Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 1959

Vol. 51 No. 12

Transport Bill, 1959—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

The Bill provides that —(a) the Minister for Transport and Power, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may from time to time make a superannuation scheme or schemes for whole-time members of the Board of Coras Iompair Éireann; and (b) Coras Iompair Éireann be authorised to pay Mr. Thaddeus C. Courtney, a former Chairman of the Board, a sum of £3,636 as compensation for the loss sustained by him by reason of his resignation as from 31st August, 1958, on the ground of ill-health, from the office of Chairman of the Board. Mr. Courtney's period of office was not due to expire until 31st May, 1960.

The present Chairman of Coras Iompair Éireann—Dr. C.S. Andrews —was appointed for a period of five years from the 1st September, 1958. He had previously been whole-time Managing Director of Bord na Móna and had enjoyed the benefit of a superannuation scheme made under Section 5 of the Turf Development Act, 1953. On resignation from Bord na Móna, he lost the right to superannuation benefit under that body's scheme. On his appointment as Chairman of Coras Iompair Éireann, it was decided that he should be given credit for superannuation purposes in his new appointment for his prior service with State bodies.

The Transport Act, 1950 made specific provision for the superannuation of Mr. T.C. Courtney who was then Chairman of Coras Iompair Éireann. The provisions for the Chairman in this Act were framed to suit the particular circumstances of Mr. Courtney's services. The Act also provided superannuation benefits for other whole-time members of the Board. None of these provisions would be appropriate to the position of Dr. Andrews and, accordingly, if they were to be adapted to meet his circumstances, very substantial amendment of the Transport Act would be required.

I consider, however, that, instead of such amendment related to the individual needs of particular appointees, it is preferable to provide in this Bill that power be given to enable the Minister for Transport and Power, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to prepare superannuation schemes covering whole-time members, including the Chairman of Coras Iompair Éireann. This method is in line with that adopted in recent legislation in regard to the superannuation of whole-time members of State or semi-State bodies as, for example, in the Turf Development Act, 1953. This course avoids the necessity for the frequent amendment of Acts of the Oireachtas when there is a change of personnel.

Any superannuation scheme to be made under the enabling provisions of this Bill will, in accordance with the normal practice and as provided in the Bill, be laid before each House of the Oireachtas for the appropriate period.

Senators might wish to know for information that the intention is that Dr. Andrews' superannuation terms should be on the broad lines of those for Mr. Courtney, his predecessor, namely a pension of 1/80th of retiring salary for each year of pensionable service with a maximum of half pay, together with a retirement gratuity of 1/30th for each year of pensionable service, subject to a maximum of 1½ years' salary. It is intended also that, in order to qualify for superannuation, a person must have had not less than 10 years' pensionable service. The reference to 12 months' service in certain sections of the Bill is that members of the Board who have had at least that period of service have the right to opt out of amending superannuation schemes. The period of 12 months mentioned is not related to the period of service necessary in order to qualify for pension.

As mentioned, the superannuation position of Mr. T.C. Courtney as Chairman of Coras Iompair Éireann was specifically provided for in the Second Schedule to the Transport Act, 1950, and on his resignation on the grounds of ill-health, he became entitled to a pension of 1/80th of his yearly salary for each completed year of pensionable service, together with a gratuity of 1/30th of the yearly salary for each completed year of pensionable service, subject to a maximum pension of half his salary and a maximum gratuity of 1½ times that salary.

On his resignation on 31st August, 1958, Mr. Courtney had not become entitled to maximum superannuation benefits and his resignation before the expiry of his term of office on the 31st May, 1960, meant that he obtained a reduced pension and reduced retirement gratuity. It also involved him in the loss for the balance of the period of the difference between his pension and his salary as Chairman. It has been calculated that this loss amounts to £3,636 made up as follows:—

Loss on retirement gratuity	£300
Loss (on actuarial basis) of pension	£792
Difference between pension and pay for the balance of the appointment period, less tax	£2,544
Total loss	£3,636

I recommend the Bill for the approval of the House.

Professor Hayes

We are in agreement with this Bill. It has been explained very clearly by the Minister. It is certainly better to do this rather than amend existing legislation. Superannuation schemes should be drawn up from time to time as they become necessary, particularly as the Bill provides that every such scheme shall be laid before the Oireachtas and may be annulled by resolution of either House. Generally, the Bill deserves to be supported. With regard to Mr. Courtney, the provisions are not excessive. They correspond to provisions obtaining in a great many places and in State employment generally. We are, therefore, in favour of the Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to support the Bill. It speaks for itself and the Minister is to be complimented on the very clear way in which he defended it and the detailed manner in which he dealt with its provisions.

Two questions occur to me. One is a general question. The Minister seemed to imply that this Bill would help to meet the situation where an employee entitled to superannuation benefit in one State body transfers his services to another State body. It occurred to me to wonder whether it would not be better to have superannuation schemes to cover employees of all the State bodies instead of having individual schemes which are similar in character. I should like to hear the Minister's opinion as to whether it would make for smoother running, as it were, if there were one single superannuation scheme allowing employees to pass from employment by one body to another, very much as University lecturers or professors in Britain can pass from one body to another and retain superannuation rights in each area of employment.

The second point has reference to this clause referring to Mr. Courtney. It is always a bit awkward and invidious to refer to specific persons. The gentleman in question is not here and cannot speak for himself, but his name is enshrined in the Bill. The Minister has given us in great detail —I think it is right that he should do so from the point of view of the public —the exact basis for the calculation of this sum of £3,636 which we are being asked to vote as compensation for the loss sustained by Mr. Courtney by reason of his resignation. Senator Hayes has told us this is common form and takes place in other regions of our economy also. I am not quite convinced of that.

It is suggested that Mr. Courtney be given complete compensation for the loss sustained by him by reason of his falling ill in 1958. I do not think that is the usual practice in relation to civil servants. I do not think there is the practice, the intention or the wealth on the part of the State to compensate a civil servant who retires owing to ill health before he reaches the normal retiring age. I am open to correction here, but I do not think it is the practice of the State to compensate him in full and make up in a money grant for all the money he loses by reason of his retiring before he reaches maximum benefit age.

In another country, across the water, we had the case the other day of a person in a very prominent position in Parliament retiring on grounds of ill health and immediately taking up a job at a salary of £10,000 per year. I do not know anything at all about the ill-health in question here. I do not know whether in fact the ill-health has incapacitated this gentleman from further work of any kind, but I am a little hesitant as to the justice of making this very large grant to a person who has been very adequately paid, I think, down the years and who has fallen, as it were, into this accident of ill-health, something which besets all of us, and who is to be compensated in full for the loss sustained. With respect to Senator Hayes, I would suggest not all of us by any means could hope for the same kind of treatment, even from the State.

Mr. Murphy

This is a Bill to amend the Transport Act of 1950 in relation to the superannuation arrangements of full-time members of the board of C.I.E. I fully accept the principle that full-time members of the board—it is only the chairmen who are full-time members — should have adequate superannuation provisions made for them, if necessary, by an Act of the Oireachtas. I am, however, somewhat concerned as to the mechanics of this Bill.

Looking at the position of Mr. Courtney—and what I am saying is not in any way personal—we have the situation that we are not, as the Minister said, authorising the board to pay Mr. Courtney £3,000 odd compensation. We are compelling the board of C.I.E. to pay £3,636. The board of C.I.E. has already been compelled, by the 1950 legislation, to pay Mr. Courtney a pension of £1,700 approximately and a gratuity of, as I calculate, somewhere between £4,000 and £5,000. Now the Oireachtas is asked to compel C.I.E. to pay £3,636.

Remember that I said at the start that I think adequate provision should be made for superannuation arrangements for these people who take on the onerous task of chairman of the public transport undertaking. The board is being asked to pay this sum now and there will be a lump sum paid to Dr. Andrews when he comes to retire—I hope that will not be too early because I think he is a very successful Chairman. C.I.E. is being asked to pay this sum and it is not calculated on service in C.I.E. only but on service in C.I.E. and in previous employments.

As I said, the board is being compelled to pay Mr. Courtney a certain amount, the pension of £1,700, and gratuity of £4,000 or £5,000, and another lump sum of £3,636. Mr. Courtney was with the board of C.I.E. for ten years. I think it is quite wrong that that charge should fall on the last employer. It should be spread out and shared by the previous employers.

Mr. Courtney had previous service with the Department of Local Government and I think with the Tipperary County Council, and in calculating his pension and lump sum, that previous service is taken into account but the charge is laid solely on C.I.E. Again apparently the position will be that Dr. Andrews, who had previous service with Bord na Mona, will have that previous service calculated in assessing his annuity and lump sum, which is only right, but the cost will be borne solely by C.I.E.

In the Dáil, I noticed that Deputy Sweetman pressed the Minister on this point. Deputy Sweetman apparently was under the impression that there was some arrangement for sharing the cost of superannuation with the previous employers. I do not think that is correct, according to the terms of the 1950 legislation, and according to the terms of the Bill we are now asked to pass. I would ask the Minister to look at that aspect of the matter and see if it would not be better, and indeed more equitable, that the cost of the superannuation should be shared and not simply left, by Act of the Oireachtas, on the shoulders of the last employer. There is a new principle embodied in this Bill also and Senator Hayes was wrong in assuming that this was normal practice in regard to retirement owing to ill-health.

Professor Hayes

What I meant to say was the basis of the calculation— the eightieths and the thirtieths and the sixtieths—was normal for the purpose of making the calculation.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister is asking the House to agree to this new principle and I fully accept and welcome it. What is asked here is that Mr. Courtney should be compensated in full for the years he did not serve to complete his period of employment because he had to retire owing to ill-health. We are compelling C.I.E. to pay that sum and I am sure the Minister, having accepted that principle and in asking the Oireachtas to accept it, will agree that in C.I.E. and other similar organisations the same principle should be applied in respect of other full time servants who because of ill-health have to retire before the normal retiring date. I think it is a good principle and the Minister having asked us to accept it will agree that C.I.E. and other undertakings for which he is responsible should put that principle into operation in respect of other employees.

Mr. Cole

Arising from what Senator Murphy said, I should like to ask the Minister this. Having granted this gratuity for the unexpired period of office, and provided this is a principle the Minister thinks should be followed up, how many years would he think necessary for giving this gratuity in other cases? Supposing this gentleman had retired after his first year of office with C.I.E., would the Minister approve the principle of allowing the other nine years or five years? It is, as Senator Murphy said, a principle which might be copied, but if it were to apply to, say, the Civil Service, surely there would have to be a limit. The Minister might get a case where there was a substantial sum involved.

Professor Quinlan

I welcome this Bill as expressing the Government's appreciation of the services given by Mr. T.C. Courtney because, since his appointment in 1950, he did everything possible for C.I.E. Unfortunately, C.I.E. is very much maligned at present; it is charged with being inefficient and much worse words are used about it. The plain fact of the matter is that it cannot pay its way at present, due to the smallness of our population and above all, to our low volume of trade. An increase in our production and an increase in our exports is what C.I.E. wants and what will show us what our transport system can do.

I believe that this appreciation of Mr. Courtney may bring us back to realities and may make us stop before it is too late in this policy of dismembering what we hope in the future will be a most useful adjunct——

Mr. Childers

On a point of order, I have not come briefed to deal with the policy of C.I.E. It bears no relation to this Bill whatever. It does not come within the terms of this Bill in any sense.

Professor Quinlan

In expressing our appreciation of Mr. Courtney, I might say that no appreciation would be adequate without expressing our confidence in the fact that he did everything possible for C.I.E. and that the fault lies not in those who are charged with inefficiency but in the fact that we have not got the volume of production.

Mr. Childers

I wish to thank the House for the way they have received this Bill. First of all, I shall deal with Senator Sheehy Skeffington's suggestion that there should be one Superannuation Bill to cover all these cases. I believe that is being considered but there are many complications and at the moment it seems essential to have a separate Bill in this case, quite apart from Mr. Courtney's position.

Senator Murphy raised the question of which body should pay a pension to a member who leaves its service and joins another board. The general practice is that this pension is paid by the board of the concern from which the person concerned ultimately retires. I think the case is arguable but I suppose the commonsense viewpoint is that Bord na Móna, for example, might say: "Why should we pay Dr. Andrews' pension unless he stays with us to the end and gives us the full span of his services?" It could equally be argued the other way. The actual practice is that the last board in which the person has been active pays the pension. That is being done in this case. I do not know of any other cases where the board agreed to pay pensions. Sometimes, of course, it might happen that a person appointed as a full-time member of a board might wish, for his own sake, to draw the Civil Service pension to which he was entitled at the time of leaving the service. In that case, of course, his service would not be counted in the arrangements made for a pension to be payable when he left the board to which he was attached at the end of his career.

The State is giving a subsidy of over £1 million to C.I.E. so that the award of this pension will not be too onerous a burden. So far as Mr. Courtney himself is concerned, I should say that the reason for including for him the sum set out in the Bill relates solely to his particular case and creates no precedent here for any other member of the board or for the member of any other board set up by the State. The Transport Act of 1958 has conferred upon whoever is chairman an enormous responsibility, the responsibility of ending the enormous deficits of C.I.E. within a period of five years and of overhauling the whole of the organisation and of administering on a new basis practically the whole of the transport services.

The Government felt that, as Mr. Courtney had recently reached the normal term of his office and knowing that he had been ill on a number of occasions and had been compelled to absent himself from the office, under the circumstances it would be right once he retired on grounds of ill-health, that he should be paid the sum laid down by the Bill. I do not think I should say any more. As I have indicated already, this matter is being presented to the Seanad on its own merits. I think I need not say anything further than that.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Might I ask some questions arising out of the Minister's reply? I wonder if he would consider amending Section 3 on Committee Stage so that if Mr. Courtney's health recovered sufficiently to enable him to accept other remunerative employment, there would be some modification? The second point is a development of the Minister's last statement. He asked the House to accept this as a case that will not create a precedent. I did not quite understand how he explained the unique character of this situation. I do not know in what way he meant us to regard this particular very valuable service as being unique?

The third question I should like to ask is whether the Minister would in fact consider adopting this principle for bus drivers and bus conductors who, through ill-health, are forced to retire before they reach the maximum pension age?

Mr. Childers

The question of superannuation within C.I.E. is a matter entirely for C.I.E. under existing legislation and it is something for them to determine. As I said, this is a special case and is not to be related to normal retirement arrangements of staffs in any part of the services. It is a particular case. I do not think I can say any more. I do not want to go into further detail in regard to the matter.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to ask the Minister if he would consider, as he regards the matter as purely one for C.I.E., an amendment that "the board may, if it sees fit, pay..."

Mr. Childers

In making the new arrangements for C.I.E. under the Transport Act, 1958, the Government had to take into account the resignation of Mr. Courtney and the appointment of a new Chairman and they felt that they would be bound to make it compulsory for C.I.E. to pay this sum to Mr. Courtney. They felt it was a matter of Government decision, having regard to the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that a full-time member of the Board was appointed by the Government.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

So that it was not purely a matter for C.I.E.

Mr. Childers

The Government was concerned in the decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.