On this Estimate I desire to raise a number of matters which affect the Minister's Department and the administration of the Department as it affects the Civil Service generally. In November last in this House I raised the question of the general treatment by the Government of serving civil servants in the matter of their remuneration. The Minister knows that in July, 1940, he stabilised the cost-of-living bonus which was paid under an agreement, whereby the bonus was increased or decreased in accordance with the rise or fall in the cost-of-living index figure. Although civil servants were treated with exceptional harshness inasmuch as their cost-of-living bonus, to which they had a moral and, up to then, a legal right, was stabilised in July, 1940, the Government felt it was not necessary to take similar or complementary steps in respect of outside workers until May, 1941. I think the attitude of the Government in stabilising the cost-of-living bonus was particularly unfair, that it amounted to a repudiation of an agreement by which the Government was morally and legally bound, and that it amounted to a repudiation of an agreement under which Governments in office for the preceding 17 years had exacted every possible advantage.
I think it was particularly harsh that the Government should have singled out civil servants, and especially lower paid civil servants, for the stabilisation of their bonus in July, 1940, whereas in respect of outside workers the Government did not take any action until July, 1941. I do not, of course, agree with the principle of the stabilisation of wages or bonus. I think the position should be as in other countries—a system of negotiation between organisations representing the workers, on the one hand, and organisations representing the employers, on the other hand. Where that method of arranging wages has been observed, a very much better economic position has been maintained and a better approximation of wages to living costs has been arrived at.
I have pleaded with the Minister on many occasions that he should recognise that the stabilisation of the cost of living bonus in July, 1940, notwithstanding the paltry increases since granted to the staff by way of an emergency bonus, has left the generality of civil servants, and particularly the lower paid Post Office workers, in a very serious financial plight. Many of the lower paid Post Office workers are unable to purchase the necessaries of life. Their low rates of wages are incapable of providing them with a decent standard of living. Many of these workers are in debt. If the Minister were to take statements on oath from Post Office officials, he would discover that practically all of them owe money, because it is impossible for them to make ends meet on the notoriously low wage standards which are such a feature of the Post Office Department. That is a situation with which the Minister can scarcely feel pleased, but it represents the cold economic truth so far as the Post Office staffs are concerned.
Whatever case the Minister might have for the stabilisation of the cost of living bonus in respect of higher paid civil servants—and I doubt if he has any—he certainly ought not to treat the lower paid grades in the manner in which they have been treated. These officers have suffered very severely through the stabilisation of the bonus and their rates of wages are inadequate to provide them with a reasonable standard of living. The speeches which the Minister made here on the subject indicate that no matter how he may try to keep a brave face in justification of the Government's action, he knows in his heart that large numbers of lowly paid civil servants are suffering hardships which no set of circumstances at present operating here can justify.
I must ask the Minister again to examine this matter sympathetically. Large numbers of lowly paid officials, postmen, post office clerks, telephonists, engineering workers and part-time postmen throughout the country, are suffering acute hardships because of the stabilisation of the bonus. I think, so far as the lower paid grades are concerned—those whose wages are not capable of providing them with a reasonable standard of living, not capable even of providing them with the barest necessaries of life—the Minister ought to examine their cases sympathetically and make some modification of the bonus regulations so as to provide these people with a greater emergency bonus than that which operates to-day. It is most unfair that these persons should be included in the application of the stabilisation order. The Minister should consider this subject retrospectively with the object of adjusting the unfair discrimination that has been made against lower paid civil servants, especially the lowly paid workers who serve in the Post Office and whose wage standards successive Ministers for Finance have been compelled to admit are unreasonably low.
I wish to refer to the position of officers who retired on pension in recent years. Many of the officers now on pension were employed in grades where the maximum basic wage was low. On retirement their pensions were correspondingly low. A good number of these officers retired when the cost-of-living index figure, taking July, 1914, as the base, was 50 or 55 or perhaps a little higher. They retired in 1932 or 1934 and the index figure at that time swung between 50 and 65. The index figure to-day is 190. The officers who retired in 1934 and later years have been compelled to live on a scale of pension appropriate to a cost-of-living index figure of from 50 to 65. There was no increase granted to them and they have been compelled to suffer all the hardships of a rapidly rising index figure following a rapidly mounting cost of living. Is it reasonable, having retired an officer on a pension appropriate to an index figure of 50 or 65, to expect that officer, after 40 years' service, to be able to live on that pension in circumstances when the cost-of-living index figure has increased to 190? I am sure the Minister realises that it is most unreasonable to expect an officer to meet the hardships consequent on a rapid rise in the cost of living on a fixed pension based on a low index figure and, unfortunately, based on a low salary.
The Minister is being compelled to recognise, in respect of serving officers in the Civil Service, and the Government are being compelled to recognise, in respect of workers in private industry, that the granting of an emergency bonus was necessary in order to tide the workers over hardships which are inseparable from a rapid rise in the cost of living. If it is necessary to grant increases to serving officers in order to meet the difficulties arising out of a rapid increase in the cost of living, surely it is necessary to grant an increase to lowly-paid pensioners whose standard of income is lower than that of the serving officer and whose plight is all the more acute because of the fact that many of these officers retired when the index figure was substantially lower than it is to-day. The fact that emergency bonuses have been granted to serving civil servants and outside workers generally is a clear indication that the Government recognise that hardship, due to a substantial rise in the cost of living, must be met by increases in the form of emergency bonuses. But the retired officer is as subject to the increased cost of living as serving officers and workers in outside industries for whom the Government are authorising bonuses from time to time.
I put it, therefore, to the Minister that the least the Government can do is to recognise the plight of those pensioners who retired on low pensions and who are suffering acute hardships because of the rapid rise in the cost of living. I would ask the Minister to examine that matter personally and sympathetically and, if he does, I feel convinced that, in his conscience, he must come to the conclusion that an increase in those pensions is justified in order to enable the pensioners to meet the rapid increase in the cost of living. Of course, the Minister may say that it is not possible to do that. He may say that there is some legislative or technical difficulty which prevents this being done. Here, we have an increase in the cost of living, ascertained by the Department of Industry and Commerce to be approximately 70 per cent. over the level for 1939. In Great Britain, the cost of living has risen by only 30 per cent. since 1939, but the British Government have recently been compelled to recognise the equity of granting increases to pensioners, and legislation to provide for an increase in pensions to retired officers in Britain has already been introduced if it has not, at this stage, been actually passed. If the British and Northern Ireland Governments recognise the necessity for granting increases in pensions in areas where the cost-of-living index figure has increased by only 30 per cent., how much stronger is the case for an increase of pensions in the case of a country where the cost of living has increased not by 30 per cent., but by a minimum of 70 per cent., according to the Government's own figures? If the Minister for Finance as a citizen recognises the equity of the case which I am pleading now, he should not wholly divest himself of his citizen feelings and human responsibilities as Minister for Finance. The claim for an increase in the pensions of retired officers is one which is reinforced by every canon of justice. The claim is unanswerable. From the standpoint of its justice, the Minister requires no justification either to the Government or to the country for providing increases in the pensions of those officers who retired on low pension scales.
There is one other matter to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. That is the question of the provision of pensions for officers in the Post Office who are not now pensionable. As the Minister knows, the Post Office Department employs a very large number of part-time officers. These are not temporary officers but are employed in a permanent part-time capacity. They are described as auxiliary postmen. Other classes are known as unestablished classes. Although employed in a permanent capacity, these-officers receive no pension whatever on retirement. I think that the State should recognise that faithful service should be rewarded by a pension in old age. The Government should introduce the necessary legislation to provide pensions for those permanent part-time officers and those permanent unestablished officers. Unfortunately, those grades are not pensionable to-day, with the result that, after serving the State and the community for 40 or 45 years, they are condemned to retire at 65 or 70 years of age without any pension whatever, although they may have served from the time they were 20 years of age.
It is true that a fragmentary gratuity may be granted to some of them but it is always very small, representing no more than a few months pay in some cases and a few weeks pay in other cases. Some of them receive nothing at all. That gratuity makes no provision for the sustenance of the officer in the years which follow his retirement. The Dublin United Transport Company recently felt that it was necessary and equitable to provide a scheme of pensions for its workers. The railway company have now announced the introduction of a scheme of pensions for railway workers. If the Dublin United Transport Company and the Great Southern Railways Company can provide pensions for their employees, why cannot the Minister for Finance, on behalf of the State, provide a scheme of pensions for employees who served the State for 40 or 45 years? Surely, if a private company feels its conscience stricken to the extent that it provides pensions for its retired employees, the State should have no less feeling as regards the provision of pensions for those who served the community for so long a period. Yet, we find the State quite satisfied to allow those persons to retire in penury, in circumstances which compel them to appeal to charitable organisations for sustenance. The State is, apparently, quite complacent as to its responsibilities under conditions of that kind. I suggest to the Minister that, if he had a private employee who had served him for 40 years and was them compelled to retire because of ill-health or old age, he would feel in conscience bound to make provision for that employee's future, and would feel that he had a moral responsibility towards that person to provide a pension to sustain him in old age. If the Minister had that feeling, as I am sure he would, in respect of an employee who had served him personally over a long period, he should have no less generous feelings as Minister for Finance towards employees of the State. The State ought to be a model employer but, from the standpoint of providing pensions for those who are not now pensionable, the State is anything but a model employer. Private employers such as the Dublin United Transport Company and the Great Southern Railways Company have made provision for pensions for their employees but the heart of the State remains stony to demands for provision of pensions for those employees who have served it for the best part of their lives.
I appeal to the Minister for Finance, as I have appealed to him on previous occasions, personally to examine this matter. I feel that there is an unanswerable case for the provision of pensions for those who served the State over long periods and were compelled to retire either through ill health or old age. It is generally recognised in private industry that faithful service ought to carry a reward, and an increasing number of firms are making the necessary provision for pensions for their employees. The State ought not to lag behind in a matter of this kind and I strongly urge the Minister to examine this matter carefully. If he is willing to consider the matter on representations. being made as to the hardships of officers who retired without pensions at 65 or 70 years of age, I shall be only too happy to present him with an abundance of evidence to convince him that the introduction of legislation to provide pensions ought not to be any longer delayed.
