The Party for which I speak in the House has a deep regard and, I might say, a respect for the many State bodies under the Minister's control. We value highly the intrinsic worth of those State bodies: the ESB, Bord na Móna, Irish Shipping, CIE, the airlines, and many others. We have always advocated an extension of the public sector of industries of this kind and it is pleasing to us to know that these industries under the Minister's care are efficient and flourishing and are supplying the most essential services to our people. We would wish to see an extension of these semi-State bodies.
It is gratifying to see an extension of Irish Shipping. We now hold a very large number of shares in the Palgrave Murphy enterprise and the State has taken sole control of the British and Irish Steam Packet Company. We have reason to realise the worth of our Irish shipping concerns because of the disadvantages we experienced during the last war when supplies of essential goods and commodities were very much restricted and we suffered acute shortages by reason of not having a shipping line of our own. I want to congratulate the Minister and his Department on their initiative and on the daring of this venture in taking control of all these essential shipping lines for our country. I trust he will develop them in the most modern way. For some time past I have felt that the Minister was, perhaps, too air-minded and we have had many complaints to make here for a number of years now because of the very bad conditions prevailing, particularly where passengers were concerned, on our cross-Channel boats. Now that these ships are under the control of an Irish Government we expect to see the desired improvements in facilities and we hope we will not have any more complaints from our returning emigrants or from those who are forced, when going abroad, to travel in abominably overcrowded conditions and without proper amenities.
I am glad Bord na Móna is doing so well. There does, however, seem to be room for vast improvement in one aspect. We would all like to see a greater extension of turf development. There are still too many unexploited bogs. I appreciate that the weather has a great deal to do with this but it is disconcerting, to say the least of it, to hear people complaining about difficulties in getting supplies from Bord na Móna. I refer in particular to what seems to be an acute shortage of turf briquettes. I had occasion to complain to the Minister's Department that fuel suppliers in my constituency are unable to get their full requirements of these briquettes. They can get all the coal they want but, in respect of this native product which has become very popular, there is a shortage of supplies. It also seems that the agents who control supplies of briquettes may not be acting in a very fair or equitable manner from the point of view of distribution. There are allegations that some fuel merchants can get all their requirements whilst others experience considerable difficulty. I ask the Minister to ensure that the production of briquettes, for which there is considerable sale, be accelerated and, in time of shortage, devise some system whereby we shall have a fair and equitable distribution of any supplies of briquettes that may be available.
My primary purpose in speaking on this Estimate was to advert once more to a matter I have raised on many occasions over the past few months. I refer to the serious redundancy in our coal mines. The Minister has been made aware of the serious problem that exists by way of Parliamentary Questions from me and other Deputies over the past few months. He knew before this that the anthracite miners were experiencing difficulty in the disposal of their product. He knew that redundancy was rearing its ugly head in most of our mines. He knew that one of our biggest anthracite mines had been forced to close. He knew that three others were also closed and that the owners and miners in certain other collieries are gravely perturbed about their future. In adverting to this serious situation yesterday it is just not good enough that the Minister should give us the same answer as he gave a few days earlier, namely, that he was investigating the possibility of assistance. He said, in his opening speech yesterday, that:
The producers' difficulties appear to arise from an increase in home production and from a falling off in public demand due to competition from other fuels and to a lesser extent to the comparatively mild weather last winter. The Buy Irish Committee has been examining the marketing problem in co-operation with the producers and have, I understand, made certain suggestions to the producers with a view to improving the competitiveness of Irish anthracite.
The best the Minister could tell us yesterday in relation to this serious industrial problem is that the matter has been discussed jointly by his Department and the Buy Irish Committee and the representatives of the principal Dublin coal importers.
The investigation of the remedial measures which may be feasible is being actively pursued and the possibility of some reduction in imports is being explored in the context of the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement.
I want to impress upon the Minister the urgency of dealing expeditiously with this problem. Too many miners have already lost their jobs and their way of livelihood in the Wolfhill colliery in Laois and in the many collieries in Castlecomer, and there are fears for the future on the part of owners and miners at Ballingarry, Thurles, in my own constituency.
It is no good the Minister saying talks are going on and that he is taking a look at the possibility of curtailing imports within the context of the Trade Agreement. If there were formidable difficulties involved we would have expected the Minister to say so, but it seems to me possible for the Minister to act, and act speedily, in this matter by placing, if necessary, an embargo on the importation of foreign fuel thereby giving these mine owners and miners a chance of operating again on favourable terms here. We must have regard to the shocking tragedy involved in the loss of livelihood to both miners and their families. These men have given the best years of their lives in this most arduous and most dangerous employment. They stood us in good stead during the war years. The situation has become so serious at Wolfhill that the people directly concerned, with the support of their clergymen, having called upon the Minister unsuccessfully for urgent aid, are now saying that, since the mines are of such importance to the local community and to the nation at large, they should be taken under State control.
If the position is such that the mine owners are unable or unwilling to operate these mines effectively and economically, the Minister must now seriously consider, in the interests of the nation, whether it is not time for the State to take over the operation of certain of these mines, especially where there has been a request by the local people and clergy. It would be a great tragedy if through lack of Government interest and support, these mines were to cease operation, the machinery to become idle and we were to suffer in addition the loss of the mine workers' skills. Because of the arduous nature of their work, these men commanded good wages. I know some of them got £20 or £30 a week. They were used to a pretty decent standard of living. They have now been dragged down to a subsistence level on unemployment benefit. They cannot be expected to suffer that kind of social disadvantage for very long. They will be forced to emigrate, and we will lose their coalmining skills and genius.
I would ask the Minister to realise that we do not raise this question lightly in the House. We had to raise it by way of questioning on many occasions in the past few months. It is worrying in the extreme that the Minister has, as yet, failed to act in an effective way in grappling with this problem. I would ask him to indicate in his concluding remarks what steps he proposes to take. I would ask him to have regard to the anthracite mine owners' views on this matter and to the sufferings of the workers and their families. The whole matter raises a serious question about the future of anthracite mining here. I would appeal to the Minister, if only as an interim measure, to impose an embargo on the importation of foreign anthracite and give the mine owners a chance of accelerating production and competing effectively on the home market.
It is tragic to think that at a time when our own mines are going out of existence, foreign anthracite is coming into this country in very large quantities. It has been responsible for the dislocation of one of our finest industries—coal mining. It is disquieting that in respect of the heating of homes in a major housing scheme in this city, it was determined only a short time ago by Irish engineers, architects and Government officials that the method of heating should be oil. I regret to say that the oil to be used will not even come through the refinery at Cork. What a boon it would be to the miners, on whose behalf I have the honour to speak, if anthracite were used for heating of these homes at present under construction in Dublin. I would ask the Minister to use his good offices to bring this about instead of using foreign fuel from which no one in the country benefits. I think there is an obligation on the Government to ensure in respect of plans of this kind that not only are Irish materials used but that in respect of heating the source of energy should be some native fuel. If anthracite cannot be used, at least let us ensure that the oil used comes from our own refinery in Cork.
One of the other important matters which prompted me to speak in this debate was the plight of the retired CIE workers. I do not know of any section of our community, certainly not in industry, who have been treated so badly by a Government Department as the CIE pensioners. Down the years we have complained bitterly in this House at the kind of niggardly awards made to these men who have come to the end of their days as employees of CIE. They have been offered parsimonious sums ranging from 7/- to 12/-and, possibly, £1 in fortunate cases.
The kind of pension these people had bore no relation whatever to the cost of living at any given time. One would expect a Minister of State to set an example in respect of industrial pensions and pension schemes of this kind. One would expect him to treat the workers in this State body with the respect they deserve and to take steps to ensure that when they come to the end of their working years, they will not suffer, that in sickness and in infirmity, and particularly in old age, they will have behind them sufficient resources to maintain themselves in at least frugal comfort. That could not be said of the CIE pensioners, who were given a miserable allowance of a few paltry shillings per week. A very bad standard was set by a Minister of State in respect of pensions generally for retired workers. The trade union movement and employers' organisations had a very bad headline set for them by the Minister in these paltry allowances. I know there has been an improvement in these rates as a result of the establishment of the commission which was set up by CIE on pensions and sickness benefits in recent times. I appreciate that these pensions have been improved somewhat. It was high time that this happened.
There is an aspect of this matter to which I take serious exception. The attitude of mind of the Minister in this matter would seem to be that in reckoning pensions for CIE workers, he must always take into account benefits which these people would secure under the Social Welfare Acts. He takes into account the old age pension or widow's pension, as the case may be, which these people would receive. It is particularly unfair that the Minister, in arriving at a retiring pension for CIE workers, should include in that figure the pension which they would derive in any case as an insured contributor under the Social Welfare Acts.
These men, like any other workers, contribute weekly, over a lifetime of service, for certain social welfare benefits. They include, at the end of their working life, a contributory pension by right. Therefore, we question the right of the Minister to take that pension into account in reckoning the amount which his Department will contribute. The Minister gives certain figures in respect of CIE pension rates at the present time, arising from the new scheme. He says a male pensioner opting for the flat rate of pension will receive a combined pension and social welfare benefit—mark you, he says a combined pension— ranging from £6 2s. 6d. to £7 12s. 6d. at the age of 65 and rising to a maximum of £8 7s. 6d. at the age of 70 years. In like manner, pensioners opting for the alternative rate of pensions, that is, a higher rate between 65 and 70 years will, at the age of 70 years, receive a pension of £8 1s. 0d. per week between the CIE pension and the social welfare benefit.
It is unfair that the Minister should include in these calculations the social welfare pension which these men are entitled to, with no thanks to the Minister. They would have received this pension if they were never employees of CIE. When you take into account the kind of contributory pension which will be available in a few months time and the kind of pension which CIE offers today, we find a man coming out on a pension of £6 2s. 6d. if you abate that amount by the amount of the old age contributory pension for himself and his wife, you find the kind of pension CIE are giving in those circumstances is not £6 2s. 6d. but rather £1 12s. 6d. per week.
We must object to the method adopted by the Minister and his officials in arriving at this kind of pension scheme. It is unfair, inequitable and unjust when you realise that under the scheme of pensions set out in legislation passed in this House in respect of county council workers, the Superannuation Acts, they can retire on a pension, depending on years of service, of £6 or £7 a week. They receive the old age pension on top of that. They are regarded as two very distinct matters.
The Minister has dragged down the CIE pension scheme to mere shillings by taking into account the old age pension to which these men would be entitled. That is not normally done. It is an unfair way of computing pensions. It is not done in respect of county council workers. They receive their pension under the Superannuation Acts to which I have referred. They get their pension in respect of years of service and any emoluments over that are all perquisites in respect of the contributory old age pension and unemployment benefit if they happen to be under 70 years of age.
The Minister will understand our reasons for being critical and carping about the attitude of mind which conceived this idea of purporting to convince this House that these men are getting a pension of £6, £7 or £8 a week when, in fact, the old age pension is being reckoned in that amount. When you take away the contributory old age pension, plus allowance for the man's wife, you find that the CIE pension is only a matter of shillings.
I object to some of the Minister's speech where his mind is actuated all the way through in the direction of foisting on every section of his Department, whether it be Irish Shipping, CIE, the ESB or Bord na Móna, the doctrines of these time and motion experts. The Minister is a great believer in efficiency and we are with him in that regard, but, having regard to the kind of work which these men can do, we must say to him that while we are all for efficiency and believe in economy for economy's sake, one must have regard as well to the social consequences of the actions of these people. We know that the savings of these time and study experts, in the final analysis, are created at the expense of the worker. Great savings have been effected for CIE at the expense of tearing up hundreds of miles of rail and dismissing hundreds of workers. Many of these workers have been retired in middle age.
It is particularly demoralising to learn that a CIE worker in middle age, in the forties, is given a lump sum of money and retired, thrown on the unemployed scrapheap, rather than that a genuine effort is made to find alternative employment for him. I know some of these men enjoy pretty good pensions but it would be far more appropriate if the Minister had retained them in some form of employment rather than take this demoralising step of retiring some of these rather young men. This is the policy of these experts. They are concerned with what might be seen to be economically wise but might not be socially prudent at times.
I would warn the Minister against accepting the reports of these experts, without taking time to analyse the full repercussions of their reports from the social point of view. This might well bring about dislocation of trade in a short time. It might well bring about the dismissal of a large number of men without adequate steps being taken to provide alternative employment for them. CIE, in particular, has the reputation of being unscrupulous in this regard and no appeal to the Minister regarding the social consequences of these recommendations, to which I have referred, will have any avail. The Minister proceeded to close down railway stations and tear up hundreds of miles of railway lines. This created redundancy and dismissals involving hundreds of men, despite his responsibility for finding some alternative means of dealing with the problem which this question creates.