I wish to second the motion moved last night by my colleague, Deputy Lindsay, and standing in the names of Deputy Lindsay, Deputy Donegan, Deputy Tom O'Donnell and Deputy Ryan. The motion calls attention to the scandalous treatment being meted out to certain categories of pensioners by our national transport company and is another effort to secure some measure of justice for a section of our community who are the victims of a pension scheme which is unjust, inequitable, inadequate and unnecessarily complicated.
The question of CIE pensions has been raised in this House on numerous occasions. Many Deputies have been approached by these unfortunate persons down the years. In November, 1963, I moved a motion of a similar nature calling attention to this problem. Apart from a small increase granted to certain categories in 1954, the position is the same now.
I respectfully suggest that the pensions paid by CIE to certain categories of its pensioners are a disgrace in a Christian society and certainly reflect no credit on the national transport company or on the Minister. The manner in which their pensioners are treated by CIE is the most glaring social injustice in our society at the present time.
The CIE pension scheme is so complex that it is very difficult to unravel it. I have attempted to do so. The categories of pensioners in whom I am interested can be divided into three groups: first, those who retired prior to 1956 and who now receive £1 per week pension; secondly, those who retired since 1956 and who now receive a pension of £1 2s 6d per week; and thirdly, those between the ages of 65 and 70, who receive £2 11s 3d per week.
A feature of the CIE pension scheme which has been commented upon on numerous occasions and which has been condemned is that all CIE pensions are reduced when the pensioner reaches the age of 70 years. The Ministers on several occasions, has justified this reduction on the ground that at the age of 70 years, the pensioner qualifies for contributory old age pension. Before going into that, I shall try to put the pension scheme into perspective. I have already enumerated the categories of pensions —persons receiving £1 per week, persons receiving £1 2s 6d per week and persons receiving £2 11s 3d. The next question is: what is the number in each category? In the debate on the Fine Gael motion on 27th November, 1963, at column 1009, volume 206 of the Dáil Debates, the Minister for Transport and Power said that on 1st November, 1963, there were 2,399 CIE pensioners altogether. On 23rd February, 1966, in reply to a question which I tabled, the Minister told me that the numbers in the various categories were: 1,063 pensioners in receipt of £1 per week; 787 in receipt of £1 2s 6d per week and 372 in receipt of £2 11s 3d per week.
In 1956, amending legislation was introduced but, unfortunately, the increase then granted in the pension at 65 years of age, from 37/6d to £2 11 3d did not apply to those who retired prior to 1st April, 1956 but, in 1964, certain increases were given. Pensioners who now receive £1 per week received at that time only 12/- per week. Their pension was brought from 12/- to £1. The second category of pensioners were brought from £1 to £1 2s 6d and persons in receipt of £2 11s 3d, that is, persons aged 65 to 70 years, received no increase.
We have, then, the outrageous situation that there are in this year, 1966, 1,063 persons in receipt of a pension of £1 a week from our national transport company. Fifty years ago, transport workers when retiring received a gratuity of £500 approximately, plus a pension of 16/- per week. So, in 50 years we have made wonderful progress in the matter of transport workers pensions! There is no justification whatever for the difference in the pensions paid. There should be no grounds for having three different categories of pension. I submit also that there is no justification for reducing the pension when the pensioner reaches the age of 70 years. The pension of £2 11s 3d which he receives from the age of 65 to 70 is little enough without having it reduced to £1 2s 6d.
There are 1,063 pensioners in receipt of £1 per week. Comparatively speaking, that may seem a small number, but we are dealing with men, most of whom are over the age of 70, all of whom gave a life-time of service to our transport system and many of whom also gave sterling service in the struggle for freedom. Surely in this year of 1966 it should not be beyond our capacity to pay a reasonable pension to these men? Surely there must be something very wrong when we tolerate a situation in which a State company can give golden handshakes and exorbitant pensions to the top echelon and, at the same time, pay £1 or 22/6d per week to over 1,000 long-service employees? We have on numerous occasions in this House voted millions for various projects. I have no doubt whatever that the House will now readily agree to whatever measures the Minister will take to remedy this glaring social injustice.
As I said, most of these men are over 70 years. In five years time, or certainly in ten years, most of them will have passed away. In fact, looking at the statistics relating to CIE pensioners for the past five years, one is struck by the annual reduction in their numbers. I appeal to the Minister in the interests of justice and fair play to accept this motion and to give these unfortunate people some measure of comfort in their declining years. I believe that justice and equity demand it and that public opinion will support it. As I said, I have no doubt that this House will agree to whatever measures the Minister may take to remedy the glaring defects in the CIE pensions scheme. I submit that when these pensioners reach the age of 70 their pensions of £2 11s 3d should not be reduced. In the case of those who are now past the age of 70 and whose pensions have been reduced this pension of £2 11s 3d should be restored. This will give us a levelling out in pensions. It would be an equitable arrangement and would remedy most of the defects and injustices in the CIE pension scheme.
