Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1925

Vol. 13 No. 2

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - PROPOSED NEW SECTION.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move the following:—

Before Section 5 to insert a new section in the words following:—

5. (1) If, within five years from the date when an arrangement for mutual assistance is entered into under or in consequence of this Act, any officer or servant who has been regularly employed by authorised undertakers or by the owners of a railway, tramway, or other generating station proves to the satisfaction of a board of referees or referee (hereinafter referred to as the board) and appointed by the Minster that in consequence of the arrangement he—

(i) has suffered loss of employment, diminution of salary, wages, or emoluments, otherwise than on grounds of misconduct, incapacity or superannuation; or

(ii.) has relinquished his employment in consequence of being required to perform duties such as were not analogous or were an unreasonable addition to those which he had been required to perform before the 1st day of July, 1925; or

(iii.) has been placed in any worse position in respect to the conditions of his service (including tenure of office, remuneration, gratuities, pension, superannuation, sick or other fund, or any benefit or allowance payable on retirement or at death, or otherwise however to himself or to his widow or children, whether obtaining by law or by customary practice); and no party to the arrangement proves to the satisfaction of board that equivalent employment was available to him on the like conditions as those obtaining with respect to him at the date when the arrangement was entered into, he shall, without prejudice to any other right, be entitled to receive from the parties to the arrangement or such one or more of them as the board may think just, such compensation as the board may award, including any expenses which the officer or servant necessarily incurs in removing to another locality;

Provided that it shall be lawful, without any such award but with the consent of the Minister, for any parties or party to an arrangement for mutual assistance at any time to pay to an officer or servant by agreement with him such compensation as the parties or party estimate to be the compensation properly payable to him under this Act.

(2) Such compensation shall be based on, but shall not exceed, the amount which would have been payable to a person on abolition of office under the Acts and Rules relating to the Civil Service in force at the date of the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, but, in computing the period of service of any officer service under any authorised undertakers or under the owners of any railway, tramway, or other generating station shall be reckoned as service under the party to the arrangement in whose employment he is at the time he suffers such loss, diminution, relinquishment or other prejudice as aforesaid; and, where any officer or servant to whom this section applies was temporarily absent from his employment as such officer or servant while serving in or with the National Forces of Saorstát Eireann, or any Military Forces serving under the authority of the First Dáil, the Second Dáil, or the Provisional Government, or the British Army, Navy or Air Force, such period of temporary absence shall be reckoned for the purposes of this section as a period of service as such officer or servant.

(3) Any question as to whether any arrangement is an arrangement for mutual assistance entered into under or in consequence of this Act shall be determined by the Minister.

(4) The Minister may make rules as to the procedure before the board and may by those Rules provide for limiting the amount of costs and for the taxation thereof and for fixing the fee of the board and determining by whom they are to be paid.

The amendment is one to ensure that the working of this Bill will not deprive employees in existing undertakings of their employment without some compensation. The phraseology is in the main taken from existing legislation, and need not be detailed. It will be noted that the Minister takes power to compel existing undertakings to enter into arrangements, and it is quite probable that such arrangements may, in respect to certain officers, mean, shall I say, economising. Every precedent of recent years tends to support the proposition that if economy of that kind is made, the persons disemployed in consequence should have a claim for compensation for disturbance and deprivation of means of livelihood. Let me point out that people of this character are specialised and are not easily reemployed unless there is a considerable extension of electrical undertakings. There is quite a number of Acts at present in operation both in Great Britain and Ireland which contain clauses dealing pretty much on the same lines with persons disemployed in consequence of arrangements of a statutory kind, like this. I do not think it is necessary to go into the matter in any detail at this stage, and I will satisfy myself with moving the amendment.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Before we discuss this amendment on its merits I would like to have a ruling as to whether it is in order. I should like at the same time to point to a difficulty that will arise if the amendment be passed in its present form. The amendment speaks of proving "to the satisfaction of a board of referees or referee (hereinafter referred to as the board)"; and there are rules to be made as to the procedure before the board. The new section proposes: "The Minister may make rules as to the procedure before the board, and may by those rules provide for limiting the amount of costs and for the taxation thereof, and for fixing the fee of the board and determining by whom they are to be paid." That entails money, and would necessitate a Money Resolution. No such Money Resolution has been moved. I do not know how Deputy Johnson proposes I should fix the fee to pay the board, when I have no fund at my disposal for the purpose.

I have the further point, that this is definitely outside the scope of a measure which is, and quite obviously is, of a temporary nature. It is a measure which, as explained on Second Reading, was brought in to meet one set of circumstances, the set of circumstances being that certain existing undertakings find they cannot meet the estimated increased demand likely to arise, that certain existing undertakings will have surplus electricity to supply, that if machinery be now installed by those now short of electricity it will entail an expenditure of money found to be useless by 1930, when the national supply comes into being.

There is no probability whatever —that was the word Deputy Johnson used—that there will be any unemployment of people. If anything, the possibility is that with the linking up and with the increased demand, there will be new employment. The Bill, however, is temporary; it is designed to meet a very temporary situation. It is not a general electricity supply Bill. It is a question of machinery alone, and I urge and hold that the matter of provision for compensation of employees, whom the Deputy has indicated in connection with undertakings where disemployment was likely to occur, is outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

On a point of order, the Bill authorises the Minister between now and a certain date, which is quite-indefinite, to oblige certain undertakings to enter into arrangements regarding the supply of electricity. Again I will deal with a point that was dealt with before. Present intentions may be limited, but the possibilities under the Bill are much greater than the present intentions. I want to guard against the possibilities which may lead to damage to the interests of particular persons.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Assuming that there is not to be, or there is unlikely to be, any considerable displacement as a consequence of the arrangements made under the Bill, there may be individual cases and I submit that if there is even a possibility, under the exercise of the powers contained in the Bill, of certain events taking place, we have a right within the scope of the Bill to guard against evils arising out of that action. I am making that on a point of order as to the feasibility of this proposed new section being within the scope of the Bill.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is on the words "shall if so required by the Minister"?

Mr. JOHNSON

Yes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The words "shall if so required by the Minister" seem to me to be so general as to give validity to the point of order made by Deputy Johnson. They are not restricted in any way by anything else in the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

As regards the point raised by the Minister touching the necessity for a Money Resolution, the intention may not be carefully enough phrased; but the intention was that the arbitration fees would have to be borne by the parties and not by the State. If there is any amendment required to make that clear, then of course it can be made right in either the present or the Fourth Stage.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is giving the Minister very wide powers, if I may hark back to an argument—power to make some indeterminate person pay. The last sub-section of the amendment mentions that the Minister may make rules "determining by whom they are to be paid."

Mr. JOHNSON

That refers to the parties concerned, one or other of the parties concerned.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is not so much a matter of the intentions as the words that are here.

Mr. JOHNSON

I agree, and am quite prepared to make the President or Deputy Good pay the fees, but I accept that as an impossibility. I believe that the existing legislation contains phraseology almost identical with that. I want the general proposition, apart from phraseology to be embodied in the Bill as a consequence of the action of the Minister in pledging undertakings to enter into agreements one with the other, that displacement would give a right to employees for compensation for loss of employment. If that proposition is accepted by the Minister I am not going to argue on the phraseology or drafting of the amendment.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The amendment is before the Committee.

Mr. GOOD

The amendment is one that possibly requires a little more explanation than we have had from the Deputy. I take it this Bill refers to two different authorities for the distribution of electricity at present in the Saorstát. We have, first of all, electricity distributed directly through the local authority. We have in other cases the powers of the local authority handed over to a private company, and administered by it. The Deputy asks in his amendment that in the event of anything happening that would displace any of the employees—I am interpreting the amendment as I read it—of either of the bodies I have referred to, these employees are to be compensated. I take it that is the intention. That requires possibly an explanation as to the difference of these two sets of employees as they exist at the moment under the Acts. As the Deputy is aware, in the case of the services of any employees of the local authority being dispensed with under the existing Acts, those employees will have their rights of compensation and otherwise. With regard to employees of private companies, the position is not the same. If we are to assume for the moment that the services of those employees should be dispensed with, and that they should be compensated, let us see exactly the position that might arise. The distribution of electricity would be taken on in that particular area. Say, for argument's sake, where a private company carries on those particular duties at the moment that that private company itself would come to an end, and that the particular services which it discharged would be discharged by another body. In all probability the employees of the first body who would be discharged would become employees of the second body, which would carry on similar duties. Therefore, if you compensate these men for loss of employment, and they walk the next week into similar employment under different employers, what are you compensating them for?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This amendment is designed, according to Deputy Johnson, to guard against what he describes as the usual procedure, the economising by reductions of staff. I described on the Second Reading the circumstances under which this Bill came to be introduced at all. Certain undertakings find that they have a surplus of electricity and certain others find that they have not sufficient to meet the estimated demand unless they put down an increased plant. By the linking up of these different undertakings the necessity of putting down plant is obviated if this Bill be introduced and passed. So far from there being any likelihood of unemployment arising through the operation of this Bill the probability is all the other way. Let me take one instance. Lucan at present is without electricity. Under this Bill Lucan will be able to have electric light provided to it. Men are at present out of employment through the failure of a certain body to supply electricity. Those people will again be in employment if this goes through. There has to be met, some way or another, an estimated increased demand for electricity in and around Dublin alone up to 1930, and that can be met in either of two ways. Either let certain undertakings instal additional plant at a heavy cost to themselves, useless expenditure in the light of what 1930 will bring, or else have this the inter-linking, and have pretty definitely the assurance that there will be extra employment and almost, without doubt, the assurance that there cannot be any unemployment arising from this Bill.

We have the introduction of this amendment which certainly gives room for any amount of friction, and it is quite unneccessary in the circumstances I have described. I have given something equivalent to an assurance on Second Reading and have repeated the circumstances under which the matter arose now. I ask Deputy Johnson to consider, not some imaginary thing that is likely to happen by somebody operating this in a wholly unheard of way, but what is the normal probability of the use of this Bill between this period and 1930, and let Deputy Johnson discover for himself what is the likelihood of any unemployment arising as a result of it and then consider whether it is necessary to move this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

My proposition is that there may be changes in the organisation of the staff and that one, two or three men may be displaced as a consequence of the operation of the powers of the Minister. I do not think it is going to be a very serious matter. I do not think there are many men going to be displaced, but the people concerned are afraid there may be and at least there is a possibility that one or two men specialising in a particular class of work may be displaced as a result of the operation of the Act. He may be a man not likely to be taken on in a new job because he served too long a period and is not young enough and it is desirable that the position of such men should be safeguarded, as they have been in respect of railway legislation, local authority legislation, and other legislation of a similar kind.

I agree with the Minister that the working of this is not likely to mean a great loss to many men. It may not mean a loss to any man, but at least we should safeguard the individual, even if it is only one person. This amendment is not introducing any new principle. It is one which is already inserted in many Bills of a similar character. This is said to be a temporary Bill. It is going to deal with special circumstances. That does not obviate the necessity for meeting possible ills which might arise out of the working of the Bill when we are not introducing any new principle. I meet Deputy Good's point as to whom the responsibility will lie on by saying that the Minister will undoubtedly, in making his Order, take account of all the circumstances and that the organisation which is going to benefit by the mutual assistance scheme will necessarily have to bear the cost of the compensation. As I say, there is no new principle embodied in this, as similar provisions have been included in railway amalgamation Bills, local authorities amalgamation Bills, and other Bills of a similar kind and no great harm has been done. If it is true, as the Minister says —and I think it is probably true with possible individual exceptions—that no persons will be disemployed, then the introduction of this provision will not do anybody any harm, as it will not be called upon. But if it happens that some persons are displaced from their employment, then it is well that we should have their position safeguarded.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

When the Deputy says there is nothing new in principle in this amendment, I suppose I shall have to agree with him. He quotes the Railways Act. The section was put in the Railways Act specially because there was an implication throughout that some of the economies were going to be effected by a reduction of staffs, and it was to meet cases where we saw that the cases were not merely likely but were certain, that a compensation section of this type was put in. The Deputy also speaks of the likelihood of men not being taken on— the type of case which Deputy Good has given. This amendment was first suggested by the Electrical Power Engineers' Association. In a letter in which they refer to it, they speak of those men who might fall to be unemployed under the operations of this, and they talk of the specialised character of their employment. Precisely because the character of their employment is of so specialised a nature, they are not likely to suffer unemployment. No undertaking about to enlarge its plant, its supply capacity, is going to take on unskilled men when you have men whose training is of this specialised character in an already existing undertaking ready to be taken over.

The other argument is that this ought to be included because the Deputy agrees with me it is not likely there is going to be unemployment, and, therefore, the section will not be called upon. The section undoubtedly gives tremendous room for friction. If a case has been made that there was going to be unemployment from this or that, the Bill was of such an extensive nature, or that it was going to last for such a long period of time that the danger was really to be apprehended of unemployment, I could admit the amendment. I consider the amendment definitely appropriate for argument on the Electricity Bill with regard to the Shannon, but it has no footing here. While I do hold that there is going to be no unemployment arising from the operation of the clause, I cannot accept the amendment simply because it is not ever going to be called upon.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 46.

Tá

• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.

Níl

• Earnán Altún.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• John Conlan.
• Sir James Craig.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Good.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• John Hennigan.
• Patrick Leonard.
• Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Eoin Mac Néill.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Parthalán O Conchubhair.
• Conchubhar O Conghaile.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Tadhg O Donnabháin.
• Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon O Dúgáin.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Pádraic O Máille.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
• Seán O Raghallaigh.
• Seán O Súilleabháin.
• Seán Priomhdhall.
• Patrick W. Shaw.
• Liam Thrift.
• Nicholas Wall.

Tellers:—Tá, Deputies O'Connell and Morrissey. Níl, Deputies Dolan and Sears.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

As this is the last section of the Bill, I should like to indicate certain circumstances in connection with it. A series of amendments were suggested and discussed, and I thought myself that these amendments would have been put down. I could then have indicated a composite amendment that I was prepared to accept to meet the not unreasonable fears of certain people that the word "consumer" in Section 3 might be too widely construed. What I feel I ought to do under the circumstances is to indicate that I will be prepared to accept at the end of Section 3 a new sub-section reading as follows:—

"(2) Where the premises to which a supply of electricity is proposed to be given under this section are situate in the area of supply of an authorised undertaker, the Minister shall not approve of the giving of the supply under this section unless or until he is satisfied that such authorised undertaker is either unable or unwilling to give the supply."

That is designed to lessen the fears of those who believe that the right allowing statutory undertakings to have an area of supply limited to them was going to be broken in upon. Deputy Myles raised this on the Second Reading, and I felt that he would be the person to indicate some amendment of the sort. I have now indicated the amendment that I am prepared to accept if anyone moves for it on the Fourth Stage.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know what point we are at, but I would like to suggest for the Minister's consideration a verbal alteration. A phrase runs through the Bill "Electricity produced by the State." I am not sure that that is the kind of phraseology one would desire to introduce into legislation. After all, while it may be produced in State-owned undertakings, it can hardly be said to be produced by the State. I would ask the Minister if he would consider re-phrasing that at a future stage.

Question—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.