamentary Secretary must remember that there is a class whose superannuation or pension allowances range from 6/- to 15/- and in some cases £1 per week. An allowance from 6/- to 15/- per week is a sum which might be considered by the Minister as coming within the scope of the Bill.
May I point out that 6/- per week, no matter from what source, will still leave the claimant entitled to a full old age pension because it only amounts to £15 in the year? I am not particularly strong in mental arithmetic, but if the Deputy calculates how much 6/- per week will bring in annually and compares it with the means schedule——
Will it allow him to get a pension?
Certainly, if he is legally entitled to it, just the same as a small farmer whose income is only £15/12/6 will be entitled to an old age pension of 10/-. I fail to see how a claim can be made for a man who has a pension of £1 per week. I fail to see how any real case could be made for such a person.
Am I to understand it definitely and clearly from the Parliamentary Secretary that the terms of the Bill rule out thrifty trade unionists who have been subscribing for superannuation allowances for upwards of thrifty years?
These are the cases I had in mind. Would the Parliamentary Secretary finally answer as to whether he is going to consider them?
I am going to challenge the Labour Party as to whether they will stand for that. These thrifty trades unionists are entitled to be considered under the Bill as much as well-to-do farmers who assign their farms to their sons.
I would like to emphasise that while the Parliamentary Secretary could not see the justice of doing what has been suggested here, he does think it proper that a person living on a 100 acre farm, with all the amenities available to it and having a capital sum of £331 10s., spending that, as perhaps he thinks it desirable to spend it for the remainder of his life, should get 10/- a week old age pension.
Are Army pensioners——
They are lost entirely.
They will never live to be 70.
Are Army pensioners with 8/- a week when they reach the age of 70 to be penalised, or are they eligible for the advantages of this new Bill?
On a rough calculation a person who is already entitled to 10/- per week by way of pension, the class of person to whom Deputy Anthony particularly refers and who has no other source of income, under the present method of calculating his means, would be entitled to 5/- per week old age pension.
They had that under the old Act.
Let us get the information.
A person in receipt of 8/- a week would be entitled approximately to 7/- a week old age pension, under the Bill.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary are not these advantages afforded under the old Act? In what way does the improvement come in? Again I speak for the person I mentioned all along, the thrifty man who makes provision for his old age, the thrifty trades unionist who, through the medium of his trade union, makes that provision. I shall challenge the Labour Party in a division on this matter. While I declared my intention to vote for the Bill, I shall claim a division on that one item.
This is the greatest bogey raised in this House for some time. We heard a lot of talk about trade unionists making thrifty provision for themselves in their old age. Would Deputy Anthony say how many trades unionists in this country are paying into that particular fund which gives them superannuation allowance in their old age? It ought to be clearly understood by people who are not conversant with the ramifications of trade unionism and trade union funds that you pay into one fund for the protection of your conditions and wages and that you pay into another fund which, by actuarial tables, are made to guarantee that you will receive a superannuation allowance. How many such trade unions are operating in this country at present and how many citizens of this country are affected by the point which has been referred to by Deputy Anthony? Deputy Anthony might as well tell us that the employees of public bodies, who pay into a superannuation fund, are in exactly the same position. This is honestly the greatest bogey raised in this House for as long as I remember. Information as to the exact number of people paying into this particular fund and the exact number of trade unions operating here which make provision for a superannuation allowance on retirement on old age would be very valuable to Deputies before they decide this question.
I can only answer Deputy Hogan's question in a very rough way. It would be impossible to compute the number of persons affected, but the Engineering Union, the Amalgamated Woodworkers' Society, the Bakers' Society, the National Union of Coachbuilders, the Typographical Association, the Dublin Typographical Provident Society with other Unions which I cannot recall at the moment make provision in this way. I should like to know whether Deputy Hogan, who has just spoken about trade unionism, is a trade unionist.
That has nothing to do with this question.
I am speaking as one intimately associated with trade unionism. The number of people affected in this way might be 60,000 or 100,000. I cannot give the exact number, but I have named a number of amalgamated unions which make allowance for superannuation and there are probably Irish unions which have schemes of the same kind. No man could give the exact number of persons concerned right off. Even the Parliamentary Secretary could not give the figures.
It is beside the point, but I may say that I have been a trade unionist since 1912. I will exchange cards with Deputy Anthony any time he likes.
That is not a trade union at all.
Personal abuse of this kind is not doing any good to the cause of Deputy Anthony. He is pretending to be pleading in respect of this provision. He has enumerated a number of societies which make provision for a superannuation fund, but he has not told us the number of people who pay into that fund in order to be entitled to superannuation allowance on retirement. That is quite a different matter.
I have got letters from Kilkenny, Dublin, Belfast, Cork and other places asking me to draw attention to this matter.
I suggest to Deputy Hogan that he ought not to endeavour to draw a comparison between the ordinary craftsman and the man entitled to a pension under a local authority. In the second place, I suggest to him that the smaller the number of persons Deputy Anthony could quote to him as paying into these funds, the more it would indicate that persons are kept from making the particular type of thrifty provision these societies are designed to enable them to do by the operation of the Old Age Pensions Acts up to the present. That is being continued under an Act which provides much greater facilities for other classes.
