asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he is aware that a worker, employed by CIE with a record of 50 years continuous railway employment, will be pensioned at £3 18s per week; and whether he considers this adequate compensation in such circumstances.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pension of CIE Worker.
9.
The present CIE wages grade pension scheme, as agreed between CIE and the trade unions and confirmed by me on 2nd March, 1965, is based on the recommendation of the Commission on CIE Pensions and Sickness Benefit, 1964. Under the scheme, the retirement income, including social welfare benefit, of an employee such as the Deputy refers to, amounts, if he is a married man, to £8 12s 6d a week up to 70 and £9 7s 6d a week thereafter. If he is a single man, his weekly retirement income will be £6 16s a week up to age 70 and £6 8s 6d thereafter.
I am satisfied that this level of retirement income compares favourably with what obtains in good outside employment.
The present scheme is an interim measure. The formulation of a final scheme is still under discussion between CIE and the trade unions.
Can the Minister affirm that, in fact, the position is as I have indicated in the question, namely, that, for 50 years service, the pension paid by CIE is the princely sum of £3 18s. 0d. per week, that the additional allowances to which the Minister referred would be available to anybody who qualified under the Social Welfare Acts and are not by virtue of any power vested in CIE? Even taking up the Minister on the basis of the figure of £9 per week for two people which he gives—and which is exaggerated—does he think that amount of money is sufficient to enable two people, in this day and age, to live, even where there are two pensions——
That is a separate question.
Mr. Dunne
Does the Minister confirm that the pension paid by CIE for 50 years service is £3 18s. 0d per week? Is he satisfied that that is adequate compensation for such a long term of service?
The question of the final pension scheme is being considered by CIE and the trade unions concerned. I do not propose to comment on it. It is for them to arrange the matter between themselves. It is a matter for agreement between CIE management and the trade unions concerned. The social welfare benefits scheme was meant to assist and supplement pensions paid by companies: the Deputy is well aware of that. He is also aware of the constant increases that have been taking place in the rates of the contributory pension schemes and also that such a scheme did not exist at all in 1957 in respect of old age pensions. There was only the non-contributory old age pension. The Deputy should admit that we are making progress.
Who is talking about 1957? I did not not mention that. You will do your best to resurrect it in the next few months but it will not avail you because you will get the hammer. Arising further out of the Minister's somewhat provocative reply, I want to ask him this simple question which I put to him in the beginning: is he satisfied that £3 18s. 0d per week is an adequate amount to pay a person after 50 years service? If the negotiations as between the unions and CIE in relation to these pensions produce a result whereby pensions are increased, will the Minister now tell me that these increases will be made applicable to existing pensioners?
That is a separate question.
I am not able to state what the final result of the negotiations will be.
Is it reasonably to be anticipated?
I should not like to prejudice the negotiations.