Before I deal with the matters directly concerned with this debate, I want to say that I think I must not have been speaking sufficiently clearly the other day when I implied, in replying to Deputy Casey's allegations against the management of CIE, that I did not intend to reply to such allegations. The word left out was "now"; I wanted to wait until the occasion of this debate so that I would have the opportunity of getting the full information with which to refute the scandalous and completely untrue allegations made in regard to the action taken by the management of CIE in relation to the retirement of certain officials of the company.
First of all, I should say that these kinds of allegations are not made by many Deputies. They seem to be confined to very few Deputies. An almost negligible number have made accusations against any of the major State companies of political corruption in the appointment, dismissal or retirement of staff. State companies, under successive Governments, have had on the whole an excellent reputation in that regard and will, I hope, so continue to have. But I will not allow decent men to be castigated here and slanderously attacked when they are not in a position to reply, unless I reply for them.
Deputy Casey, in referring to the question of whether CIE can afford to pay more by way of pension to those who left the service before 1963, implied that there were funds that should have been available. He went on to say:
There is a certain category, a category I describe as the category of political pals, now in retirement. These were the people who, in the alleged re-organisation of CIE, were literally dug up and rapidly promoted. They were dug up out of all sorts of queer haunts and they were given wonderful titles: depot managers, area managers, local managers, personnel managers... The one qualification needed for this promotion was possession of a membership card of the Fianna Fáil organisation... Many Latter-Day Saints appeared overnight, able to produce their Fianna Fáil membership cards... These gentlemen were shot into executive positions in CIE, over which, of course, Dr. Andrews, of happy memory, was presiding.
He went on to refer to the fact that the majority had not done the hard grind on the railway he himself had done and, because they could not do their work and made such a mess of it, they had to be removed. He said:
Do you think they were put out like the 1,063 to whom Deputy O'Donnell referred? Not at all. They were festooned with pensions. They got the benefit of early retirement, not on health grounds but on redundancy provisions.
He continued in that vein. The implication was that large numbers of persons had been corruptly promoted by CIE, despite the system of interview and boards which operates, and a large number of new people were appointed; these were found wanting and it was deliberately arranged, and scandalously, by the management that these would retire with redundancy payments under the redundancy legislation in the 1958 Act.
There was, as everybody knows, a tremendous re-organisation taking place within CIE. Area managers were appointed. The whole system had to be dieselised and new methods adopted. There were long-term studies by industrial consultants and, as a result, a large number of persons were appointed to the service, some from outside and some from inside by promotion. From 1958 to 1964, 201 new executive posts were filled, and that in a service employing some 21,000 people. Of these 201, 75 were appointed from outside by interview. The vast majority of these were professionally qualified engineers and accountants; 126 were appointed from within CIE. Of the 201 appointed from outside, 25 left the service before 31st March, 1964 and 11 between 1st April, 1964, and 31st October, 1966. None received a pension of any kind, as was alleged by Deputy Casey. Of those promoted from within CIE, that is to say, the 126, ten left the service before 31st March, 1964, and four between 1st April, 1964, and 31st October, 1966. Of the ten who left before 1964, three received compensation under the terms of the 1958 legislation. One received a supplement to retirement pension. In addition, there were three other officers who were in the executive grade prior to August, 1958, who received promotion after that date. They were subsequently declared redundant and retired on pension. There was a total of some 81 executives who were not promoted during this period and who were retired. With regard to the pensions festooning hack supporters of Fianna Fáil, these are the facts that emerge in reply to the scandalous statement implying that a huge number of people had been pushed up within CIE by political influence, found wanting, and retired on pension.
So far as this debate is concerned, I have already spoken on a number of occasions on this matter and I do not think I need now go into any very great detail in relation to the present position of these pensioners. There are 400 pensioners who retired before 1st April, 1963, who receive 51/3d a week. Six receive 33/6d and over 800 receive 22/6d a week. Finally, there are some 900 who receive 20/- a week.
Some Deputies asked about the lack of uniformity in the rates of pension. The rates vary because of the options open to pensioners at the time of retirement. Since 1956, pensioners had the option of taking either a standard pension of 33/6d a week at 65 years of age for life or a pension of 51/3d a week reducing to 20/- at the age of 70. An increase recently has brought this figure up from 20/- to 22/6d per week. In fact, all but six of the existing pensioners opted for a pension of 51/3d a week, reducing to 20/- a week, now 22/6d a week. This option was devised so that these pensioners could avail of the opportunity of getting the full rate of the non-contributory old age pension, as it was at the time, after 70 years of age. That is the reason for the variation in the pensions.
There have been, as I said, some increases, small and modest increases, in the pension rate, which cost CIE £40,000 a year. The arrangement was made that pensioners who retired before 1956, and who had pensions on a differential basis, would all be brought up to a uniform level of 20/-a week and at the same time, an ex gratia increase was given to pensioners who retired between 1956 and 1963. The ex gratia increases ranged from 2/6 to 15/- a week, depending on the then existing rates of pensions, and subject to a minimum pension of 20/-and a maximum pension of 51/3 a week. Therefore, there have been two ex gratia increases and I should add that the cost of this pension scheme to the Board is very heavy. The Board contributes nearly £700,000 a year for all its pension schemes, including those for salaried officials as well as the wages grades groups. In addition, the Board contributes £267,000 in respect of the Board's contribution under the Social Welfare Acts and £200,000 in respect of its own welfare scheme. This sum amounts to £1.2 million, and in relation to the revenue of the Board, it is not an inconsiderable sum. It cannot be regarded as a niggardly sum, this total contribution of CIE under all these headings, its contribution to its pension scheme, to the social welfare scheme and its payments under the medical welfare scheme.
I suppose the main argument advanced in this debate, apart from references to the inadequacies of the pension itself, was the argument that the contributory old age pension should not have been taken into account in determining the level of retirement pension. Not only I but the Government have to disagree with Deputies about this. It was the stated opinion of the Government, through the Minister for Social Welfare, that the old age contributory pension is a national retirement pension and the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1960 provided that these pensions would make it possible for other pension schemes to be modified in order to take account of the old age contributory pension. I think this is a desirable provision because it enables the combining of income from both sources, both from the private or State-sponsored company and from the social welfare scheme, so as to improve the level of pensions at the most reasonable cost to employees and employers. I should also make it clear that CIE workers who retired prior to 1963 were awarded the contributory old age pension, although they had made no contribution to its cost by way of increased deductions from their pay, and periodic increases in the contributory old age pension have been passed on to these pensioners even though they had not been asked to contribute to the cost.
I am not saying that these people did not fully deserve the contributory old age pension, because undoubtedly their pensions are extremely modest and inadequate by themselves, but I deny that these men had worked for a lifetime in CIE and had actually earned the contributory pension. In fact, under the Act, they and a number of other workers were quite rightly awarded the pension without having had to pay the contributions out of their wages during the time of their employment. I am very glad that was the case. As the House knows, these contributory old age pensions have been increasing. In 1961, when the CIE pensioners first secured the contributory old age pension, the rate for a man with a wife was 68/6 and that has risen to 107/6, since 7th January this year, an increase of nearly £2 a week in the course of five years. For the single man, the rate has gone up from 40/- a week to 60/- a week. I have given these figures before but I think they should be recorded again in connection with this debate. A married pensioner in CIE, who retired before April 1963, and whose weekly pension is now £1 2s 6d, will receive, at the age of 70, a total of £6 10s a week for himself and his wife. An unmarried man will receive £4 2s 6d.
I agree with Deputies that the combined rate of CIE and social welfare pensions is extremely modest. I hope that sometime in the future it will be possible to increase it. It is true that CIE pensioners who retired since 1963 are receiving higher pensions than these, when the social welfare pensions are included, but it seems to me that it must be recognised that there has been a very big improvement since the coming into force of the contributory old age pension. If the contributory old age pension had not come into force, the position of these pre-1963 pensioners would have been deplorable. That was the purpose in having a national retirement pension scheme, to enable those who were receiving totally inadequate pensions to get something from the State, even though they had not earned the contributions in their lifetime. A number of workers are included in the scheme who were able to take advantage of it.
What we can do in the future will depend on the future economic position of CIE. CIE can only give an additional pension to these men on an ex gratia basis. Under the law, in the ordinary way, the pensions are devised on a contributory basis and there has already been an ex gratia increase. I hope at some future date the economic position of CIE will improve and that it may be possible to do something about this. I am certainly going to keep it under review. As the House knows, ex gratia payments have been made on two occasions, the last being in 1964 and which, with the consent of the Government, I thought it right to ask CIE to give and which they did give.
I hope the occasion may come again, but in the meantime I cannot commit the Government to any such course. I can only point out the improvements that have taken place in the old age pension, the steady increases in the scheme which, in the case of the married man, was an increase of nearly £2 since 1961. I hope by increasing, as rapidly as economic conditions permit, the State social welfare schemes we will be able to iron out some of the obvious deficiencies in private pension schemes and in State company schemes in this way and at the same time, if it becomes possible in addition, to suggest to CIE that they should give another ex gratia payment, I will be more than delighted to do so.
