Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Jul 1932

Vol. 15 No. 28

Old Age Pensions Bill, 1932—Report.

Question proposed:—"That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Mr. Farren

I move the amendment standing in my name:—

New Section. Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—

"4. No pension or superannuation received from a trade union or friendly society shall be taken into consideration when determining the means of an applicant for a pension."

It does not require many words to explain this amendment. I referred to the matter on the second Reading of the Bill. It appears to me that it is the one outstanding point that is necessary to make the Old Age Pensions Act what we all desire it should be. As I stated on the Second Reading, the old craft unions before ever an Old Age Pensions Act was introduced had an arrangement whereby their members paid, from their early apprenticeship, a contribution sufficient to qualify them for what was known as a superannuation allowance in their old age. That meant that after a certain number of years' continuous membership when a man was past his labour, instead of going on the outdoor relief, he had provision made for him by the trade union. Sometimes these men had been contributing for fifty years to qualify for this superannuation allowance. The amount varied. It was given when a man was past his labour, generally when a man was between 65 and 70. The amount varied from 10/- to 15/-. The passing of the Old Age Pensions Act altered the whole equilibrium of the scheme of trade union superannuation. The Old Age Pensions Act allowed a man 10/- per week if his income did not exceed a certain small amount. The result was that the trade union deducted the amount of the superannuation allowance from the amount that the man was entitled to receive in addition to the 10/-. In reality what it means is that you are depriving these old men of 4/- per week because the trade union will not continue to pay this extra amount if it is deducted by the State. You are depriving these people of something they have paid for all their lives, something they are entitled to receive. That is the purport of the amendment. I do not think I need say anything further in favour of it so I formally move the amendment.

Mrs. Wyse Power

I beg to second.

Sir John Keane

I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will give some reason why it is desirable, if he accepts the amendment, to discriminate between different classes. There are many other classes for which I think an equally good case could be made.

Mr. Wilson

I think the principle behind the amendment is quite wrong. In the case where a thrifty person has put by money for his old age, that is taken into consideration in calculating his means for old age pensions purposes. I do not see any difference between paying into a trade union or, say, into an insurance society. This cuts across the whole principle. If the amendment is to operate in these cases it should be applied to every case.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward)

There are certain objections to this amendment. Some of them have been suggested by Senator Wilson and Senator Sir John Keane. I think it will be agreed that there is scarcely any increase of social legislation that cannot be further extended, but I think it will be also admitted, in relation to this particular piece of legislation, that it is a very generous measure and that we should not be unduly pressed to make it any more generous than it is at the present time. The amendment proposed by Senator Farren would ensure, no matter what provision was made by a friendly society or a trade union society for its members or no matter how generous the provision might be, that such income would be left out of consideration in calculating the means of a claimant for an old age pension.

I think that the Senator would be on sounder ground if the same principle had universal application. There are many other bodies, corporations and private individuals, who make provision for a gratuitous allowance to their employees when they reach the age of 70. It could be argued with reason that if the Bill could be extended in relation to trades unions, friendly societies and such other bodies, that it should have universal application. The Senator, I think, will admit that in relation to this particular class of the community we have considerably improved the conditions in the Bill before the House. At the present time food, clothing or shelter are taken into consideration and estimated as means against a claimant. A person with a pension from a trades union, a friendly society or from any other voluntary society could not secure an old age pension under existing conditions. We are remedying that and ensuring that a person can have in addition to free food, clothing and shelter, a six shilling cash pension from a trade union, a voluntary society or other such source. That will ensure that there will be six shillings from such sources and a ten shilling pension from State sources, that is 16/- and the other supplementary allowances that a trade union or friendly society may be disposed to secure for their people when they reach that age. If the trade unions or corporations or private individuals wish to make special allowances for old people over 70 years of age I cannot see why they will not make such allowances in the form of providing a house or food or clothing or shelter, and confine themselves to the six shillings cash pension they would be entitled to and enjoy a full State pension. If this principle were admitted in the Bill, I think a trade unionist would have an equally strong claim. Trade unionists who save their money or invest it, or who are deriving considerable income from such money, would have an equally strong claim to have it excluded from the calculation of means in relation to old age pensions. While I have every sympathy with Senator Farren's object in this amendment, I cannot see that it can be justified in relation to a particular class of the community. I think the Bill is sufficiently generous in its terms to exclude the possibility of giving it universal application.

Mr. Farren

In view of what the Minister has said, I must admit straight off—and I have admitted already—that I think this Bill is a decided improvement on the existing position and achieves almost all we have been aiming at for a considerable time. I see a way now by which any of the trade unions who wish to provide this additional pension for their members may do so. I therefore do not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question: "That the Old Age Pensions Bill be received for final consideration," put and declared carried.

Agreed to take the Fifth Stage to-day.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Miss Browne

I wish to draw attention to a matter about which many people throughout the country have spoken, that is, the total abolition of the means test. Many people think it unfair that poor people should be taxed to relieve a man from the moral obligation of maintaining his dependents in their old age. That is what it amounts to. It is because I have been asked to mention this that I am doing it now. I mentioned it before on the Second Stage.

Sir John Keane

I wish to take exception to the Minister's attitude on the Second Stage on the question of fraud in connection with Old Age Pensions, and more especially in connection with blind pensions. I said that it was notorious in the old days that an amount of fraud was indulged in in securing these pensions and that I hoped that steps were to be taken to prevent such fraud in the future. The Minister in speaking was somewhat flippant, I thought. He said: "I feel strongly that there is a much larger element of fraud amongst the class of people who have the full use of their senses than amongst the people whose sight is affected, and I would much rather catch the people who commit fraud with their eyes open than the people who are partially blind." That is the defence of the two wrongs, which is a very weak argument. I suggest that the Minister should stop every opening for fraud which, in some cases, became a scandal in the matter of blind pensions. I would like to have an assurance from him that every possible step will be taken by doctors and others whose duty it is to prevent such fraud. There is a very great opportunity for fraud now, which will be exploited by certain people, and I think that the revenue should be protected at all costs.

Dr. Ward

There really is not anything to answer in the criticism from Senators Miss Browne and Sir John Keane. I assumed—it is the first time that I have been in this House almost in any capacity—I assumed, and apparently wrongly, that there was some sense of humour here. Apparently, Senator Sir John Keane has not any.

Mr. Comyn

You are very wrong in that.

Dr. Ward

I am sorry. Perhaps if I am here long enough I may change my mind. But neither of the criticisms has any real force regarding fraud in regard to claims to old age pensions or blind pensions. There will be far less likelihood of fraud in the future, for the reason that a person now whose sight is so bad as to render him incapable of following his occupation will be entitled to a pension. In that way, it may be found that a pension will be drawn by those who have a certain amount of vision, but who are unable to follow their occupation. A blind pension is not awarded unless and until the claimant has been examined by a medical inspector from the Local Government Department, and it is on the results of that examination and the report of the medical inspector that these blind pensions are awarded and will be awarded in the future. In view of that, I think that a layman ought to be slow to take upon himself to decide whether a person with defective vision is so blind as to be unable to follow his occupation or not. That may be safely left to the experts. I would assure the Senator, from my own experience and from the experience of others, that there is very little fraud and very little tendency to defraud the ordinary taxpayer. I believe that they are as honest and conscientious as the section of the community represented by the Senator in this House.

Mr. Dillon

As a member of an old age pension committee, I should like to say that I cannot agree with the sweeping charges of fraud made by Senator Sir John Keane. It is not at all founded on fact. That is my experience.

Question put and declared carried.