Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 May 1990

Vol. 398 No. 3

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - CIE Workers Pay Increase.

Tomás MacGiolla

Ceist:

10 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if workers in CIE will be awarded a third phase increase under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery; and if the company will claim inability to pay because of the Government's refusal to sanction a recent fare increase; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Payment of the third phase of the increases provided for under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery for CIE regular wages grade staff will not arise until 1 October 1990 and for salaried staff until 1 December 1990. Neither I nor my Department have been informed by CIE that the increases will not be paid.

The CIE group have made an application to my Department for increases in rates and fares and this is being examined at present.

Will the Minister explain how CIE will be able to meet their commitments to their workforce to pay the third phase under the Programme for National Recovery if CIE are not being allowed to perform as a commercial company? It cannot increase its charges because the Minister said so and the rate of subvention is being reduced from the very low base by three and a half per cent per annum and there is no provision for an increase in inflation. Will the Minister say where he hopes CIE may be able to find the money to pay the increase, given that their first option was to increase fares to maintain viability?

Since the question was tabled, I checked with CIE and I understand from them that they have not informed the unions that they would be claiming inability to pay. I have been told by CIE that they have made no such statement and I can, therefore, only assume they will meet all their commitments in the normal way. It is interesting the Deputy asked that the company be allowed to perform commercially while, at the same time, he asked me to increase their subsidy.

I suggest the Minister owes the workforce of the CIE group of companies some reassurance that their increases will be paid in October and December. The workforce will certainly argue that if the company are trying to perform in a commercial manner and the Minister has forbidden increases that CIE may claim inability to pay on foot of the Minister's directive that fares cannot be increased.

I would expect the board of CIE, if they have any difficulties meeting their obligations to their employees, to come and tell me and they have not done that.

In the event of CIE group of companies not being able to meet their commitments under the Programme for National Recovery, would the Minister agree to make up the difference by way of a subsidy?

Unless and until the company tell me that is the situation they face, I can only assume they will meet their obligations. I will have to proceed on that assumption.

Barr
Roinn