Can the Minister say if it is possible for a person who has served as chairman for only one year to qualify for a pension? Must a person so appointed already have had pensionable service in some other capacity?
Transport Bill, 1959—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: That Section 2 stand part of the Bill.
In the kind of scheme we propose, the chairman should have 10 years' service with the company before the pension scheme would apply to him, but if he had served one year, he would have the right to opt out of any scheme as amended— as it can be amended in its operation —through this Bill.
I am not talking of the present or past chairman. What I am trying to find out is the position as the Bill is framed at the moment. If a person was appointed de novo to the position and served only one year, could he, under the terms of the legislation, be superannuated at the end of the year?
In practice, the person must have served for at least ten years. We do not propose to initiate a pension scheme where a person has served less than that period.
The new scheme will have that new provision as well as the existing one?
The new one will be made under this Bill.
Are you going to incorporate that?
The exact terms have not been settled yet but I can say in advance that the service will have to be at least ten years with the company.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill".
This section provides for the payment of £3,636 as compensation to the former chairman of the board of C.I.E. The section states the reason for this provision is that the former chairman retired on the grounds of ill health. I think it is fairly common knowledge—it is an open secret—that the reason given for his retirement in this section is not, in fact, the true reason for his retirement. Before this section is passed, I should like to hear the Minister further on that point.
It is common knowledge, particularly amongst C.I.E. employees, that Mr. Courtney was appointed under the 1950 Act for a term of five years expiring in 1955 and reappointed in 1955 for a further five years which terminate on 31st May, 1960. However, in fact, he retired on 31st August 1958. It will be recalled that for many months we in this House were discussing transport policy and transport legislation until the Bill came before us. My information is—and it is fairly common knowledge—that during the passage of that legislation through this House, all the members of the board of C.I.E., including the chairman, were given notice to quit and that from a certain date they operated on a purely month to month basis.
When the board came to be re-appointed—certainly the appointments were made—I understand that the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Taoiseach, intimated to the then Chairman that he was not to be reappointed. I should like to know from the Minister now whether or not that is correct. That story is being bandied round the country since. It is in the interests of everybody, the Minister himself included, to make a statement as to whether or not it is true. Did Mr. Courtney voluntarily tender his resignation on the grounds of ill health or was it conveyed to him by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Taoiseach, that he should tender his resignation for other reasons? Before the section is passed, I feel that we should have a clear and straight statement from the Minister on that matter.
Assuming that the reason given in the section is the valid and correct one, some further comment is surely called for because I feel it introduces a new principle, particularly so far as the officers and servants of C.I.E. are concerned. The position is that this payment of £3,636 is made up on three bases: loss of retirement gratuity, £300; loss on an actuarial basis, £792; and the difference between the pension and the pay for the balance of the period less tax, £2,544.
Is this new principle to extend beyond the chairman? Is it to extend to the general manager, the traffic manager, district superintendents, station masters, goods agents, clerks, conciliation grades? Are those who retire before the ordinary retirement age on the ground of ill health to be compensated in the same fashion based on their salary or their wage? I think what is good for one officer or employee should be good for the other. If the Minister will now tell me that this is a new departure, a new approach, and the adoption of a new principle, I shall certainly support it, but if it is a special provision, I think we are taking it out of its proper perspective.
The former chairman, we are given to understand from the reply to a question put by Deputy Corry on 28th last month, is already in receipt of a pension of £1,743 15s. arising out of other services to the State and to local authorities. He is still, of course, in spite of his ill-health, director of C.I.E. for which he receives a stipend of £500. The total annual income because of his past services and present part-time service to the board of C.I.E. is £2,243 15s. We propose in this Bill to give him a further Christmas box of £3,636 because of the fact that he did not complete his service with C.I.E. for reasons of ill-health.
Again, I must ask is this provision to be extended to all officers and employees of C.I.E.? I had occasion here earlier this year to inquire into the superannuation scheme for other grades in the board's service. The question was down for answer on 29th April and I discovered that on that date the number of superannuated conciliation employees of the board numbered 2,461 people. The question elicited the further information that of that 2,461 people, 1,094, approximately 50 per cent. of all the retired C.I.E. wages grade staff, were in receipt of pensions of not more than 12/- per week.
The House will be aware that most of the 1,094 are people who have given 30 and 40 years' service to the board of C.I.E. and its predecessors—the Great Southern Railways and the Great Southern and Western Railway —people who never enjoyed anything more than a very depressed rate of income during the time they served in the board. I think it is singularly inappropriate that at a time when almost 50 per cent. of retired C.I.E. people are on a miserable pension of 12/- per week or less, we should approach the particular problem of a man who is already in receipt of a pension of £1,743, plus an annual income of £500 in director's salary in this way, that we should say that C.I.E. cannot afford any more for their conciliation grade employees and, at the same time, bring this Bill before the House.
I hope the Minister will accept my suggestion that he should inform the House and the country, first, as to the circumstances in which the former Chairman retired from the Board; secondly, as to why he finds it possible to make these extraordinarily generous provisions for a particular man, while other former employees of the Board are being doled out pittances; and, thirdly, whether the principle involved in this section is to extend to all executives, officers and employees of the board in future?
In reply to the Deputy this Bill deals only with the provision of pensions for whole-time members of the board. It has no relation to any other principle of superannuation operating in C.I.E. The position of the Chairman is one of immense responsibility in a business with a number of branches covering rail and road transport, hotels, sea vessels and, up to now, the operation of the canals. The turnover is some £15,000,000 a year. The position of the Chairman is different in this case from that of any other person employed in C.I.E. and I do not propose to make comparisons, because no comparison can be made.
This Bill refers to the case of the former Chairman and I can assure the Deputy that the former Chairman tendered his resignation on the grounds of ill health. In fact, he had experienced some prolonged periods of illness prior to his resignation. The operation of the new Transport Act of 1958 involves in some respects even greater responsibilities than those incurred under the old Transport Act of 1950. I am quite sure the Chairman tendered his resignation on the grounds that he felt unable to carry out his duties under the new Act and that it was best for him in his own interest to retire. These are the facts and I am sure the Deputy will accept them.
If the Minister now categorically states that the former Chairman of the board of C.I.E. was not invited by the Taoiseach to tender his resignation, there is no course open to me but to accept that. There are many interested people who will view it in another way but here in this House, I accept it. So long as the Minister has said it, I shall accept it.
The point I made, and which I think the Minister has not answered, was whether or not this principle was to extend further from the Chairman to the other officers and servants of the board so that a man who retires before the normal retirement age because of ill health will be compensated in this manner. The Minister simply said that, of course, the Chairman had tremendous responsibility. Nobody knows that better than I do. I appreciate that fully and it is reflected in the salary he is paid in comparison with the salary or wages enjoyed by other people who contribute their service and labour to the board. Nobody will suggest that the compensation should be at the same level, but would the Minister say whether the principle is to be extended to employees of the board? Naturally, the porter, guard, or ticket checker who is earning £6 or £7 a week would not be on the same scale as the Chairman or executive, but I am asking if the principle is to be extended to him, which I would support, that he should be compensated, because of his early retirement, on the basis of the wages he is earning?
Arising out of that question, I have found that already there are on the pension list of C.I.E. 282 pensioners who retired before the normal retirement age because of ill-health. There are 282 pensioners who did not find it possible to work on to the age of 65 and who were medically certified as being unfit for duty. I find that the compensation they receive ranges from 7/6d. per week to 51/3d. per week. None of them is getting more than £2 11s. 3d. per week and many of them, because of their early retirement owing to ill-health, are getting the miserable stipend of 7/6d. per week. That was, of course, before we had this new principle enshrined in legislation, but, because it is here enshrined for any full-time member of the board in future, as far as I can see, I want to know will the Minister give further consideration to the unfortunate people who have to go out from the wages grade, the clerical grade and even the executive grade and for whom no such provision is made? Will the Minister further consider the matter?
In reply to the Deputy, this does not arise on this Bill and the statutory responsibility for initiating any amendment in the general superannuation scheme of C.I.E. is vested in C.I.E. It does not arise on this Bill at all.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.