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.