Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1963

Vol. 206 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Córas Iompair Éireann Pensioners: Motion.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I move:

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that, in view of the severe hardships suffered by CIE pensioners due to the inadequacy of their pensions, amending legislation should be introduced to enable CIE to pay a just and equitable pension to these people.

The motion relates to the problem which has been raised in this House on several occasions, that of CIE pensioners. Its purpose is to seek justice for a group who are victims of an unjust, inequitable and unnecessarily complicated pensions scheme. Here we have a ridiculous situation in which we have four different groups of pensioners, each receiving different amounts of pension.

In 1963, there are 1,040 pensioners in receipt of 12/- a week; 327 in receipt of £1 a week; seven in receipt of 33/6d. a week; and 954 in receipt of 51/3d. a week. The 1,040 in receipt of 12/- a week are all aged over 70; the 327 in receipt of £1 a week are likewise over 70; and the 954 in receipt of £2 11s. 3d. are between the ages of 65 and 70. To understand the position clearly, it is necessary to look at the developments prior to and after 1956 when amending legislation was introduced which increased the pension from 37/6d. a week to 51/3d. a week for all who retired after 1st April, 1956.

Those who retired prior to 1st April, 1956, received no increase at all, so that the first example of disparity or discrepancy lies in the differential in pensions paid to those who retired prior to 1956 and those who subsequently retired. This, unfortunately, is only one aspect of what can be described as the most complicated pension scheme that could possibly be devised by man.

Those who retired prior to 1956 did not at that time receive any increase, while those who retired since have received an increase. However, it is even more complicated than that. All CIE pensions are reduced substantially when the age of 70 is attained. Between 65 and 70, the pensioner receives 51/3d. a week but on reaching the age of 70, the pension is reduced to £1 per week. At the present time there are 327 in receipt of £1 a week— the 327 who have reached the age of 70 since 1956.

This leaves us with the largest category and the worst paid group of all, the 1,040 men who are receiving 12/- a week. These men all retired prior to 1956. When the amending legislation of 1956 was passed, the men who were then 70 years or over were in receipt of 6/- a week. In 1957, this sum was increased to the present figure of 12/- a week. One might say this was a substantial increase, an increase of 100 per cent, but it does not work out anything like that because when those people were brought from 6/- to 12/- a week, a food voucher of £1 per month was taken away so that in fact their net increase was only 1/- a week. As I have already said, the whole system is unnecessarily complicated and very difficult to unravel so as to get a true picture.

To understand the motion more clearly, however, we can divide all CIE pensioners into two groups—those under 70 years of age and those over 70. At present those who retire at 65 receive £2 11s. 3d. a week and will receive it until they reach the age of 70 when their pension is reduced to £1 per week. There are 954 in receipt of £2 11s. 3d. There are 327 who retired since 1956 receiving £1 a week and there is the third category, those who retired before 1956 who receive 12/- a week.

I cannot see any valid reason for the reduction of these pensions when pensioners reach the age of 70. I concede that a man qualifies for the old age pension at 70 but we had better keep clear of that matter for the moment. Neither is there any valid reason why the 1,040 who retired prior to 1956 should be victimised so that they receive only 12/- a week. This victimisation is all the more difficult to understand when one examines the position of the CIE superannuation fund. In 1962 the total amount of the pension fund was £3,428,994. This sum invested at five per cent would yield £170,000. The annual income of the fund is £200,000 approximately from the Board and £82,000 from the men. Added to the £170,000 interest, we get a total of £452,000. In 1962, £213,000 was paid out of the fund in pensions so that it means only half of the income was paid out and the other half went into reserve, which goes to show that the fund is far from being bankrupt and could more than allow a substantial increase in the pensions.

As I pointed out already, there are 1,040 men receiving 12/- a week. If we contrast their position with that which obtained 40 or 50 years ago, we find that a man who retired then received £700 or £800 gratuity and 16/- a week pension, which was a non-contributory pension. Surely this is a very great reflection on all who are responsible for the present situation. This fact alone should compel the Minister to take the necessary steps to ensure an equitable and just reward for these men who have given long and faithful service. This motion is an attempt to secure justice for these men. Numerous attempts have been made in recent times to do this; representations have been made to different quarters by different people; but no progress has been made and we are left with a system which is unnecessarily complicated, inequitable and which cannot be justified in the year 1963.

General MacEoin

I formally second the motion and will speak at a later stage.

Mr. Casey rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is an amendment to the motion.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

Do I have to move it now or may I move it later?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister must move it now.

Mr. Childers

Do I speak now or may I speak later?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister must speak to the amendment.

Mr. Childers

I move:

To delete all words after "That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that" and substitute the following:

taking account of the establishment in June, 1963, of the Commission to examine the Pension Schemes and the Sickness Benefit payments for the regular wages grade staffs of CIE, consideration of the position of the existing pensioners should be deferred pending receipt and consideration of the Commission's report.

I am assuming that the motion refers to CIE wages grade pensioners. At the outset, I must explain that under the Transport Act, 1950, I am empowered to confirm any superannuation scheme for CIE employees or any particular class of employees submitted to me by the Board of CIE and I may require the Board to prepare and submit such schemes to me. I have no statutory authority, however, to require CIE to amend an existing superannuation scheme, in which matter the initiative rests with the Board. In confirming a new scheme or an amending scheme which has been submitted to me I may, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, modify the scheme as I think fit whether by deletion, addition or otherwise. Deputies will appreciate, therefore, that in the absence of amending legislation, any proposal for an increase in the pensions at present paid to CIE wages grade pensioners must come from the Board.

The CIE pension schemes for regular wages staff provide for fixed weekly contributions and for fixed weekly rates of pension. The contributions and pension rates are not related to length of service or wages earned. The rates of pension for members who retire on reaching the normal retiring age of 65 years differ as regards those who retired before 1st April, 1956, and those who retired after that date, as follows:—

(i) Pensioners who retired before 1st April, 1956, get 20/- per week for life, or 30/- per week from 65 years to 70 years and 12/- per week for life thereafter, or 37/6d. per week from 65 years to 70 years and 6/- per week for life thereafter (subsequently increased to 12/- per week). The member's weekly contribution rate in this scheme was only 1/-.

(ii) Pensioners who retired after 1st April, 1956, get 33/6d. per week for life, or, in the alternative, 51/3d. per week from 65 years to 70 years and 20/- per week for life thereafter. The member's contribution rate in this case is 3/- weekly, as compared with 1/- in regard to the previous group of pensioners.

Female members pay a reduced contribution to the schemes and receive correspondingly reduced pensions. The normal age of retirement for females is 60 years, as against 65 years for males. The number of female members in the schemes is very small. At 31st December, 1962, the number of CIE employees who were members of the wages grade pension schemes was 12,731 and in 1962 these members contributed £83,000 to the wages grade pension fund against a contribution of £216,000 by the Board. The Board's contribution per member in 1962 was, therefore, approximately 6/6d per week, while the member's weekly contribution was only 3/-.

General MacEoin

As the Minister is reading his speech, may we have copies of it?

Mr. Childers

Yes. The Statutory Instrument which set up the fund for the wages grade pension schemes in 1949 provided that the Board's contribution shall be not less than the members' contribution and that subject to this minimum the Board's contribution "shall be such sum as the Company think expedient having regard to any report received from the Actuary as to the solvency of the Fund and to every other circumstance which in the opinion of the Company is relevant". It will be seen, therefore, that the Board's present contribution to the wages grade pension fund is quite a generous one compared with the members' contribution.

At 1st November, 1963, there were 2,399 CIE pensioners, of whom 960 male pensioners were in receipt of 12/-per week, 482 in receipt of 20/- per week, 6 in receipt of 33/6d. per week and 915 in receipt of 51/3d. per week, while 36 female pensioners received weekly sums varying from 10/- to 18/-. In addition to the foregoing there were 736 pensioners who retired before reaching the normal retiring age of 65 years because of redundancy and ill-health and who receive pensions of varying amounts.

CIE wages grade pensions must be viewed in conjunction with the Social Welfare benefits to which CIE pensioners are entitled. Prior to the Social Welfare Act, 1960, which introduced the contributory old age pension, CIE pensioners were entitled to the non-contributory old age pension but payment was subject to a means test. In fact, the CIE wages grade pension schemes were deliberately designed to enable the pensioners to take advantage of the non-contributory old age pension. Prior to 1st April, 1956, when the CIE wages grade pension schemes were amended to provide for increased pensions and contribution rates, the great majority of CIE employees opted for a pension of 37/6d. a week, reducing to 6/—subsequently increased to 12/—a week at 70, or of 30/- a week reducing to 12/- a week at 70, in preference to a flat pension of 20/- a week for life, so that they might qualify for the full non-contributory old age pension at 70.

The present position is that CIE wages grade pensioners are eligible, in addition to their pensions, for (i) unemployment benefit or disability benefit between the ages of 65 years and 70 years and for (ii) the contributory old age pension at 70 years. As Deputies are aware, these Social Welfare benefits will be increased in January, 1964, and the position will then be that a CIE wages grade pensioner who is in receipt of a pension of 12/- per week will have a total income, between his CIE pension and his Social Welfare benefit, of 62/- per week if a single man or 99/6d. per week if a married man. The other CIE wages grade pensioners will have total incomes varying from 62/6d. to 93/9d. per week in the case of single men and from 92/6d. to 123/9d. per week in the case of married men.

It has been argued that in considering the rates of pension drawn by existing CIE pensioners, the entitlement of the pensioners to Social Welfare benefits should be disregarded. In so far as increases in pension are sought on grounds of "severe hardship", to quote the motion, this argument is entirely invalid. When comparing CIE wages grade pensioners with other categories of pensioners, regard should be had to their entitlement to social welfare benefits. Established ESB workers, for instance, are excluded from social welfare benefits other than widows' and orphans' pensions and their retirement pension scheme is set at a level which takes account of this. The Bord na Móna pension scheme, on the other hand, is designed to supplement the social welfare benefits to which its employees are entitled so as to secure for them a reasonable all-in retirement income. It is relevant in this connection that the contributory old age pension is intended to be a national retirement pension for workers generally and that the Social Welfare Act, 1960, provides for modification of existing pension schemes to take account of it.

For instance, under the ESB Manual Workers Superannuation Scheme a member who retires at the age of 65 years, after 45 years pensionable service, can receive a maximum retirement pension of £5 0 4 per week. He has not contributed for social welfare benefits other than widows' and orphans' pensions and is not entitled to unemployment benefit between 65 and 70 or to contributory old age pension thereafter. This £5 0 4 per week is, therefore, his total retirement income. By contrast, the figures I have already quoted show that a CIE pensioner can have a maximum weekly retirement income of £4 13 9 single, or £6 3 9 married.

On this basis, CIE pension rates taken together with social welfare benefits are not unreasonable when compared with other pension provisions and it is clear that existing CIE pensioners have already secured very substantial increases in their retirement incomes.

As Deputies are aware, a five-man Commission was established in June 1963, to examine the pension schemes and sickness benefit payments for regular wage grades of CIE and to make recommendations not later than 31st December, 1963. The establishment of the Commission was in accordance with the proposal agreed by the parties concerned in the negotiations for the settlement of the CIE bus dispute. While I understand that the Commission will not deal with the position of existing pensioners, I consider that the matter is to a certain extent sub judice and that the consideration of the position of existing pensions could most appropriately take place at the same time as the Commission's report is under examination.

It is quite obvious that to take any steps to recommend to CIE to make changes in the present pension rates would be somewhat anomalous when we do not know what proposals will be forthcoming from this Commission for present CIE workers who retire in the future. It seems to me reasonable that we should examine this matter in relation to the recommendations that come from the Commission and that, naturally, if any action is taken, it would be taken in connection with new legislation governing the future of CIE, which has to be implemented by this House some time about April next year. In the meantime, as Deputies are aware, these CIE pensioners will be given the increase in the contributory pensions which is being offered in January, 1964.

The only observation I have heard up to now in regard to this matter which needs attention from me is the suggestion that the fund could afford increases in the pensions. The demand on the fund is increasing each year as the proportion of those on the lower pre-1956 rates diminishes. The fund is examined actuarially at regular intervals and CIE must pay whatever is necessary to keep it solvent. At present it is just solvent and no more. I have carefully inquired from CIE about this matter. As Deputies know, the arrangements for this pension fund are supervised by CIE with the collaboration of the trade unions concerned. The trade unions are surely aware of the actuarial state of the fund. When I say that the fund is only just solvent and that CIE could not afford, as of now, to increase pensions, that is a fact and I hope the House will accept it. We have gone into it very carefully. I think it is true to say that the trade unions would be most insistent that the fund would be only just solvent and CIE would not be in a position of deliberately withholding pensions from deserving workers if it were possible to grant them.

It is wrong to consider the question of existing CIE pensions without considering contributory social welfare benefits. As the House will remember, when the Minister introduced this scheme, it was deliberately designed to alleviate hardship and to provide some reasonable foundation for the welfare of retiring workers. It was made applicable to CIE pensioners who had already retired, with the results I have already stated. While admitting that the pension of 12/- a week is not high by any standard, I do not think it can be said that the total benefits secured by CIE pensioners under this scheme are absolutely miserable. For a married worker to receive 99/6 up to 123/6 a week indicates that we are making social progress in that regard. I hope Deputies will bear with me in that and, as I have said, when we have received the Commission's report, then we will have to decide what to do and in connection with the re-examination of the transport system, we will again review the existing pensions to see what, if anything, can be done.

The Government's action in introducing the social welfare scheme of contributory old age pensions indicates that we have natural sympathy with people who retire from work and that any action we take will be taken in a spirit of social justice. We will see what the position is. So I confidently recommend the amendment.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. J. Brennan)

I wish formally to second the amendment moved by the Minister.

Mr. Treacy

I rise to support the motion. I do so most enthusiastically. I do not know how any Minister could come into this House and seek to justify, as the Minister has sought to justify tonight, awards of pensions as low as 12/- per week. The fact that these pensions have been in operation since 1956 makes the matter more serious. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he has no power to amend this scheme. It is not good enough for him to say that the increase must come from the Board of CIE. I feel that the overwhelming consensus of opinion of Deputies will be such as to bring to the Minister the realisation that he is treating these ex-employees of CIE in a most shabby and dastardly fashion.

In reply to a question I put to the Minister some time ago in respect of CIE pensioners and the amount of pension in the various categories, he did in fact tell me that there were some of these ex-employees of CIE who were in receipt of a pension as low as 6/- per week. It would seem that since that question was tabled by me, the pensions have been increased. At least, there is no indication in the Minister's statement to us here tonight that there are any persons now with pensions as low as 6/- per week.

Mr. Donegan

There are.

Mr. Treacy

Are there?

Mr. Donegan

Yes.

Mr. Treacy

Subsequently increased to 12/-.

Mr. Donegan

Twelve.

Mr. Treacy

However, the Minister bases his arguments mainly on the fact that these people now enjoy social welfare benefits. I suggest that the question of social welfare benefits should not enter into this debate at all. These people were contributors to social welfare funds and were entitled to social welfare benefits in their own right as insured contributors. For any Minister of State to slash the pensions of his employees on their getting a social welfare pension, non-contributory, at the age of 70, is despicable in the extreme. I know of no good reason why the Minister should bring in this question of social welfare at all. Indeed, the Minister pointed out that many of these pensionable employees who retired prior to April, 1956, opted for the then prevailing higher pension rates of 37/6d. a week up to 70 years of age and took the 6/- per week, or the lower rate, from 70 onwards in order to qualify for the then non-contributory old age pension. That was the weakest argument that the Minister could have made.

The Minister will appreciate that it was his Government who laid down the means test and who denied these people an opportunity of getting a decent old age pension by reason of the fact that they maintained this rigid means test down the years and it was only quite recently that it was relaxed for insured contributors. It is no argument. It is no credit to the Minister's Board or his Department that many of these unfortunate people had to opt for the lower rates of 6/- and 12/- a week in order to qualify for the old age pension under the then rigid means test which applied.

There is no employer in this State who would recommend a pension scheme of around 12/- a week to his workers. If that kind of offer were made nowadays to workers or their trade unions, they would regard it as a colossal insult. Indeed, it is true to say that many employers make available worthwhile pensions to their employees on a non-contributory basis and it is particularly deplorable for a State body and a Minister for Transport and Power to set such a bad headline as to stand over the payment of such a miserable pittance as 12/- per week to so many workers who gave the best years of their lives to the building up of CIE. These men went through tough and difficult times. They gave the best years of their lives to the GNR, GSR and now CIE. It is particularly deplorable that they should be treated like this in a nationalised industry.

I would expect the Minister in charge of a nationalised industry, as CIE is, would set a headline for those niggardly or conservative employers in our country who are denying workers a pension scheme. I would expect the headline he would set would be a very good headline and that the amount of money paid out in pensions would be such as to afford the worker an opportunity to live in at least frugal comfort in the twilight of his life.

All Deputies have been told heartrending stories and we are aware of great suffering and privation in the homes of pensioners of CIE. Clearly, a pension of 6/- or 12/- today is worthless, having regard to the colossal increase in the cost of living. It is not good enough at all for the Minister to wash his hands of this proposal and to put down an amendment asking the House to await the report of a Commission on pensions before anything will be done for these unfortunate persons. We are dealing here with people who are over 70 years of age and many of whom are 80 years of age. If the Minister waits very much longer, he will have depleted numbers to deal with. Many of them will have passed to their eternal reward and will have very little gratitude on their lips for CIE. I appeal to the Minister—I appeal to his social conscience—to recommend to the Board of CIE that the lower categories of pensions we refer to be increased out of all proportion.

Again, I ask the Minister not to take into account at all the social welfare benefits which these people enjoy. If he sets that very dangerous precedent, it will automatically happen that employers and other State bodies will also reckon social welfare benefit and the kinds of superannuation schemes which will evolve in this country in the future will be measured in shillings, like this present scheme.

The Minister was unwise in referring to the pension schemes of Bord na Móna workers. They are another category of workers directly under the charge of the Minister for Transport and Power. The pension scheme which the Minister and his Department evolved for Bord na Móna workers was so utterly mean and niggardly that the Party I represent thought fit to challenge it and to vote against it in this House. The pension scheme for Bord na Móna workers has nothing to recommend it to anybody. It was a deplorable scheme and it should have been rejected. The Labour Party in this House did its very damnedest to ensure it would be rejected: it was not our fault that it went on the Statute Book.

Clearly, the officials advising the Minister in respect of pensions would seem to be ultra-conservative in their outlook but not so conservative when they are designating pensions schemes for the higher personnel in CIE: then there is no question of 6/- or 12/- a week but rather £1,000 a year pension and a colossal lump sum for the "higher-ups" in CIE. That kind of social inequity is deplorable, especially such gross inequity that you can have one man going out on a pension of £1,000 a year and another going out on a pension of 6/- a week. Twenty pounds a week versus 6/- a week is the kind of inequity which we challenge: it is utterly unfair and unjust.

I congratulate the members of Fine Gael who put down this motion. I have been concerned with the plight of these unfortunate men for some time. I am very happy to lend my voice to the sentiments expressed by Deputy T. O'Donnell and to play my part in focusing public attention on the scandal of pensions now being awarded to CIE pensioners.

If we have regard to the more recent superannuation schemes evolved by CIE, particularly the redundancy schemes of recent times—admittedly, they emerged as a result of the militant action of the various trade unions involved—we now have what is regarded as a pretty generous redundancy pay scheme for the unfortunates whom CIE are obliged to lay off. If we compare that amount with the money received by the pensioners we are concerned with at the moment, the comparison is clearly odious.

The Minister will have to examine his conscience in this matter and realise that the 12/- he awarded in 1956 has been frittered away to nothingness by reason of the steep increase in the cost of living in the meantime. It is not good enough for him to look over his shoulder and to throw bouquets at the Minister for Social Welfare and to say, in effect: "After all, these people will get a contributory pension if they live to be 70 years of age and you must add that to the CIE pittance of 6/- or 12/-."

I am happy to support this motion with my voice and my vote, if necessary. I express the ardent hope that the motion will have the desired effect of increasing these emoluments for the unfortunate category of CIE employees to whom we refer with the least possible delay and that, by reason of the consensus of opinion expressed in this House, the Minister will be able to say to the Board of CIE and to the Commission now sitting that it is our view that we have treated these workers in a most shabby and despicable manner and it is high time that these ridiculous pensions were brought up to a realistic figure in keeping with the times, prices and costs that our public have to endure.

Mr. Donegan

We can be quite certain that when the Minister for Transport and Power comes in here, we shall get a jawful of statistics. Some people say statistics can be used to prove anything: I think the Minister for Transport and Power believes that to be so. He introduces figures shaded to suit him so that it almost appears as if he is giving us all the story. That indicates that he can make himself believe that what he says is the truth and nothing but the truth, whereas, nine times out of ten, it is a shaded version leaning always towards the side he wants to support or must support in the particular situation which obtains.

In the first paragraph of his speech, the Minister said he has no statutory authority to require CIE to amend the existing superannuation scheme. That may be the legislative position but surely the factual position is that, over the years, CIE were a failing institution: railways were going down and roads were coming up. Prior to intervention by the Government with subvention, wages were not so good because of the situation that obtained. Nothing was so good, if you worked for CIE, the GNR or one of the other institutions involved.

When times were not so good, there was not so much money to put into a superannuation scheme and so we had these unfortunate people finding perhaps a tiny sum put into their superannuation scheme but, if it was a tiny sum, it was quite a sizeable sum to them. The situation now is that if these people had to rely entirely on the pensions created by their contributions, they would be in a bad way indeed.

If it is Government policy—and, by now, we should know that it is—that the railways ought to be taken over, that the railways are to be preserved, that our people are to get these services, then surely it should be Government responsibility to ensure that the people who slaved for 40 years and remained in that employment when they could have left and obtained better employment elsewhere, and at the end of an active life found themselves better off and in a better position to support themselves than they now are, will get a decent pension.

We had the GNR Works in my constituency. Some of the former workers are now employed in various companies under the aegis of the Industrial Engineering Company (Dundalk) Limited. A lot of the retired people there are existing on this 12/- a week referred to after 70 years of age, or on this 30/- a week referred to, from 65 years to 70. Many of these people were compulsorily retired at 65 where the practice had been to get them to sign a chit which would say that they could be discharged at a week's notice but keeping them in employment until 70 and in some cases afterwards or for five years of what could be active life. Many of these people are existing on 30-/ a week with a pension which, when they reach 70, if they have not been starved out in the meantime, is reduced to 12/- and which is added to their old age pension.

I believe the Minister's comparisons with the ESB are fallacious. The ESB is not as old an institution as the railways, but during the entire period of its life it was a growing institution and, therefore, the number of people who are involved there is relatively small. Maybe that makes them weak. Maybe they are not in a position to exert the pressure that CIE pensioners can exert on members of the Dáil and on other people in a position to plead their case for them. If they are few, because 40 years ago there were very few people going into the ESB, and if their case is weak, surely it is no reason to bring them into comparison here and to suggest that because there is no shout from them CIE pensioners should also remain silent.

Even the comparison made—and Deputy Treacy adverted to this also— with the Bord na Móna people is of no value to the Minister in his argument. I agree with Deputy Treacy that the Bord na Móna scheme is also a disgrace and, if the means were there, no employer would offer a person who worked for forty years in his employment anything like a pittance of 12/- per week. The means are there because the Government took the decision to maintain the railways, and if they did the least they should do is behave as any decent employer would. They took that decision at a period when many of the people who are now existing on that pittance were working for them and, as I said before, could have left and sought employment elsewhere from a decent employer who would leave him much better off now.

The Minister, in an almost patronising manner, said he would like more money to be given to deserving workers. It reminded me of the play in which Eliza Doolittle's father pointed out that the undeserving poor could often be as hungry as the deserving poor. These workers are all deserving workers. If they were not they should have been discharged. If they were kept for forty years they are entitled to a decent pension and I believe sincerely it is the Minister's duty to give it to them.

We on this side of the House have been approached—let us make it quite clear that we have been approached —by CIE pensioners. We have listened to their case and investigated it and we have put down this motion. Every time the Government are in a position that is difficult they appoint a commission. We had the Milk Costings Commission, that wonderful effort which lasted seven years. We had all these different commissions which sat for months and months and years and then they produced their findings. If the Minister wants to follow the path of all the other Ministers in the Government he should appoint a survey team and the survey team can produce its findings.

Mr. Childers

I did not institute the Commission. The Commission was set up as a result of a settlement between the trade unions and CIE. The Minister for Industry and Commerce set it up.

Mr. Donegan

If the Minister did not institute the Commission at least he is waiting for the result of the Commission. The Minister is the person responsible for Transport and Power. The functions of Transport and Power are related to Government activity and I submit that the efforts and activities of CIE are related to Government activity and that this is the Minister's responsibility. Whether he appoints this Commission or not he is sheltering behind it now. If the Minister is doing his job he will know what the problems are. He will know what the hardships are and should be in a position to take a decision, to bring it to the Cabinet and get it implemented. There is no use in his sheltering behind a Commission when people are hungry. We on this side of the House support them and if we fail in this motion now it will not mean we shall cease our activities but we shall press forward until we see that these people get a decent break.

General MacEoin

This motion has been put down by us on the grounds of equity and fair play to people who have served the nation well. While it is true that some of the CIE workers did approach Fine Gael Deputies, the CIE workers with whom I discussed the matter were not only CIE workers but former comrades in our dark and difficult days here. They were people who did not hesitate to risk their positions and their lives in the service of the country. I was not at all aware of the circumstances in which they now live until it was brought violently to my notice by some of these former comrades of mine who are CIE pensioners.

This motion has much to commend it. The Minister's amendment to postpone it until this Commission reports its findings is merely passing the buck. I want to draw the attention of the House to some facts. First, in January, 1962, I wrote to the Minister for Finance recommending that in his Budget of that year he should make some provision for these people. The Minister very kindly wrote back to me and said:

I received your letter this morning concerning CIE pensioners. The initiative in this case must come from the Minister for Transport and Power and I am forwarding the letter to him.

In moving his amendment the Minister practically said he had no function and yet here is the Minister for Finance saying the initiative must come from him. From the Minister for Transport and Power himself I received this reply in February:

With reference to your recent representations with regard to CIE pensioners I now have had an opportunity of looking into the matter. The position with regard to increases for CIE pensioners is that under existing legislation the initiative for proposing amendments to CIE pension schemes rests with the Board.

He did say there he had authority to look into the matter and went on to suggest that the case was not too bad at all. However, the case he made here today was that these pensioners are well treated and that with the contributory old age pension at the age of 70 they are very well-off.

Mr. Childers

I did not say that. I said their hardship had been alleviated by the social welfare benefits, and it is not the same thing at all. Please do not misquote me.

General MacEoin

I do not want to be charged with misquoting the Minister. He says on page 4:

As Deputies are aware, these social welfare benefits will be increased in January, 1964, and the position will then be that the CIE wages grade pensioner who is in receipt of a pension of 12/- per week will have a total income, between his CIE pension and his social welfare benefit, of 62/- per week if he is a single man, or 99/6 per week if he is a married man.

He goes on to say that the other CIE wages grade pensioners will have 62/6 to 93/9 a week in the case of single men and 92/6 to 103/9 in the case of married men. What does the Minister mean by that? Does he imply that they are very well off and should have patience and wait until this Commission reports?

That reasoning does not apply.

Forty years ago, the railway worker when retiring got a gratuity and a pension of 16/- a week. When you consider the purchasing power of that money then and the purchasing power of the pension at the present time, can we say that there has been any advance in the social condition of these workers? I assert that there has not but that, on the contrary, there has been a grave deterioration of their position. I submit to the House that CIE workers who retired some years ago and who are in receipt of these small pensions should get this small pension from CIE and the old age pension as well.

It is argued that the reason the pension was cut down was to enable the pensioner to come within the means test. That means test has been increased considerably since but the increase has not been significant enough to carry the difference in the cost of living and increased costs which people like these CIE workers have to bear today. I am struck by the argument of the Minister that this whole matter is sub judice and should not have been raised until the commission reported. In the very next breath he says that this commission has no function in relation to those CIE men. What does that mean? One moment he says that they should await the report of the commission and the next he says that the commission has no function as far as the railway men are concerned.

The younger people will be able to fight for themselves. The people I am concerned with are the old pals of years ago. A great number of these men, because they considered they were in safe employment, did not apply under the Military Service Pensions Acts for pensions which they could have then obtained. Some of them did apply but they found themselves in extreme difficulty in establishing wholetime service because of the fact that they were in wholetime employment. A ruling by the referee brought some of them in on the grounds that their service was of a dangerous nature but that did not apply to them all.

I feel that CIE would pay reasonable pensions to their former and present employees if the Minister gave them the green light to go ahead and do so, if he said to them that the Government would make good the amount required to bring up the fund or to keep it in a solvent condition. That would be a more reasonable charge on public funds than charges that are now being met in other directions. It would be a very valid charge. To compare these pensions with the pensions of Bord na Móna workers and of other State concerns is very unfair, unreal and the comparison has no substance. Does the Minister mean that the Bord na Móna pensioners are quite content with their money? Everybody knows that is not true and that the Bord na Móna scheme was voted against in this House by the Labour Party.

The Minister should withdraw his amendment. I know that a considerable number of his own backbenchers would be delighted to see this motion passed and put into effect. If the Government take off the whips I have no doubt what the result would be. In several parts of the country Fianna Fáil Deputies have promised support to this motion because they could not see any reason why the Government should not accept it. The Minister should withdraw his amendment, accept the motion and put it into effect. If he does that it will show that he has regard for these men who have given valuable service to the company and to the country and he will also ensure that the purchasing power of the pension of 50 years ago will be no smaller today. That would not be asking for very much.

The railway worker retiring 40 or 50 years ago got £400 or £500. At that rate a similar worker would need to get £1,200 or thereabouts of a gratuity now. A worker who was getting 16/- a week in those days would need almost 128/- a week nowadays because of the depreciation in money values. Now they are told they must wait for a Commission to report and that they then might get something, that some crumb might drop from the Government's table to benefit them. I feel the Minister is misdirecting himself, that he is not acting as he should in this matter. Every Deputy in the House would applaud him if he took his courage into his hands and accepted the motion without hesitation.

Mr. N. Lemass

I was interested in the question raised in this motion before I came into this House as a Deputy. I consider the motion put down by Fine Gael to be one of two things, a cheap attempt to make political capital out of whatever the present Commission decide to do, or alternatively, a destructive effort to destroy the smooth working of that Commission.

Mr. Ryan

This motion was on the Order Paper nine months ago.

General MacEoin

Let him alone. It is quite all right for him to say that I put my name to a discreditable motion. The charge is well-founded— will that do him?

Mr. N. Lemass

I should like to put some matters on record so that at least the records will be kept straight to a certain degree. First of all, there is a letter addressed to me by Dr. C.S. Andrews, Chairman of CIE, on 20th October, 1958. It is as follows:

Dear Deputy, I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 11th October. The existing wages grade pension scheme was approved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in October, 1957, following negotiations with over 20 trade unions. The question of retrospective application of the terms of the amended scheme was one of the primary issues in the negotiations and 1st April, 1956, was the limit to which the Board was prepared to go in this respect. The proposals submitted by you have been fully considered and I am to inform you the Board is not willing to submit further amendments to the existing scheme to the Minister.

Subsequently, I got in touch with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his reply, dated 9ú Lúnasa, 1958, is as follows:

A chara—I am directed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to refer to your representations on behalf of pensioners of CIE who retired prior to 1st April, 1956, and who are seeking pensions on the same scale as those who retired since that date. The Minister has asked me to say in reply that the Transport Acts place on the board of CIE responsibility for proposed amendments to existing superannuation schemes. The Minister has no power to require CIE to submit an amending scheme and the initiative lies with CIE. In the circumstances, the representations which it is desired to make should be addressed to the board of CIE.

Subsequently, the Minister for Transport and Power brought in a Bill whose title I cannot recall at the moment. I submitted an amendment to that Bill but it was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle. My amendment was as follows:

Before Section 4 to insert the following new section:

All persons who are or have been members of any existing or former superannuation scheme, and all persons claiming in right of any such members, shall be entitled to the same benefits, rights and privileges and subject to the same obligations, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice, regardless on what date they became in receipt of benefits under any CIE superannuation scheme.

Any Deputy who remembers that Bill can easily refer to that suggested amendment. Later on, I got in touch with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The then Lord Mayor of Dublin, Alderman Briscoe, and Deputy Cummins, also were in touch with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Deputy Briscoe wrote to them and got this reply on 6th March, 1962:

This is to acknowledge your letter of 28th ult. in connection with CIE pensioners. I am to inform you that this Congress had this matter in hand last year and after a considerable lapse of time were successful in having it discussed at the Top Consultative Group of CIE which is composed of representatives of Congress and top representatives of CIE. This Group meets each quarter. The problem is that any increase in pensions would necessitate increased contributions from existing employees of CIE. This is the Company's attitude and we were unsuccessful in our efforts to improve the position. I understand the Minister for Transport and Power has no function in this matter which is purely for the Board of CIE.

That letter is signed Leo Crawford, Joint Secretary. In a letter to Deputy Cummins, dated 8th January, 1962, the Chairman of CIE, Dr. Andrews, wrote:

In order to maintain the existing level of CIE pensions, the Board is at present contributing almost double the amount contributed weekly by each individual member of the pension scheme. I am sorry to have to say that I could not recommend any increase to these pensioners which would add to the Board's already heavy commitment in the matter.

Later, when the Commission was set up, I endeavoured through my own trade union to raise this matter at the Dublin Council of Trade Unions. I was, however, informed that as it did not affect the trade union to which I was attached, I had no permission to raise it but that I could write to the Secretary of the Council on it. I did so and was informed simply that the matter would be considered by the executive committee. I wrote also to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and on 10th July, 1963, I received a letter, this time beginning "Dear Noel." The letter stated, referring to a deputation he had met representing pre-1956 CIE pensioners:

One of their suggestions to me on the last occasion I saw them was that they should have access to the Commission at present considering pension and sickness pay benefits of bus workers. I advised them that if they wished to have their position considered, they should communicate with the secretary of the Commission. The Commission, as you know, was set up following an agreement arrived at to settle the bus dispute. The terms of reference, although they were similar to those I had proposed for a settlement and rejected are the terms of reference of the parties to the dispute. I told them, therefore, that I could not interfere but that they were free to contact the Commission, as I suggested. I do not think I made myself sufficiently clear to the men who interviewed me.

The Minister wrote to me in order that I could make it clear to some of the people who called on me in that connection what the position was. The position is that the Commission was set up, as decided on by negotiation between the present Minister's Department and the representatives of the workers. One of the matters to be considered, according to the letter from Mr. Leo Crawford, was the matter of the pre-1956 pensions. I am informed that they worked out the contributions and benefits on an actuarial basis. I am informed that these people have applied to be heard. I have not found out if they have been heard—I sincerely hope they have been—but I just have a note that it will be considered at the next meeting of the executive.

In the light of these circumstances, and the remark that Deputy MacEoin referred to, I repeat that this motion is put down for one of two objects—to make cheap political capital if the Commission should better the lot of these men or, alternatively, to disrupt the smooth working of the Commission. I also say that while the contributory pension, which was introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government, has helped considerably I hope through this Commission the men will be further helped but they will certainly not be helped further by passing this Fine Gael motion.

Mr. Ryan

First, let us get rid of the nonsense and return to sensible facts. If we were all as concerned as Deputy Lemass appears to be in parading our own activities as Deputies then we could not consider the problems of these unfortunate men. There is not anybody who has put his name to this motion who has not engaged in as much correspondence and representations on behalf of these unfortunate men as Deputy Lemass. We saw, and the nation sees—the unfortunate pensioners know, some of them in another place in which they can be all wise— that nothing was going to come of that type of thing and that nothing did come of it. Deputy Lemass failed miserably and so did everybody else in trying to get the Minister for Transport and Power to live up to his responsibilities as he now, for the first time, acknowledges his duty and his right to require the Board of CIE to prepare and submit a superannuation scheme for CIE employees.

The Minister admitted that in the first two lines of his speech today. He has the power to ask them to submit such a scheme. He speaks about somebody having initiative. Now he finds he has had that power. Why did he not require CIE to produce such a scheme? Why did he and the Government do nothing until the buses came to a halt and the unfortunate people of Dublin had to walk to and from work because the Minister, the Board of CIE and the union failed to discharge their responsibility to look after the unfortunate people who worked for the railways when they were thriving and many of whom worked long before many of us were even thought of, men who in the autumn of their days must look ahead to cold and bitter winter because of the neglect of the Minister and the Board to provide a decent pension scheme for them, a scheme which would match up to the value of their contribution?

I am talking not of the nominal value but of the real value of their contribution. When they contributed 1/- a week it was the equivalent of 4/- or 5/- a week today. Instead, the Minister can superciliously say: "They cannot expect any better than the amount in respect of which they made contributions while they were working," 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

This brings me to a very leading question: Does this Government want to govern at all? There has hardly been any significant matter that Fine Gael have raised here, or in the country, in the last few years in which the Government have not deliberately thwarted the efforts of Fine Gael to bring about improvements, by setting up commissions or select committees or some sort of delaying tactic. I do not intend to go over the whole field of them but there are a few matters that readily occur to me, the reform of ground rents, the reform of the health services, the necessity to tackle the itinerant problem, the Irish language revival, the question of higher education and now pensions. In each of these cases when Fine Gael with a courageous and progressive leading capacity has tried to do something they meet with commissions and select committees and all these things whose main objective is to prevent Fine Gael from bringing about the benefits the people so definitely want.

Deputy Lemass quoted his own private correspondence but we have no opportunity to check whether it is even true, but if the Librarian had permitted me I could have moved the whole Library into the Dáil Chamber to quote in every volume questions by Deputies from all Parties asking for the reform of the CIE pensions scheme and as often as the question was asked, since the present Minister took office, the answer was that he had no function. Today he admitted he had a function, that he had the power to ask CIE to produce a pension scheme. He had the power but he did not do it and this Commission is set up because he did not do it. The busmen went on strike because he did not do it and now we are told to wait because this Commission is inquiring into the future pensions of those people who are now working. We do not say anything about those who are now working—we are concerned about them—but deliberately confined our motion—and the Minister knows it— to the CIE pensioners. That is not the CIE worker: it is a pensioner, a man now out of work, retired having reached the age-limit or retired through ill health. We are concerned with him as the Minister knows. He accepts as much in his speech in support of his amendment. "I understand," says the Minister, "that the Commission will not deal with the position of existing pensioners".

We have not abolished the feudal powers of ground landlords; we have not properly tackled the question of the revival of Irish; we have not given the people the reformed national health services they want because the Government sets up committees to prevent Fine Gael reforms. Now they are going one better and say that we cannot do anything for the pensioners because there is a Commission sitting that will not even consider pensioners. How ridiculous can they become? It is a wonder the Minister did not ask the House to reject the motion because there is a commission working on ground rents: it would be just as relevant. This is the most ridiculous amendment ever put down by a ridiculous and irresponsible Government which has ceased to want to govern and is referring every difficult and awkward problem to a commission.

Deputy Donegan put his finger very pertinently on the real issue. We have provided financial assistance to maintain capital equipment: we have relieved CIE of a whole lot of financial obligations relating to the payment of interest on the old railway transport stock. We have been able to do that with one wave of the hand and without consideration as to the cost simply because the moneyed men, the bankers, thought it was prudent to do it. But when it comes down to providing a little assistance for the hungry, the under-nourished, the infirm or the aged, it cannot be done.

Debate adjourned.