andMr. Gallagher asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will consider amending the provisions of the Transport Act, 1958, in order that those who were made redundant by CIE at that time can have their payments increased to compensate for the increased cost of living; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Road Transport Legislation.
15.
There is a basic difference between normal retirement pension and redundancy compensation. The former is normally earned by the completion of 40 years' service while the latter is given to compensate the redundant employee for loss of employment and is intended to cushion the effects of what is hoped will be only temporary unemployment.
The compensation provisions of the Transport Act, 1958, were very generous, the maximum amount of compensation being an annual sum equivalent to two-thirds of pay at the time of redundancy, and were not to my knowledge equalled in any other country. The compensation continues for life, is subject to abatement only in certain limited circumstances or at age 65, and is not affected by the receipt of social welfare benefits to which the recipient may otherwise be entitled. It is far more generous than that provided for under the national redundancy compensation scheme.
In these circumstances I consider that an amendment of the provisions of the Transport Act, 1958, as proposed, would not be justified.
Could the Minister say if the CIE pension fund is very much in credit and is expanding and that further benefits could be paid out of it without threatening the fund itself?
It has nothing to do with it.
Would the Minister not agree that payments fixed in 1958 which he describes as very generous are now completely inadequate because of the fall in the value of money? Would he not further agree that the number of people involved is very small and that if they were a united body with a loud voice, they would probably be listened to.
No. It does not matter to us how small the body is; if its claim is just it will be met. The date of the Act is 1958 but the beneficiaries under the Act can go right up to 1964. The position under that 1958 Act was such that if a man had been working for five years under it he could have a pension for the rest of his life. That is an extraordinarily generous scheme, far more so than the Redundancy Act which came in some years later and under which all new employees in CIE must now join. A new employee cannot benefit from the 1958 Act; he must join the redundancy scheme under the 1967 Act.
Is it not also true that a man could have been working for 40 years with CIE and have a pension of only £4 or £5?
No, that is not under this Act. If he was made redundant under this Act he would have two-thirds of his going-out pay.
Irrespective of the Act under which he was made redundant, is it not true that former CIE employees at present are on a pension of £4?
Yes, but they are being updated on 1st July.
Does the Minister accept that this will be the last chance some of these men will get to have their payments revised, that in some cases they will suffer loss of pension when they come to pension age to the extent of as much as £3 or £4?
No. That is not correct. Some of these men are quite young yet. Perhaps they cover a wide range.
I agree that some of them are quite young. Will the Minister accept that some of them are unable to obtain other work except in another State-sponsored body and that they cannot earn over a certain amount with that State-sponsored body no matter how long or how hard they work?
That is right. If they are employed by another State agency or a local authority they cannot get more under this Act than an amount which would bring them up to what they were earning in CIE.
In 1960. Does the Minister think that is justice?
Yes.