Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Dec 1963

Vol. 206 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Córas Iompair Eireann Pensioners: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy T. O'Donnell on Wednesday, 27th November, 1963:

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that, in view of the severe hardships suffered by CIE pensioners due to the inadequacy of their pensions, amending legislation should be introduced to enable CIE to pay a just and equitable pension to these people.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

1. To delete all the words after "That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that" and substitute the following:—

", taking account of the establishment in June, 1963, of the Commission to examine the Pension Schemes and the Sickness Benefit payments for the regular wages grade staffs of CIE, consideration of the position of the existing pensioners should be deferred pending receipt and consideration of the Commission's report."—Minister for Transport and Power.

Mr. Ryan

Last week, when we were discussing these pensions, I was dealing with broad, general matters. On this occasion I want to come down to detail. We have the pitiable situation at the moment that almost half the CIE pensioners are receiving only a paltry 12/- per week. The Minister has sought to justify that by suggesting that the transport pensions are an addition to certain social welfare benefits. I should like to point out to him that these pensions were instituted at a time when many of the welfare benefits were not even thought of and they were designed primarily to provide an adequate pension to ensure to those who retired from the transport services reasonable comfort. They were intended to keep those who retired free from want and worry in the latter days of their lives. It is no excuse to say that these people contributed only 1/- a week. Many of the 960 male pensioners who are now receiving pensions of 12/- a week began to work about 1905, certainly most of them before 1910. If they were being paid 12/- a week in those days, and if society had not devalued money, then the 12/- a week then, which the Minister relates to that 1/- a week contribution, would give them a tremendous amount of comfort and security in old age.

It is the obligation of modern society and of the transport company to ensure that these people receive a reward equal in kind to their contribution. It should not be a question of relating it to the nominal value of the contribution. It should be related to what the contribution was worth when it was made. If these men had received pay equivalent to what people are now earning, they would have paid a much higher nominal contribution. Nevertheless, the 1/- paid by them when they were earning 12/-, 15/-, 20/- or 40/- a week represented a considerable levy at that time and I believe there is an obligation on us and on the transport company to see to it now that these people are rewarded in relation to the value of the contributions they made.

Many of us have been arguing for some years past for a different conception of the meaning of pension. Many of us have been advocating a departure from the idea that pension is deferred pay. If, however, we stick to that idea, we should realise at the same time that, if we compel people to defer their pay, we should equally ensure that we pay them according to the value of the contributions they made when we later devalue that pay.

Can the company afford it? Within the past five years, the pension fund of CIE has doubled itself. That is not a bad investment. A fund which can double itself in a short period like five years is, in my opinion, in a position to pay at least 24/- a week to half of its pensioners. The argument is, of course, that this fund is for pensioners of the future. The pensioners of the future, unless they realise their obligations today, will face the same dire need and distress and it is obligatory on us, therefore, to see to it that working men and women and the trade unions realise their obligations where pensioners are concerned and, if there is an increase in current pay side by side with a depreciation in the value of money, pensioners must be immediately and adequately compensated.

I am sure that many members of this House in common with myself could tell heartrending stories about the misery of transport pensioners. Some of them are denied the social welfare benefits which the Minister apparently assumes flow easily to them. Many of them lived in houses belonging to the railway or transport company. Many who have retired have lost these houses. In some cases the widows of transport employees have been evicted. In all these cases, people suffer an unwarranted degree of hardship. These contingencies are certainly not guarded against in a measly pension of 1/- per week. The unemployment or disability benefit, which the Minister assumes is available for men between 65 and 70, is not in actual fact available to many because of the very stringent, artificial safeguards under the benefit code. It is easy enough to boast of these benefits, but, when one comes to apply them in individual cases, all too often one finds that the particular people are excluded.

The Minister quarrels with the wording of the motion. I am not sure whether it is the word "hardship" or the word "severe" with which the Minister quarrels, but he says that "To say that is to utter something which is entirely invalid". There is no point in getting into an argument on semantics but if a person has not got sufficient to feed himself and his wife, to provide adequate medical services, to live in frugal comfort, then there is something radically wrong and he is certainly suffering severe hardship and much more pain and discomfort than it was ever intended he should when these schemes of pension were originally initiated. The sad position is that, because of the little he is getting, he is denied medical services by the local authority. We certainly believe such a person is suffering severe hardship.

Deputy N. Lemass suggested last week that this motion was put down for the purpose of queering the pitch of the Commission which is now sitting to inquire into the welfare and pension schemes for workers. May I underline now that this motion was tabled by my colleagues about this time last year, long before the industrial dispute which compelled the Government and the transport authority to set up a commission. It is a matter of which we must take serious note that even the existing work people of CIE were so dissatisfied with their pensions provisions and so disgruntled with their trade union in fighting for improved pensions that a serious industrial dispute took place. I do not want to harp upon the difference which grew between the men and their union, but it is indicative of the manner in which we as a society have neglected the needs of pensioners. It is clear proof that we need to approach the whole pension code in a different way. If provision can be made, as we know it has been made, for financial assistance to this company for less humanitarian reasons, we feel the time has come to provide financial assistance for this company in connection with the pensions of the 960 people now receiving only 12/- a week.

The sad thing about these people is that they cannot hope for any more. Rather than the pension increasing, when a man is in receipt of only 12/- a week, he is at the end of the pension stage. At one time he received a higher pension, but once he receives 12/- a week, under the present code, that is the end and he cannot hope for any more, no matter what hardships he may suffer. That is very wrong. Somehow or other I believe the existing workers in CIE would not be slow to respond to the please of these elderly transport people and that they would contribute something towards the relief of these men. Now would be the time to do that. If we establish that precedent, we would build up a new pension idea to see to it that the existing workers would pay for the current pensioners. If we intend that CIE or some other national transport company will last, we should be able to make an arrangement whereby the workers at that time will pay for the pensioners of that time and that they, in turn, when they come to pension age will receive their support from the existing workers.

It would be ideal to continue the present system if money retains its value, but we have no reason to believe from the economic and social history of the last half century that there will be stability in the value of money. So long as we can expect a continuation of the depreciation of the nominal value of money, I believe we are obliged to introduce a fairer pension scheme to ensure that a person will receive the pension suited to his needs and adapted to the cost of living in the day in which he is living.

The number of people in relation to the national population is small, but it is a very large number in itself —2,399 pensioners. The fact that they are scattered throughout the length and breadth of the land should not remove them entirely from our consciences. Many of these pensioners live in my constituency, particularly around the old hub of the railway world, Inchicore. It is really pitiful to go into their homes and find them frequently without adequate fuel, undernourished, trying to keep up a good appearance, and in so doing denying themselves some very necessary nourishment.

These are problems which are hard to translate into statutory regulations and a pension scheme, but unless we meet this challenge, we are going to impose additional hardships on these people in the latter days of their lives. We have a transport system of which we can be reasonably proud. The worst the Minister can say about it is that it is more than adequate to meet our needs at present. However, it is there; it is what we have received from these men. We should be grateful for it, and we ought translate our gratitude into a little real kindness by providing more to give them better pensions.

I do not think it would in any way affect the work of the existing Commission. Those people are planning for the future. Most of the 960 men in receipt of 12/- a week will not be with us in another five years, and very few of them will be with us ten years hence. It would be a very small gesture on our part to provide the moneys, if necessary out of the national Exchequer, at least to double the pensions made available to these men. On that account it gives me great pleasure— it is only the fulfilment of a duty on my part — to support the motion so ably proposed by Deputy O'Donnell.

Mr. Corish

I wish to support the motion moved by Deputy O'Donnell. Many Deputies have from time to time raised this matter of an increase for CIE pensioners who retired prior to 1956. It seems that the efforts of those on both sides to do something for these pensioners have been met at all stages by a blank refusal, from the Minister, who says he has no function and refers the matter to CIE, and from CIE, who say they are not prepared to give any consideration whatever to this matter.

I find it difficult to reconcile the Minister's amendment with his speech. If I were to comment on his amendment, I would say he was guilty of dishonesty, but he withdrew that dishonesty in his speech. In his amendment, which seems to suit Deputy N. Lemass, he tries to give the impression that the Commission established in July of this year is dealing with the matter contained in the motion. To his credit, one must refer to what he says later on in his speech. He stated, at column 111 of volume 206:

While I understand that the Commission will not deal with the position of existing pensioners, I consider that the matter is to a certain extent sub judice.....

On this motion, I am not concerned with what pensions the present CIE wage-earners may receive when they retire. What I am concerned with, and what I know Deputy O'Donnell, Deputy MacEoin and others are concerned with, are the pensions of those who retired prior to 1956. The Commission are dealing with those who may find themselves on pension in the future. Contrary to what Deputy Lemass said, the motion is not an attempt to disrupt the work of the Commission. The remarks of my colleague, Deputy Treacy, were not designed to disrupt the work of the Commission, and I certainly have no desire to do anything to harm the work of the Commission, which was appointed last July and is to report by 31st of this month. There is a plea from all sides, including Deputy Lemass, that those pensioners who now have 12/- a week should get some increase. The Minister would have been much more honest with the House if he had said here last Wednesday night that he would not agree to it. He did not do that. His amendment, which seems to me to be designed to placate people like Deputy Lemass, was also designed to evade the main issue contained in the motion put down by Fine Gael.

Deputy Lemass makes his usual contribution in describing this motion as a cheap political trick. That seems to be the only argument Fianna Fáil Deputies have when any criticism is made of them. I do not think it is a cheap political trick. As far as I can see from Deputy Lemass's speech as reported, he seems to be confident that the Commission is dealing with the pensions of those who retired prior to 1st April, 1956. Would the Minister tell him that such is not the case? Deputy Lemass describes how he wrote to the Minister for Transport and Power, to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to the Chairman of CIE and all the different things he did merely to advertise himself whilst accusing those who are genuinely interested in these things of cheap political trickery.

In column 128, volume 206, of last Wednesday night Deputy Lemass said:

One of the matters to be considered, according to the letter from Mr. Leo Crawford, was the matter of the pre-1956 pensions. I am informed that they worked out the contributions and benefits on an actuarial basis. I am informed that these people have applied to be heard. I have not found out if they have been heard—I sincerely hope they have been—but I just have a note that it will be considered at the next meeting of the executive.

There is no evidence that the case for increasing the pensions of these people will be heard by the Commission and Deputy Lemass is foolish to believe that. If that is the basis for his support of the Minister's amendment, he is entirely wrong. I do not think that social welfare benefits have anything at all to do with this. These social welfare benefits are not being given out in a spirit of generosity by the Minister for Social Welfare, the Minister for Finance or the Government. These are benefits that are due to the old age pensioners on the basis of their own contributions, the contributions of their own employers and the legal obligations of the Government to fill the balance.

The Minister says that because old age pensions have increased so much in recent years by reason of the introduction of contributory old age pensions, the last increase and the increase they are to get in January, they should be satisfied and that they should not expect any increase on the 12/-. He quoted other examples where pensions have not been increased over the past 12 or 15 years and he gives examples of workers who did not have their industrial pensions increased. I would remind him that roadworkers have had their pensions increased and that the local authorities and the Minister for Local Government did not relate the pensions these people get from the local authorities to the amount they get by way of contributory or non-contributory old age pensions.

We have an obligation to these people. They are people who, because of the service they gave to CIE and to various other railway companies before that, get a pension of 12/- a week, nearly 1,000 of them. The Minister for Finance believes that roadworkers should receive an increase from the local authorities and I believe that the Minister for Transport and Power or CIE should consider providing an increase to those who have suffered on pensions of 12/- a week, and in many cases less, for years.

I want to tell the Minister that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions themselves believe and subscribe to the idea of the Commission. They are genuinely under the impression that the case of the pre-1956 pensioners is being considered by the Commission. I do not know where they got that impression but I have it officially from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that when the commission was being set up the case for an increase for these people would be considered. Can the Minister explain why the Commission is not considering these people and how it was that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions got the idea that the case of these men would be heard?

The Commission have denied that they have power to deal with the problem contained in the motion put down by Deputy T. O'Donnell. The Congress has asked the Commission to inquire from the Minister whether they have power to consider existing pensions and they have refused to do so. The Commission have refused to ask the Minister whether the case for the existing pensioners should be considered. That strengthens our belief that there should be a greater responsibility put upon the Minister for Transport and Power to answer to the Dáil for bodies like CIE.

I know the Minister will have no opportunity to speak again because he has spoken already but there has been some confusion and I would not object to his clarifying the position by way of interjection. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions is a national body for which I know the Minister has respect, for which I know the Taoiseach and the Government have respect. I would like to know how the confusion arose as to whether the Commission would deal with existing pensions. It seems to me that these people whose case we are considering now have been nobody's children for years but their colleagues in the trade union movement are concerned about them and they genuinely believed that the Commission would consider what could be done.

Whether the increase in their pensions would come from the superannuation fund or by way of a Government subvention, I will not not say but the Commission should have been charged by the Minister with considering whether they would get increases and from what source these increases would be forthcoming. I would ask, on behalf of Congress, whether or not the Commission is going to deal with this question.

Mr. Childers

There was never any suggestion by the parties to the dispute that they should.

Mr. Corish

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions was genuinely under the impression that the case for the existing pensioners would be considered by the Commission. If what the Minister states is the case, I suggest that his amendment is a phoney and should be withdrawn. I agree that Deputy O'Donnell's motion, in the strict sense of the words, embraces the question of all pensions, whether it is pensions for those who retired prior to 1956 or after 1956 or pensions to be paid in the future but the amendment put down is asking, in effect, that the Fine Gael motion be defeated and that we all should wait until the Commission had arrived at their conclusions and reported to the Minister or to the Board of CIE. That is not like the Minister. Certainly it seems to me that, if it is not ambiguous, it is dishonest.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy has misinterpreted what I said. What I said was that when we had the report of the Commission, we would then proceed to examine the question of these pensions.

Mr. Corish

For these people who retired prior to 1956?

Mr. Childers

Yes. The only difference is that the Deputy wants the Commission to study them and that we have decided that when we get the Commission's report, we will study them.

Mr. Corish

Maybe we are making some advance now.

Mr. T. Lynch

What are these people to live on in the meantime?

Mr. Corish

The Commission are charged with reporting on these matters by 31st December, 1963 and the Minister tells me, therefore, that after that the position of those who retired prior to 1956 will be examined?

Mr. Childers

As I said in my speech, the consideration of the position of existing pensions could most appropriately take place at the same time as the Commission's report is under examination.

Mr. Corish

Does this necessarily mean that whilst the Commission themselves are not examining the position of pre-1956 pensioners, when the report on other matters is received by CIE, consideration will also be given to the case of the pensioners who retired prior to 1956?

Mr. Childers

That is a fact and the decision will be made and I suppose the best way of promulgating it would be in connection with the new transport legislation that has to be passed before April 31st.

Mr. Corish

Will this be considered by the Minister? Will the Minister take the initiative in this or is it up to CIE?

Mr. Childers

CIE could make proposals but it is certainly a matter for the Government to consider in the light of the new transport legislation that will be required and that will have to deal with such matters, with redundancy, if there is to be any future redundancy, and so forth. It will have to take into account the general position in all these cases.

Mr. Corish

My attitude would be different if I thought the Minister was going to take some initiative in this, if he was going to advise CIE, in private conversation or otherwise, that something should be done for the pre-1956 pensioners, but the attitude of CIE up to this, in their letters to various Deputies, in their replies to the Minister, in their letter to Deputy Noel Lemass, has been that they are not going to do anything for the pre-1956 pensioners and that the superannuation fund would not allow them to do anything for the pre-1956 people. I wonder, now, is the Minister assuring us that consideration is to be given to the question of an increase for pre-1956 pensioners?

Mr. Childers

I have pledged myself to that in my speech.

Mr. T. Lynch

What part of the speech?

Mr. Corish

Will the Minister say how it is to be done? Is he certain that CIE will give consideration to it or is he going to take the initiative?

Mr. Childers

The Government will have to take the initiative because there are no moneys in the fund out of which extra pensions could be paid, so there would have to be financial arrangements made of one kind or another.

Mr. Coogan

Will there be?

Mr. Corish

I know I am being unfair to the Minister in questioning him like this but if it is going to be legislation in 1965 or 1966, then it is just not going to be good enough. In any case, I want the Minister to clear up the confusion that exists. He is not able to do it now, I appreciate. I want the Minister to clear up the confusion in the mind of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that the pensioners about whom we are now speaking were to be considered by the Commission that is due to report by 31st December, 1963. The time is long past when these people should have got an increase and I trust that as a result of this discussion in Dáil Éireann, consideration of an increase for them will not go on for months and months or years and years but that they will get some increase in the immediate future because, as Deputy Ryan pointed out, many of them are so old that if there is a delay of six months to 12 months, they will not be with us. They have suffered hardship for long enough. That is the reason I support the motion.

Mr. Childers

I made two references to this on Wednesday, 22nd November—volume 206 at column 111 and at column 113.

Mr. Tully

We all remember what happened with Bord na Móna. The Minister made some references to them but we know what happened.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Well, now, a Cheann Comhairle——

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not call the Deputy. I am calling Deputy Lynch.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am very grateful to you for calling me at this time instead of calling Deputy Burke because we would have had a feast of Fianna Fáil claptrap such as we had from Deputy Noel Lemass the other night, if you had called Deputy Burke.

I am one of the Fine Gael Deputies who put their names to this motion. This motion has been down for nearly a year. When I got my copy of the Dáil Debates, I discovered that Deputy Lemass had come in here and said— volume 206, column 125—that he considered the motion put down by Fine Gael to be one of two things, a cheap attempt to make political capital out of whatever the present Commission decided to do or, alternatively, an effort to destroy the smooth working of that Commission. That is an ignorant statement, because the Commission was not formed until six months after we put in this motion. We, as the principal Opposition Party, consider it our right to put down motions, or to bring the Government to book, when we think wrong is being done. That is a duty of any Opposition. I do not think we should be brought to book by Deputy Lemass who said we were trying to make political capital by putting down the motion.

I moved to put down this motion because of the great injustice that CIE are doing to the pensioners in question. I am referring only to pensioners who went out before 1956. There are 1,040 pensioners in receipt of 12/- a week; 327 in receipt of £1 a week; seven in receipt of 33/6d. a week. There are 954 in receipt of 51/3d. a week—these would be some of the later ones. The 1,040 pensioners in receipt of 12/- a week are all over 70 years of age.

I remember the railway companies of Ireland before CIE came into existence, of which these fine people were the servants. The trains ran to time. It was a most unusual thing for a train not to run to time. These men worked for long hours and small pay. They were a highly disciplined and devoted band of people. It is forgotten and has not been mentioned here that during the Anglo-Irish war, whenever the crown forces boarded a train, the train crews walked off.

Mr. Coogan

They were dismissed, too.

Mr. T. Lynch

When they walked off, they lost their jobs. They had no home assistance or dole. They had to go home to their wives and tell them that their jobs were gone. That was a time when jobs were precious and scarce. These men walked out of what they considered to be comfortable and pensionable jobs. Then, when the Civil War started, they had to drive their trains over rickety bridges that had been repaired only with sleepers. I was talking to some of these men the other day. They are fine, decent, brave men who considered they had a duty to perform and that the trains should run. They carried out their duty at great risk. Then they reached the day when they must retire and come out on this pittance. It looked all right, maybe, at the time they came out and the Minister or whoever is responsible for it in CIE can say: "We made a deal with these men"— and that is that.

However, a deal was made with all classes of workers in Ireland—civil servants, Garda, the Army, workers in industry and even with Deputies— they were to have a certain sum—but they looked for a rise and they got it. Since 1949, there have been eight increases in pay but these poor men were forgotten by the Minister.

The Minister will have to make the position clear to me, because I never trusted his figures, when he says the fund is only solvent. My information is that in 1962 the total amount in the fund was £3,428,000. That sum, invested at five per cent, would yield some £170,000 odd. The annual income of the fund is £200,000 approximately from the Board of CIE and £82,000 from the men. That comes to a total of £452,000. In 1962, £213,000 was paid out. There is more than double that in the fund, according to my figures, and I have no reason to doubt them.

Mr. Childers

We took the greatest care to find out the truth about that. I hope the Deputy will take my word for it.

Mr. T. Lynch

I should be delighted to put down a question on the matter if the Minister would answer it. I am continuously putting down questions to him about CIE but he refuses to answer them.

Mr. Childers

I would remind the Deputy that it is hardly likely that a trade union representative would allow a false statement to be made in the matter. I have made the position very clear.

Mr. T. Lynch

I should be delighted if the Minister would make something clear. His image all over the country is that of a ruthless and hard-hearted man. The Minister now has a chance to prove to the people that that image is not correct. There are 1,040 unfortunate men with 12/9d a week from the company with which they worked all their lives. They have only a few years left to them in the world.

The decent thing would be for the Minister to come before this House in relation to this matter because if he wants legislation, he will get it faster than he has got anything in his life. If he wishes to introduce amending legislation to enable CIE to pay just and equitable pensions to these people, he will get that legislation as quickly as possible so that these poor men will have the increase in their pensions for Christmas. There are 1,040 of them in all.

The total number of CIE pensioners is 2,399. If the 1,040 were to get £1 a week extra, it would be, say, £1,000 a week or £52,000 a year. According to the figures I have already given the House, the Minister could do it without any amending legislation. If the Minister could not do it without any amending legislation, if he could not see the officials of CIE and say: "I think you should do this", and if they would not take any notice of the recommendation of the Minister for Transport and Power, then the set-up between the Minister and CIE is very bad. I would ask the Minister to consider doing this. It is the kind of thing we in this House would like to see.

There are Deputies on all sides who would like to see the Minister stand up and say: "Very well, I shall do it"—and it would be as easy as that to do it. God knows, we have given some "hand-outs" during the year but this would be the right kind of "hand-out" to give because it is for people who served this country well. They worked long hours. They made the trains run on time. That is something which I would recommend to the present Board of CIE.

The Minister said the Commission will bring in their findings at the end of the year. Their findings will have nothing to do with the pre-1956 pensions. Why wait until the end of the year? Let the Commission do their own work in their own way. The Minister should be concerned with the plight of these old people.

If the Minister gives us that old CIE line of talk and that old Minister for Transport and Power line of talk: "We shall wait until the Commission bring in their findings at the end of the year and we shall then consider what we can do about it and we shall see what suggestions can be made"—he is just wasting time. I have heard him say on many occasions that this matter will be considered. When this Minister for Transport and Power says that something will be considered or that a man's case will be considered, it is the equivalent of saying that the man is for the block. If the Minister says he will consider not digging up a railway line, then that railway line will be dug up on the following Monday. I do not attach any value to the Minister's statement. The only way in which he can change the image of himself among the people is to state that he is prepared to introduce legislation or to ask CIE—either one or the other—to give these unfortunate people a substantial increase in their pensions immediately.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I support the amendment. I have been deeply concerned about the people who are drawing a small pension from CIE. I was rather amused listening to my friends on the other side of the House shedding crocodile tears about the CIE pensioners.

Mr. T. Lynch

I will go up and vote for what I say here. The Deputy will say one thing here and vote the other way.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not interrupt.

Mr. P.J. Burke

For years I have been listening in this House to pious ejaculations being made by the Opposition members. When we wanted to increase pensions, all types of pensions, what had we? We had a pious resolution just as we have here now, but nothing practical.

Mr. Coogan

The cost of living increased instead.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Deputy Coogan, Deputy Lynch and Deputy Tully all voted against the ordinary increases, even for the old age pensioners.

Mr. Tully

That is untrue.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is a lie.

An Ceann Comhairle

That expression must be withdrawn.

Mr. T. Lynch

We voted against the Budget.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must withdraw the expression "lie". Leaving the House will not excuse him. He must withdraw it.

Mr. T. Lynch

I will not withdraw it because it is true.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Is it in order for a Deputy to make a serious accusation that a Deputy has voted against the old age pensioners when it is not so ?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a political charge and political charges may be made in this House.

Mr. P.J. Burke

My friend, Deputy Flanagan, even voted against the increase for old age pensioners.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I want it made clear that neither you as Chairman of this House, nor anybody else can produce one iota of evidence that I have at any time voted against old age pensions.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no evidence of how any Deputy voted.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

You can take my word for it.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is purely a political charge. Why would I take one Deputy's word more than that of another?

Mr. Tully

Deputy Burke is succeeding in wasting the time of the House. That is what he stood up for, so that nobody else could speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

You will have a chance to speak. You will get the official time as specified.

Mr. Tully

He does not want me to get the chance.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I wish to quote from the Minister's speech:

As Deputies are aware, a five-man Commission was established in June, 1963, to examine the pension schemes and sickness benefit payments for regular wage grades of CIE and to make recommendations not later than 31st December, 1963. The establishment of the Commission was in accordance with the proposal agreed by the parties concerned in negotiations for the settlement of the CIE bus dispute. While I understand that the Commission will not deal with the position of existing pensioners, I consider that the matter is to a certain extent sub judice and that the consideration of the position of existing pensions could most appropriately take place at the same time as the Commission's Report is under examination.

The Minister has stated here that it is his intention to ask the Government to introduce legislation dealing with the pensioners referred to in the motion and I welcome that from the Minister. Deputy Lynch's contribution here was to say that the Minister did not intend to do anything. Any contribution that has been made to the country's progress has been made from this side of the House. The other Parties, Labour and Fine Gael, are crying now but while they were in office for six years, they never tried to improve anything. During the past two years, they voted against every increase. We had a proposal in regard to social services covering the less fortunate people we have to look after.

Mr. Coogan

You will vote tonight.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am wholeheartedly behind this amendment because the Minister has told the House what he intends to do. There is a number of CIE pensioners living in my constituency and I know the position deserves the serious and sympathetic consideration which it will get. Deputy Lynch said he would welcome legislation in the morning but if the Minister for Finance wants to increase taxation to make this money available, the same Deputies who are carrying on this propaganda will vote against this increase. They voted against the Budget which gave increases in social services. We are trying to improve the lot of pensioners and we will give them anything the State can afford to give. The Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party never made any contribution towards improving the lot of these people. They left us in 1957 with not a shilling there for anybody.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is not true.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Of course it is true.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The one thing the Deputy did was to get a job for his son in Telefís Éireann. Let him tell us about that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I ask the Deputy to withdraw that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is true.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I never used any influence to get my son a job.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter is quite irrelevant and should not be introduced.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I shall deal with the Deputy outside this House. I have never been personal in my remarks. I shall refrain from saying what I would like to say but I can assure you that as far as my son is concerned, he went under his own steam and got a job by his own ability.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will not allow this to be discussed. It is totally irrelevant.

Mr. P.J. Burke

If that is the sort of stuff we can expect from Deputies over there——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Deputy started it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I told the truth politically. You voted against the old age pensioners.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We did not.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am sorry, Sir, if I am causing you any annoyance.

An Ceann Comhairle

You are not annoying me.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The usual hypocrisy is going on. Deputy Flanagan cannot argue except on a personal basis. I will attack any man politically but I have never become personal in this House. I can quote instances here of Deputy Flanagan voting against the increase in the old age pension, the increase for widows and orphans, increases in Army pensions. This also applies to Deputy Tully.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Surely that has nothing to do with this motion.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am making the point that if we wanted to legislate here——

General MacEoin

We voted against the turnover tax. Is that not what the Deputy means?

Mr. P.J. Burke

——for an increase in social services, you would vote against it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will refer to the motion.

General MacEoin

We voted against the turnover tax.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy does not speak to the motion, I must ask him to sit down.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am sure that when the Minister introduces legislation to give increases to deserving CIE pensioners, the Labour Party and Fine Gael will start the same thing again and will vote against any increases. If we have to introduce a supplementary Budget, we will not get much support from over there.

Mr. Tully

I shall be very brief but I am sorry Deputy Burke is in such a hurry out of the House because I would like to refer to the last comment he made. If we thought the Minister for Transport and Power intended introducing legislation which he said would be required for the purpose of increasing these pensions, then we would be in a position to support his amendment here tonight. In fact, we know the Minister has nailed his flag to a mast and does not intend to move from it. On 27th November last, speaking on this motion, the Minister said:

I have no statutory authority, however, to require CIE to amend an existing superannuation scheme, in which the initiative rests with the Board. In confirming a new scheme or an amending scheme which has been submitted to me, I may, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, modify the scheme as I think fit whether by deletion, addition or otherwise. Deputies will appreciate, therefore, that in the absence of amending legislation, any proposal for an increase in the pensions at present paid to CIE wages grade pensioners must come from the Board.

Having said that, the Minister told Deputy Corish today that when the Commission submit their report, he is prepared to consider the matter, though he knows quite well his previous record here where pensions are concerned, though he knows he will not agree to give increases in pensions because he wants to tie the pensions to the social welfare non-contributory old age pensions.

We had the example of the Bord na Móna pension scheme, and he quoted it during the same speech, at column 110 of the Official Report for 27th November:

The Bord na Móna pension scheme, on the other hand, is designed to supplement the social welfare benefits to which its employees are enitled so as to secure for them a reasonable all-in retirement income.

In fact what the Minister is doing, and he knows it quite well, is that he is applying a means test at the one end, that having removed the means test from the contributory old age pensions under the social welfare scheme, he now comes along and applies the means test at the other end.

If he can get people to practise what he is preaching, every pensioner will have his pension reduced, although he has contributed to it for so long from his hard work. It is fraudulent to suggest that all we have to do is sit back and wait for this Commission to decide what will happen about the current pension scheme and that the Minister will then make arrangements to bring in the necessary legislation to increase the pre-1956 pensions. The Minister should honestly tell the House before the vote is taken that if the Commission bring in, as they must, a favourable recommendation in regard to pensions, he must and will bring in the necessary legislation to increase the pensions. I challenge him to do that. If he does, the Labour Party will take a different line.

General MacEoin

He promises to consider.

Mr. Tully

Consideration is no use because his record on this question is too bad. It is the worst record of anybody in the House. The Minister has made his point; he has nailed his colours to the mast; but this is one case where he will not ring the change. He succeeded in doing it in the matter of the Board na Móna pensions when he and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, substantially altered a scheme recommended to them and brought out a pension scheme which is a disgrace to the good name of this House.

The Fine Gael motion now asks him to mend his hand. It asks him to say whether or not he considers that CIE workers will have the prospect of retiring to something better than the pensioners now have. One meets old people down the country who are vitally affected by this. One of them happens to live in my village. He worked for 40 years with the GNR and subsequently with CIE. The Minister says that man paid only 1/- a week out of his wages. Does the Minister know what 1/- a week meant to that man? How does the Minister know what 1/- a week means to a man with 12/- a week, a person who has nothing else to live on?

Mr. Childers

I was not making a point of the 1/- a week, only giving a description of the pension.

Mr. Tully

We have in this instance as we had before, people dealing with matters about which they know nothing. We have people dealing with cases, talking about how much it takes to keep a person in ordinary comfort when they never in their lives had experience of families living on less than £1 a week. If the Minister would come down to earth and accompany some of us into the houses of people who have given 40 years' service to the railways, during the latter part, to a State-sponsored body, he would pretty soon find out what 1/- a week means to them. The Minister says the pensions were specifically designed so that people could qualify for them, but now when those people have qualified for a better pension, all the Minister can offer is the hope that if they live for another 12 or 18 months, the Dáil might consider doing something. The Minister knows well that as long as he is Minister nothing will be done about the matter because he has already made up his mind that nothing will be done.

When the Commission were appointed, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, of which I am an executive member, were satisfied that arrangements would be made to have pensions reviewed. If the Congress had not thought that, the strike which occurred his year might not have been settled so easily. This sort of thimble-rigging is simply enticing or encouraging people to use the only strength they have, the strike weapon, to force those in authority to stop taking advantage of them, because when those people go on pension, they have no strength. The only strength they have is while they are working.

Mr. Clinton

I put my name to this motion because I thought it was important and was deserving of the support of every reasonable member of the House. The case for the motion was very ably and clearly put by Deputy T. O'Donnell who seemed to have a very clear picture of the situation. His case was supported not only by members from these benches but by Deputies Corish, Treacy and Tully of the Labour Party. As I see it, pre-1956 pensioners who have reached the age of 70 get 12/- a week and those who retired subsequently get pensions of £1 a week when they reach the age of 70.

The first thing that strikes me is: why men who worked so hard prior to 1956—as Deputy T. Lynch said, much harder than their counterparts in later years—should be penalised in this way. In 1956, the pension was fixed at £2 11s. 3d. between the ages of 65 and 70. At 70, this is reduced to £1. A married man gets in addition to £2 11s. 3d., £3 2s. 6d., leaving him a total of £5 13s. 9d. between the ages of 65 and 70. When he reaches 70, the £2 11s. 3d. is reduced to £1 and the pensioner gets for himself and his wife a contributory old age pension of £4 which means he now gets £5 a week, a reduced income at the age of 70 of 13/9 a week.

How can anybody suggest it is a reasonable thing to happen? A man who has reached the age of 70 has to suffer a loss of 13/9 because there is some peculiar calculation about social welfare benefits that I cannot understand. If he is a single man or a widower, he is reduced to £3 and with this he has to pay for his house and live. How can he do it? I do not envy the Minister who tries to defend a pension of that sort for an employee of a State body. It is a most disgraceful pension and one which no reasonable man could defend.

I cannot understand why the pension is so bad. The Minister says the worker pays 3/- and CIE contribute 6/6d, a total of 9/6d and that can only buy a pension of £2 11s. 3d for five years and after that, £1 per week. If instead, we ask the Irish Life Assurance Company to provide a pension and if we paid 10/- a week instead of 9/6d, the day after that arrangement was made, if the worker died, his nearest relative would get £200 as the first benefit. If he lived to 65, he would get £325 for the rest of his life, £6 5s. a week. If he were prepared to pay 10/- a year extra and if he died at 65, his wife or nearest relative would get £325. I do not see how we manage to purchase such a bad pension for these employees. I do not know why the Minister is not ashamed to come into the House and defend that scheme.

Mr. Childers

I think the Deputy forgets that these pensions are given without regard to the length of service. It cannot be compared with a private pension scheme. Technically, it is quite impossible to compare a private scheme with such a scheme.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Belton

CIE would get even better terms.

Mr. Childers

We do not make any comparisons.

Mr. Clinton

It is not a pension but only a pittance. I ask every reasonable member of the House to support the plea for CIE pensioners who have been disgracefully treated over the years.

Deputies O.J. Flanagan and Sherwin rose.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I shall be very brief.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will need to be brief as the debate has almost run its full time.

Mr. Sherwin

Who is speaking?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am allowing Deputy Flanagan to speak.

Mr. Sherwin

I thought you would move it around.

An Ceann Comhairle

I endeavour to move it around.

Mr. Sherwin

I thought an Independent Deputy might have his say.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I have only a minute or two and I should like to say what I have to say within the time.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should say it very quickly so as to allow the mover time to reply.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

CIE pensioners are the worst paid pensioners in the world. No private industrial or other concern today pays its pensioners at such disgracefully low rates as CIE. For the records of the House, I want to quote from a letter I received from a constituent whose name I am not prepared to give but who lives at Healy Street, Tullamore. He writes:

I retired in June of last year on reaching the age limit of 65. I had 33 years' unbroken service, all of it on the Tullamore-Dublin route as driver. My pension is £2 11s. 3d. for five years, after which it will be reduced to £1 when I qualify for the old age pension. My basic weekly wage at retirement was £10 10s. although my average weekly earnings would have been around £14. Thus, the pension is one-fifth of my basic pay and one-seventh of my average weekly income.... I may say I have been unfairly treated.

I also got a gratuity of £100 on foot of a paid-up life assurance policy, the premiums on which were paid by the company.

I have a second letter for the Minister's information which comes from Roskelton, Kilbrickin, Portlaoise and which says:

I would like to bring to your notice that I am a retired platelayer of CIE. I had 48 years' service. I was 39 years appointed to the permanent staff. My pension is 33/6 a week.

This man is supposed to live on that miserable allowance.

A third letter comes from New Road, Clara, Offaly and states:

I served 50 years on CIE and I was in a key position. I was head porter from 1914 to 1951 when I reached retiring age of 65. When I came to 70 I had the magnificent pension of 6/- a week. After some years it was increased to 12/- a week and that is my present pension. I am supposed to live on that miserable allowance.

A further letter is from Town Parks, Borris-in-Ossory, Laois, and states:

I worked as a platelayer on the railway for 46 years, 1906 to 1952, without a break. Then at 65 I had to retire when I got a pension of 37/6 a week, until I reached 70. Then it was reduced to 6/- a week for two years and since then only 12/- a week. I think this is very unjust after such long and faithful service, never even missing a day's work.

The next letter is from Clonreher, Portlaoise, and it says:

I am a pensioner of CIE and I am 72 years of age. I joined the railway in 1915 and reached the age limit of 65 years in 1955. I had 40 years' service with the company. I received a pension of 37/6 a week for five years and when I was 70 my pension was cut to 12/- a week. I paid 1/- per week contribution to the pension scheme.

A letter from Trumera, Mountrath says:

I was granted 37/6 a week until aged 70. I was reduced to 12/- per week then.

The last letter I shall quote comes from Derrykearn, Abbeyleix, and states:

I started my employment on the railway on the 18th March, 1919 and retired on the 19th June, 1957 with over 38 years' service. I retired just eight years before the age limit owing to unforeseen circumstances. I am 63½ years of age now and the pension I am receiving, and on which I am supposed to exist, is 40/9 a week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

May I point out that the mover of the motion is entitled to reply?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Those are only a few letters which I have received from constituents as I am sure other Deputies have also. I pledge myself to support this motion and if I were Minister for Transport and Power, I would hang down my head in shame at the disgraceful and mean, low rates of pension paid to men who gave long and faithful service to this country.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I think that every aspect of the question has been covered in the course of the debate. The fact that it has run right through the allotted time, together with the fact that so many Deputies have contributed, indicate the merits of the motion.

We in Fine Gael are satisfied that our action in tabling the motion has been fully justified and we are more than ever convinced that the steps suggested in the motion hold out the only hope of ever securing justice for this badly victimised group of pensioners.

We do not and, in fact could not, accept the Minister's amendment which is merely a typical ministerial gimmick of passing the buck. Acceptance of his amendment would only have the effect of still further prolonging the hardship, misery and frustration of this unfortunate group of pensioners. The efforts of these men to secure justice have gone on for far too long and unless steps are taken now to give them some measure of fair play in their declining years they will all have passed away before anything is done. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with a group of men the vast majority of whom are over 70 years. In fact, the youngest of the pre-1956 pensioners will be 74 next April. The numbers are being depleted not alone every year but every month through deaths.

Some Deputies may have noticed a difference between the figures I gave when I was moving the motion last week when I stated there were 1,040 pensioners in receipt of 12/- per week, and the figure given by the Minister when he was introducing his amendment of 960 for the 1st November, 1963. My figure was the figure given by the Minister in reply to a Parliamentary Question on 13th February, 1963, so that from the 13th February this year up to 1st November the number of pensioners has gone down by 80. Eighty of these unfortunate men have died since 13th February. Another figure which I have here shows that in 1960 there were 1,210 men in receipt of 12/- a week and in the three years since then 250 of these unfortunate men have passed away.

There is no time to be lost if we want to give these men some comfort in the few remaining years of their lives. It is true to say, as some Deputies have pointed out, that in five years' time very few will be there. Certainly in ten years' time, none of these men will be left. Surely it is not beyond the capacity of the Minister or the Government—who can come in here and look for millions of pounds for many less worthy objectives—to provide a few thousand pounds to enable these 960 men to live in comfort for the last few years of their lives. Surely the Minister and the Government have not lost all sense of fair play that they cannot take the simple step of providing adequately for these men.

Quite a lot has been said during the course of the debate by the Minister and some Deputies regarding social welfare benefits. I was glad that Deputy Clinton pointed out that at the age of 65, a man gets £2 11s 3d pension from CIE, plus £3 2s 6d welfare benefit, making a total of £5 13s 9d, but when he reaches the age of 70, his total income is reduced by 13/9d. I agree with other Deputies who said that the question of social welfare benefits should be kept clear of this matter altogether. I should like to point out that the men for whom we are fighting have for the past five or six years taken every step that was humanly possible to secure justice. The officers of the Pensioners Association in Dublin and in the provinces have left no stone unturned to bring their plight to the notice of the Government and the scandalous inadequacy of their pensions, but nothing has been done. In the course of my consultations with these men during the past 12 months I have gone through a mass of correspondence with the Minister and Deputies from all sides of the House and even with the Taoiseach. When the Fine Gael Party was approached by me one and a half years ago to make some move on behalf of these men we quickly realised, when confronted with this mass of documentation, that it was futile to proceed with further correspondence. We felt that our only step, as a responsible Opposition Party, was to table this motion.

I will not comment on Deputy Lemass's remarks as they are unworthy of comment. This motion was put down several months before the Commission was set up. I was glad that Deputy Corish adverted to the Commission and to the fact that the men for whom we are fighting are not being considered by the Commission. I was informed by the secretary of the Dublin Pensioners Association that when this Commission was set up, an approach was made by the Pensioners Association to the Secretary, Mr. Jenkins. A deputation waited on him and he then suggested that the Association should make submissions to the Commission, but a week later when the pensioners went along with the submissions, they were informed that the Commission could not receive any submissions from them by reason of the fact that their terms of reference precluded them from doing so. The Minister admitted that the Commission was not examining the case of the pensioners.

As time is running out I will conclude by appealing to the Minister, in the interests of justice, equity and fair play to accept this motion and by so doing, give those unfortunate men a little comfort and hope in the few remaining years of their lives. Justice and equity demand it and public opinion supports it and I am quite convinced that a majority of Deputies on all sides are in agreement with the motion.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 51.

Tá.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Sherwin, Frank.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.

Níl.

• Barron, Joseph.
• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Browne, Michael.
• Burke, James J.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Carroll, Jim.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Connor, Patrick.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Desmond, Dan.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McQuillan, John.
• Mullen, Michael.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Thomas G.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
• O'Keeffe, James.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Mrs. Lynch and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies Crotty and Clinton.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.