Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Jun 1949

Vol. 116 No. 3

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1948—Committee (Resumed).

SECTION 2.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 3:—

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

Every regulation made under this section shall be laid on the Table of the Dáil as soon as may be after the making of such regulation.

When the Minister was introducing the Bill, he explained the necessity for the change proposed in Section 2 on the ground that, while the Act of 1927 gave the board wide powers of making regulations, the provisions of that Act were defective in various ways, particularly in so far as they made no specific provision for the publication of regulations made by the board. During the discussion on the Second Reading I inquired, but without success, as to how that position was being remedied by the substitution for the sections of the 1927 Act of the proposed section in this Bill, which itself makes no provision for the publication of the regulations by the board even when these regulations have been confirmed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not know if this amendment of mine, which provides for the laying of copies of regulations confirmed by the Minister on the Table of the Dáil, provides for sufficient publication to meet the legal objections to the provisions of the 1927 Act.

One of the sections of the 1927 Act which is being repealed contains precisely the same provision for the tabling of regulations which I am proposing to insert here. It is that fact which has left in my mind a doubt as to whether the defect of that Act is being remedied by the amendment. If there is a question as to the validity of regulations made under the 1927 Act on the ground that there is no specific provision for the publication of those regulations, then that position can only be remedied by the inclusion of such a specific provision here. That may be something more than I am proposing. In any event, I think the Dáil should press that regulations which are confirmed by the Minister should be laid on the Table of the Dáil. By taking the power to confirm regulations made by the board, which the board previously could make on its own initiative without reference to the Minister, the Minister is putting himself in the position that he can now be questioned by the Dáil on the effect of these regulations in so far as he takes responsibility for them, and, if the Dáil is to fulfil that new function in relation to the board, it clearly must have the information which can be given only by the formal submission to it of the confirmed regulations.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Cosgrave)

No doubt the Deputy is familiar with the reason for this change—that regulations made by the board were not judicially noticed in the event of a dispute and an elaborate procedure had to be carried out under which, if the regulations were challenged, the secretary or some authorised officer of the board had to come to court to prove the regulations. Under the provision here it will be possible to have the regulations confirmed by the Minister and published by the Stationery Office, and the regulations so published, as statutes are published, will be accepted on production of a copy of the regulations or, in the case of a statute, a copy of the statute.

So far as the Deputy's amendment is concerned, I do not think there is any objection to accepting it. I think, however, it should be widened to include presentation to the Seanad as well as to the Dáil. It is usual to include both Houses.

Mr. Lemass

I have no objection to that. I shall withdraw the amendment if the Parliamentary Secretary undertakes to introduce an amendment on the Report Stage.

Mr. Cosgrave

Yes, on the Report Stage.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

Certain observations made by the Minister last night created a doubt in my mind as to the exact significance of the section. He referred to the fact that the section proposed to give the board power to make regulations relating to any aspect of its business. Under the Act of 1927, the board was given power to make regulations, regulations which were required either to bring any part of the Act into effect or to define the procedure to be followed in relation to certain specified things, such as the acquisition of a private undertaking, the protection of the board's generating stations and transmission lines, or public safety. I want to have it quite clearly stated that by the alteration of the law in the matter of the making of regulations by the board we are not altering the powers of the board and that the regulations contemplated in this section are regulations defining procedure and not of a character which would be indistinguishable from legislation.

By way of illustration I may mention the fact that last night the Minister referred to the 1945 Act for the purpose of showing that the wording of a section of that Act in the matter of giving the Minister power to amend regulations made by the board was similar to that proposed here. His reference to it created a doubt in my mind. The particular part of the 1945 Act to which, the Minister referred was one which was intended to set forth the general conditions that would apply in relation to all hydro-electric schemes proposed by the board. Previous to that Act, a separate Bill had to be produced and passed by the Dáil whenever the board undertook the establishment of a new hydro-electric station. It was hoped that the work of the board would be speeded up by having one general Act setting out the provisions which would apply to all hydro-electric stations and providing merely for the drafting of the proposals to be approved by the Minister and for their publication to the people of the affected districts. I take it that nothing we are doing here is giving the board power to amend that law, to alter the provision of the 1945 Act regarding the publication of proposals for new stations or modifying the provision of the Act as to the manner of publication.

The Parliamentary Secretary will satisfy me if he says that what we are doing here is merely changing the manner in which the powers previously exercised by the board will be exercised and that, in fact, we are not giving the board any new power or in any way giving it authority under this section to modify the duties or the functions conferred upon it by previous legislation.

Mr. Cosgrave

This section, if the Deputy reads 1 (a) and 1 (b), says:—

"The board may make regulations—

(a) for any purpose connected with the generation, transmission, distribution or use of electricity,

(b) for any purpose connected with the performance by the board of any of their powers, duties or functions."

Then sub-section (2) goes on to say that the Minister may:—

"(a) by order confirm the regulations,

(b) return the regulations to the board for the making of such amendments therein as he thinks proper, or

(c) refuse to confirm the regulations."

Previously the Minister refused to confirm the regulations.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister had no function.

Mr. Cosgrave

This section merely imposes the Minister on the board in so far as the actual confirmation or refusal of the Order is concerned. If there is a dispute between the Minister and the board he may return the regulations to the board for amendment. It does not impose the Minister on the board in any way in so far as the carrying out of these regulations is concerned or in so far as the 1945 Act is concerned. However, a similar power exists in the 1945 Act under which when the board submits a scheme to the Minister for the generation of electricity he may confirm it or return it to the board for amendment if he thinks proper. Actually this section has no direct connection with that but the same power is conveyed.

Mr. Lemass

Is it clear that no regulations can be made or concerned under this section of the Act which could not have been made by the board itself previously?

Mr. Cosgrave

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

When the amendments to this section were being discussed last night Deputy Lehane—I do not want to misconstrue what he said— gave me to understand, at least, that the section that is now being proposed met a point of view held by his colleagues and himself that the Minister would now have responsibility to the House in answering for the activities of the Electricity Supply Board. It appears to me from what the Parliamentary Secretary says now, that is not the case nor the intention. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to make it clear to the House. Last night I said that I strongly agreed with the point of view suggested by Deputy Larkin and Deputy Lehane that the time had come when this House should have a right, through the Minister, to question certain of the activities of the board. It would appear to me from what the Parliamentary Secretary now says that the section in no way will alter the situation that hitherto existed and that the Minister will still be in a position to say in answer to a question put by anybody in this House that he has no responsibility. I should like to get that clear now and I think Deputy Lehane ought to get it clear. It is no use letting the section go because we may think it means something when, in fact, it means something else. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to be frank with the House and make it quite clear.

Sir John Esmonde

I do not like sub-section (6) of this section. It gives power to the board, as far as I can see, to create a penal offence subject to the approval of the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

I think it should be made clear that the views expressed by Deputy Briscoe are personal to himself. I do not agree with him.

Mr. Briscoe

I made it clear that these are my own views. I have had these views for the last 16 years and raised them on every possible occasion I could. There may be a big difference of opinion between the views I hold on this and those held by my colleagues on this side of the House. I feel it is wrong for this board and other boards to be in a position where they can command whatever they require in the shape of finance from the State, where they control certain conditions of every single person of the State when we get the rural electrification scheme through. The public, through their representatives, are going to have no rights of protection. Deputy Sir John Esmonde mentioned that they are going to be entitled to introduce new offences. They have powers under the existing Act which I object to very much of entering into people's houses, disconnecting services and inflicting sheer hardship in the shape of charges on people. I think they are going beyond what they are entitled to do.

Mr. Byrne

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is it not possible for members of the House to ask questions concerning the activities of the board under any circumstances? For instance, my colleagues have drawn attention to the fact that there is a system of collection in the Electricity Supply Board where, if the tenants are not in at the given moment when the collector calls, in many cases it has been proved that not alone did they take action against them but they cut off the light there and then. People in Crumlin, Kimmage, Drumcondra and Whitehall at very short notice have had their light cut off completely. Then, when the light is to be reinstalled, the Electricity Supply Board demand that they pay £2 2s. 0d.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy suggesting that that is one of the regulations? The section we are dealing with concerns the general regulations.

Mr. Lemass

It is a regulation.

Mr. Byrne

I want to have the regulations altered to give us the right to protest against the dictatorial attitude they take up. It ought not to be allowed in a semi-Government controlled subsidised concern. We ought to have the right to ask questions and protest.

Mr. S. Collins

I would like to say— this is a purely personal opinion—that I am very much inclined to the same view as that expressed by Deputy Larkin, Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Lehane unless the section goes further and gives to this House, to some extent, a reins on the Electricity Supply Board without, of course, defeating the purpose of the section. I think that some of the regulations under which the Electricity Supply Board act at the moment merit very close investigation. Where these regulations turn out to be penal and to inflict a hardship, then I think the Electricity Supply Board should be accountable to this House. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would let us know whether or not some of us are right in thinking that, in this section, there is the possibility of this House, through the Minister, being able to keep a practical check on the Electricity Supply Board. If that is not so, then my personal view is that now is the time—or on the Report Stage—to put before this House some amendment that will give power to it to inquire into some of the activities of this board when it considers it necessary to do so.

Mr. C. Lehane

I think it would be unwise for Deputies to read into this section less than what is in it, and that it would be equally unwise for them to read into it more than is in it. As I see the section, it empowers the board to make regulations in connection with the various purposes set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) inasmuch as sub-section (2) confers on the Minister the responsibility of confirming those regulations. In so far as any future regulations are made and are so confirmed by the Minister, the Minister will be amenable to this House in respect of them. I think that is the effect of the section. I would not like to be taken as being dogmatic about it, but it appears to me to be abundantly clear that it confers that power and does not go any further. I certainly would view with horror the position wherein very minor matters could be raised here. I am afraid that some of the matters to which Deputy Alfred Byrne referred would come within that category, and, as I say, I would view with horror the position where the time of this House would be spent in discussing matters of very minor detail.

I think in so far as the broad general regulations are concerned, that as these will, under this section, be confirmed in future by the Minister, then to that extent the Minister will be amenable to this House for the regulations so confirmed by him. I must confess that, on a more mature reading of the Bill, it does not go as far as I would like it to go in making this corporation completely amenable to this House, but, as I say, I think, in so far as any future regulations confirmed by the Minister are concerned, that then the Minister will be responsible to this House in respect of them.

Captain Cowan

I think that Deputy Sir John Esmonde drew attention to a very important matter when he referred to sub-section (6) which, in effect, gives the board, with the authority of the Minister, the power to create summary offences—to make any citizen liable to be brought to court under these regulations and be fined the sum of £10. I think that, before power of that kind is given, it should be given only after very serious consideration and that it should not be permitted to get into a section which deals with the power to make regulations. The power to create offences is one which, I think, should be taken completely out of this section and put in as a separate section. That separate section should then be open to discussion by itself. This is a section which gives power to make regulations, but while that is so, it contains a sub-section which gives power to the board to create summary offences. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary might, between this and the Report Stage, recast this section by eliminating from it that particular sub-section and put it in as a new section to be considered by the House. I think that Deputy Alfred Byrne drew attention to a very important matter in regard to some of the things that are done by the Electricity Supply Board. I think it is wise that this House should have the right to examine regulations so made and to see that powers of the kind mentioned were not given to the board. For example, the officials of the board may arrive at a person's house because that person, through absence from home, or for some other reason, has not paid his bill. The officials arrive and the person there and then tenders the cash due to the board. The officials say that they have no power to take it, that all the power they have is to cut off the light. Such a thing as that has happened to my own knowledge. I think it is right that this House should have the power to review regulations of that kind.

Sub-section (7) disturbs me somewhat because here we are providing that regulations may be made by the board with the approval of the Minister, and that those regulations will be laid on the Table of the two Houses and will be subject to a motion which any Deputy or Senator may wish to bring forward in regard to them. Sub-section (7) states that:—

"Any regulations which were made by the board ... and which were in force immediately before the passing of the Act shall be regarded as regulations under this section and shall continue in force."

That means that they do not require approval by the Minister and that they are not open for consideration by any member of the Oireachtas. I take objection to the way in which sub-section (7) is framed. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should put a limit to the period during which those regulations will remain in force, and that period, I submit, should be written into the section, and further, that after that date, only the new regulations made by the board, and approved by the Minister and made available for inspection by members of this House, would be in force. I submit these objections to the Parliamentary Secretary for his consideration.

Mr. Larkin

I think that if we accept what Deputy Cowan has just said we are going to create very grave difficulties because, in the main, these are working regulations and were made for the purpose of enabling the Electricity Supply Board to carry on its day-to-day business. There is another point that Deputy Cowan referred to. If we are to regard any regulation already made as still being effective and in force, if it is to be regarded as a regulation under this section, and if we accept, further, that in so far as new regulations are made they will be laid on the Table of the House—we would all agree with that—then we would be entitled to direct questions to the responsible Minister so far as the old regulations are concerned; but would we not be equally entitled to address questions to him in respect of previously made regulations now given the effect of regulations made under this section?

I do not want to press this particular matter of Ministerial responsibility to the extent that Deputy Briscoe does, especially in regard to some of the objections that he has raised. I say that because here we are not just dealing with the Electricity Supply Board, but with a very important question of public policy—the relationship between the Legislature and bodies under State control or bodies established by the State, as well as the form of the control that should exist between the Government, the public representatives and those bodies. I think it would be wrong to deal with an issue of that magnitude on an amending Bill which deals only with superannuation. I think that, if we are going to discuss that particular question, we should do so on a much broader plan with a full understanding of what we are doing. I think that on this occasion we can go this far, that to the extent to which the Minister confirms regulations I think we are entitled to direct questions to him in respect of the matters covered by those regulations. I do not think that we are entitled to go outside of that. There is also the point to be considered that, under sub-section (7), we would be afforded the right to address questions to the Minister in respect of regulations previously made by the board and now given the same force as the regulations that will be made under this amending Bill when it becomes law. I think that is a point we might have cleared.

Mr. Cosgrave

Some of the questions raised, particularly by Deputy Briscoe, go to the root of the relationship between State companies and the responsible Minister. I think the best approach to that matter is one which leaves the question of policy to be decided by the Minister and the day-to-day administration to the board set up under the enactment establishing the company or the corporation.

As to whether fixed charges should be brought before the Dáil for discussion, and the manner in which the board's officials cut off connections, I think that is a matter of day-to-day administration. I do not think Deputies will suggest that if a customer cases to pay for the service which he is getting he should continue to get free service. There will be certain cases where the board or their officials may be a little bit abrupt in dealing with the public, but I think, generally speaking, they give adequate time to people who fail to meet their obligations in respect of payment for current used. I do not think anyone will suggest that any State company should provide a service unless the public are prepared to pay for it.

General policy can be reviewed when the annual accounts are laid on the Table of the House. That will afford the Dáil at least one opportunity every year to discuss policy and the general working of the Electricity Supply Board. In between that there may be at any time amending legislation, but assuming there is no such legislation from one year to another, the Dáil will still have an opportunity of discussing these matters. Any Deputy can table a motion to have the accounts discussed, and that affords an adequate opportunity to discuss the general policy. Under this section, whatever regulations are made will be laid on the Table and Deputies can discuss them.

What Deputy Larkin says about past regulations is correct—these will be in the same position as regulations to be made in the future. As the Deputy pointed out, quite a number of these regulations deal with ordinary day-to-day working matters that no one other than the board and the people directly concerned would be interested in. For that reason the objections of Deputy Cowan to Section 2 (7) are not very valid. This section merely continues the existing regulations and instead of being in force under Sections 33 and 34 of the 1927 Act they will be in force under Section 2 of this Bill.

Mr. C. Lehane

What about sub-section (6)?

Mr. Cosgrave

There is nothing new in that. In the 1927 Act the board is given the same powers and the penalties are recoverable on conviction before a court of summary jurisdiction.

Mr. Lemass

Private companies have the same power.

Mr. Cosgrave

Exactly.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 4:—

To add at the end of the section the following sub-section:—

(8) The expenses under this Act in relation to the tribunal (including fees) shall be defrayed by the board as part of the general expenses of the board.

This amendment is to make good an omission in the Bill and it provides that the expenses of the tribunal shall be borne by the board.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 5:—

To insert the following sub-section before sub-section (3):—

(3) Where a dispute is referred pursuant to sub-section (1) of this section to the tribunal, the tribunal may request the Labour Court to investigate the dispute and thereupon the Labour Court may investigate the dispute, but, save upon request as aforesaid, the Labour Court shall not investigate a dispute to which this section applies.

The effect of this amendment, as in the case of the manual workers' tribunal, is to enable disputes referable to the manual workers' tribunal to be presented to the Labour Court. Such disputes can only be referred to the court by the tribunal. The amendment is designed to make the same provision in the case of the general employees' tribunal as is made in the case of the manual workers' tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

Section 7 not moved.

SECTION 8.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 6 is in substance a new section and its acceptance involves the deletion of Section 8 of the Bill. In connection with that you have amendments Nos. 14 and 21 which are correlative with reference to manual workers.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 6:—

Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—

The board shall give to each of their general employees a summary in writing of the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1942 and this Act in relation to the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) continuity of service with the board so far as concerns general employees,

(b) the effect of a break in the service of a general employee,

(c) the tribunal and the functions thereof.

This is consequential upon the deletion of Section 7 and its effect is to omit the reference in the existing Section 8 to penalites due to strike action.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 8 deleted.

SECTION 9.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 6, to insert "14 or" before "15" in line 14, line 22, and line 29.

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment No. 7 agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 8 will not be moved, as it is outside the scope of this measure. The same applies to amendment No. 9.

Mr. Lemass

That is ruled out, too?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 not moved.

Section 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 10a:—

In sub-section (1) to insert after the word "employment" in paragraph (b), line 11, the words: "or would have been entitled to such gratuity but for the fact that he had less than two years' service".

The purpose of the section is to give a free pension to certain employees of the board who were previously employed by the Dublin Corporation in connection with the running of the Pigeon House station. It will, perhaps, help Deputies to understand the purpose of this, and another amendment which I shall move later, if I explain what happened when the Pigeon House station was taken over by the Electricity Supply Board. At that time the Pigeon House station was run by the Dublin Corporation and staffed by officials of the Dublin Corporation who, as such, had pension rights. When the Electricity Supply Board took over the Pigeon House it closed it down and the employees of the Pigeon House were dismissed. Those who had five years' service, or more, got pensions appropriate to their length of service. Those who had less than five years but more than two years' service got compensation by way of gratuities. Those who had less than two years' service got nothing. The purpose of this section is to give free pensions to those who were compensated by way of gratuity on loss of employment by the closing down of the Pigeon House.

By earlier legislation we had ensured the rate of pension for the employees of the Electricity Supply Board who had been transferred from the service of local authorities. These persons who were disemployed in 1929 and compensated by way of gratuity were in that category, even though they may not have established at that time rights to pensions under the Dublin Corporation scheme. I do not know upon what basis it was then decided that those who had less than two years' service should receive no compensation at all. My information is that there are only three such persons now in the service of the Electricity Supply Board and it seems to me rather harsh to exclude them from this section. When they entered the service of the Dublin Corporation as workers in the Pigeon House they thought they were entering into permanent and pensionable employment; and certainly it would have been permanent and pensionable but for the fact that the Pigeon House was taken over by the Electricity Supply Board. Presumably, the decision to exclude from compensation by way of gratuity those who had less than two years' service was a decision arrived at arbitrarily, probably under the influence of the Department of Finance.

There is no logical basis to justify giving compensation by way of gratuity to a man who had two-and-a-half years' service and denying it to a man who had one-and-a-half year's service when the gratuity was calculated in accordance with length of service. I propose later that, in determining the amount of the free pension to be given those who were compensated by way of gratuity for service given prior to the acquisition of the Pigeon House should also be taken into account. But the purpose of my amendment is to get that same right of free pension for those who got no compensation because they had less than two years' service. There are only three such persons to my knowledge still in the service of the Electricity Supply Board. It seems both unfair and illogical to exclude them from the same benefits which those persons compensated by way of gratuity are now receiving under the section.

Mr. Larkin

It seems to me that we are now trying to tie up some loose ends since the Act of 1942, even to the extent of an individual case. The plea made by Deputy Lemass for dealing with the two or three remaining cases of those men who were in the Pigeon House and who fell, so to speak, between two stools, should receive sympathetic consideration. The superannuation scheme has now been in operation for some years. It has naturally been discovered that there are some weaknesses and defects. A number of such have come to light and the Minister now wants to remedy them by this Bill. I think we should utilise this opportunity to get rid of all the loose ends left. I think the number left is so small that these men could properly be dealt with under this Bill and we shall thereby get rid of one of the existing difficulties. These men had service in the corporation. Naturally, when they were taken over, they expected that they would remain in pensionable employment. If they had remained in the service of the Dublin Corporation they would have qualified to become members of the clerical staff at the expiration of two years' service. That was their normal expectation in the corporation. I think it would be harsh to stick to a rigid period of two years to the disadvantage of this small group concerned. If the Minister can see his way to doing so, I would suggest that he should accept the amendment in order to clear up these odd cases.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I do not want to press the case made by Deputy Lemass, but I hope that it will receive sympathetic consideration. Since we are on the question of tying up loose ends, to use Deputy Larkin's expression. I want to raise the problem of another set of employees who were also rather harshly affected. Not more than five are concerned. If this legislation is taken advantage of, they will have a grievance remedied in their favour. The case to which I refer is that of a number of young men who entered the employment of the old Dublin United Tramways Company as trainee engineers before the Pigeon House station was taken over. The old company had a scheme under which these young engineers were dispersed throughout a number of electrical workshops in the city for the purpose of training. Unfortunately, when the Pigeon House was taken over, their services were not required and they were excluded from the Act.

An Ceann Comhairle

Can the Deputy say whether they were ever employees of the Electricity Supply Board?

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

They are now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Were they before?

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

They were employees of the Dublin United Tramways Company, but they did not come-under the first Act. They are only five in number and they merely ask for an adjustment in so far as credit may be given for that service for superannuation purposes. The maximum service excluded from them is ten years. If they are credited with that service, their contributions, which are very high for pension purposes, will be reduced and when the pension ultimately accrues it will be of more material advantage to them. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in conjunction with Deputy Lemass, to consider these five employees, who are now designated as operators and particulars about whom are with the Department.

Mr. Cosgrave

As Deputy Lemass says, it is rather illogical that persons who have less than two years' service should receive no gratuity while those who had two years or two and a half years got a gratuity. Whatever the reason for that distinction, however, there is a difference between the people who got a gratuity and were subsequently re-employed and those who got a pension. In so far as the pension is concerned, the pre-employment period with the old Pigeon House and the subsequent period with the board are reckoned and the contributions are accordingly abated. In so far as the gratuity is concerned, there is no way of abating contributions. The person gets the gratuity and that is that. The board cannot recover. It may not be easy, therefore, to make up the full period of service from the point of view of contributions. However, in view of the fact that there are only two or three persons involved, I shall have this matter examined between now and the Report Stage and also the position of the operatives to whom Deputy O'Sullivan referred.

Mr. Lemass

May I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that, while nobody suggests that we should now undo the injustice that was done in 1929, it has to be noted that that distinction is going to mean the difference between a contributory pension and a free pension because if they come under this section they get a free pension?

Mr. Larkin

If they had completed two years' service in the Dublin Corporation they would have qualified for one of the conditions for a pension. We terminated that possibility, so in that respect we have a responsibility.

Mr. Lemass

I shall withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 11:—

In sub-section (2), page 8, lines 17 and 18, to delete "sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1942" and substitute "sub-section (7) of this section".

This amendment is necessary to correct an error in the definition of the expression "appropriate superannuation scheme" in sub-section (2). The effect of the sub-section is to prevent a worker benefiting from two schemes or qualifying for two pensions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 12:—

To delete paragraph (b) of sub-section (6) and to substitute therefor:—

"the service of a person to whom this section applies shall be taken to be the aggregate of:—

(i) his service in the employment of former undertaker,

(ii) his continuous service (both before and after the passing of this Act) in the employment of the board."

This amendment relates to the same matter we have been discussing but from a different point of view. Those who were employees of the Dublin Corporation, on the transfer of the service to the Electricity Supply Board, are entitled now to a free pension. They had a right of pension in the Dublin Corporation service and they have similar pension rights in the board service. Those who were employed in the Pigeon House and who had more than five years' service when the Pigeon House was closed are entitled to a pension in respect of their earlier service and a free pension in respect to their later employment under the board. Those who had less than five years' service there got compensation by way of gratuity and are now going to get a free pension as from the date the Pigeon House was reopened. Having drawn the gratuity paid in 1929. it is now held that they have no claim for pension for their service prior to 1929. While it is possible to say that that is a logical course to follow, taking it from the ordinary human aspect, it is likely that the comparatively small gratuity which these men got in 1929 was completely absorbed in maintaining themselves during the period in which they were out of employment between the closing and the reopening of the Pigeon House and in no way represented a fund which they invested and which would increase their income on retirement later.

The proposal in the amendment therefore is that, in determining the amount of pension which these men will get under this section, not merely should their service with the board be taken into account but also the two or three years which they had as servants of the Dublin Corporation in the Pigeon House before it was closed in 1929, even if they have already got the gratuity provided for in that year. I have said that I admit that the fact that they got that gratuity appears on the face of it to be legitimate ground for dating their pension from the date of re-employment but we all know that there was no permanent accession to the income of these men by reason of getting that gratuity which was, in fact, a comparatively small sum and which was absorbed in maintaining them while they were awaiting re-employment. Again the number is comparatively small and, while the Parliamentary Secretary may tell me that this Bill is as I framed it myself before the change of Government, I think we should clear up that situation because otherwise there is going to be a continuing sense of grievance amongst a comparatively small section who have long since forgotten the benefits they received by reason of the gratuity payment 20 years ago.

Mr. Cosgrave

If this amendment were accepted, it would mean that these persons would not only be compensated by way of pension for past services but would also be compensated by way of gratuity. I do not think there is any justification for that. Although I agree with the Deputy that anyone who was compensated by way of gratuity some years ago probably absorbed that gratuity during the period he was out of employment, if this amendment were accepted he would be entitled to receive a pension in respect of a period for which he has already received a gratuity. It would be quite exceptional to give double compensation.

Mr. Lemass

I admit that it would be quite exceptional but, in so far as we are going now further than we originally intended in the matter of clearing up the situation resulting from the transfer of employees from the Dublin Corporation to the Electricity Supply Board, we should try to make a complete job of it. These men had service with the Dublin Corporation and, if the Pigeon House had never been taken over by the Electricity Supply Board, they would have remained in the service of the corporation and they would have been entitled to a pension calculated on the basis of their whole service from the first date of their employment. The closing of the Pigeon House, therefore, was a disaster for them. The mere fact that they got a certain sum into their hands by way of compensation is of no benefit to them now. What they are facing now is that they are going to retire on a smaller pension than that to which they would have been entitled if they had remained in the service of the Dublin Corporation. They are being comparatively worse treated than those who have a slightly longer service with the Dublin Corporation and who will get a pension in respect of that service. That pension is in suspension at the moment, but it will be payable to them when they retire. Those who had five years' service will get the full pension whereas those who had only four and a half years' service will get a pension calculated only from the date of the reopening of the Pigeon House. The amount involved is very small and I think it would be far better to remove any sense of grievance which may exist amongst these men.

Mr. Cosgrave

I suppose the amount is small but it would be rather exceptional to give both a gratuity and a pension in respect of any service. While it is true that the conditions of these people were worsened by the closing of the Pigeon House, the fact is that they received a gratuity in respect of that. The amendment would not only create an anomaly in this Bill inasmuch as these employees who were working in the Pigeon House would get a gratuity and a pension, but it would also set up a very bad precedent for legislation dealing with other matters. It would be regarded as a very bad precedent and might involve other companies.

Mr. Lemass

The circumstances are not likely to be repeated.

Mr. Cosgrave

They are not likely to be repeated.

Major de Valera

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that if it was a question of double compensation serious difficulties would arise but, as Deputy Lemass said, the circumstances are not likely to be repeated and, in fact, if one takes the facts as I understand them, there is not double compensation. I speak subject to correction, but I understand that on the termination of their employment under the old Dublin Corporation these employees were given a certain nominal compensation for the period they had worked. Then they were out of employment for some time owing to the temporary closing of the Pigeon House, and, if I am right, that compensation given at that time was to be regarded as compensation for the immediate damage done to them at that particular time.

Mr. Cosgrave

At the time the compensation was paid to them they had no guarantee.

Major de Valera

I quite understand that, but now you have to look forward to their position in futuro. The question of calculating their pension rights and the question of a pension to enable them to subsist during the days of their retirement are two different matters. It is not a question of compensating them if one regards the compensation awarded in the past as compensation for abnormal damage to them personally at that time. If one relates the compensation given at that time to the abnormal damage, I think one can make sufficient distinction for the future. I am just suggesting that as a way out for the Parliamentary Secretary, having regard to the difficulty he might be in if we were creating a precedent. The circumstances, as Deputy Lemass said, are altogether peculiar. The numbers involved are small and if we make it quite clear that we are acting in relation to that abnormal circumstance we create no precedent. It all arises from the fact that, having terminated their service, there was a hiatus in their employment although they did go back to the board.

Captain Cowan

I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, seeing that we are in a generous mood, that he might consider the matter fully between this and the Report Stage and endeavour to meet the views we have put forward.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am afraid I cannot be generous in this matter, not so much on account of the amount involved, but because of the danger of establishing a precedent. When the Pigeon House was closed these men had no guarantee; in fact, the closing was regarded as permanent.

Mr. Lemass

Only by the board. The board made a classical mistake.

Mr. Cosgrave

Nobody thought at that time that electricity was going to become in such general use and the board, no more than anyone else, was shortsighted in that. When the Pigeon House closed gratuities were paid in respect of short service and pensions in respect of longer service. This would involve that those who got gratuities in respect of previous employment with the board and were again employed by the Electricity Supply Board and re-employed in the Pigeon House would be entitled to pension and gratuity, that is double compensation.

Major de Valera

The actual gratuity paid at that time did not much more than pay them for the period they were out of work. Look at the actual picture with regard to their service. In the case of any man who had a certain service with Dublin Corporation, had the situation continued for him as he would have expected it to do, if this Parliament had not interfered by setting up the Electricity Supply Board and conferring certain powers on them, he would have looked forward to continuous employment from the date of the commencement of his employment with the corporation up to the date he would retire, which would be approximately the date at which he would retire now. As his situation was prior to the interference by this Parliament in his affairs in the various Acts, he would have looked forward to a period of continuous remuneration for the work he would have done and—I am not conversant with this—probably a pension to follow. If not, the outlook has changed on that matter in the meantime so that whether he would have expected a pension or not does not matter to the argument. That was his position and that was what he expected. In fact what happened? In fact, through causes over which he had no control, as Deputy Lemass said, circumstances changed and he was thrown out of work. Not only were his expectations defeated but he was thrown out. The gratuity given to him did very little more than compensate him for that unemployment period.

Out of that gratuity therefore you must deduct, at the very best from the Minister's point of view, the remuneration he would have got during that period of unemployment in the ordinary course of events. Make that deduction and you have nothing left. He has got no compensation, certainly no comparable compensation to compensate him for that period of unemployment. Whether he would have got a pension under his old conditions or not is immaterial because the outlook has changed here and he would have been entitled to the benefit of that change in the matter. He is now to be regarded as being merely in the position of an employee with so many years' service from the date of the commencement of his employment and anything he got was merely remuneration for the period he was out of work. If that is a fair, equitable and factual picture of the situation, there is no difficulty in making the legal picture and there in no difficulty about the principle having regard to the abnormal facts. I would press, in conjunction with other Deputies such as Deputy Cowan, that the Parliamentary Secretary should at least reserve the matter for the Report Stage and consider it. These people are entitled to consideration. Otherwise you are going to leave them in the position of being victimised as a result of changes made for the benefit of the community at large.

Mr. S. Collins

I would not like to be taken as opposing the rights of these people, but I do not think that Deputy de Valera painted the picture accurately. The picture is that these people on the date of the closing of the Pigeon House were disemployed. Some by reason of the length of their service were entitled to a pension while some with shorter service were given a gratuity. When the Pigeon House closed they were left in this position: "You have been given a certain amount for your service and it is now a question for yourself to find alternative employment and make a new start in life." I think we are overlooking the fact that this might create, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, a serious precedent. One analogy that occurs to my mind probably strikes Deputy Traynor. A certain type of service was given by legal officers in the Army who subsequently became district justices. They got a gratuity on the cessation of their service as legal officers and an effort by them afterwards to have that service recommended as pensionable service as district justices was resisted on the basis that they had already been compensated for their period in the Army. The same position must obtain here. No matter what the circumstances were subsequent to the discontinuance of their employment, a gratuity was paid by way of compensation for the service they had given under the old Dublin Corporation. It was given on the basis that there was a cessation of employment and the fact that subsequently, on the maturer judgment of the board, the Pigeon House was reopened and they were re-employed was, I think, a fortunate circumstance for them.

At the very time the compensation was paid, that possibility was not very prominent to their minds. My knowledge of the case is very limited, but I know people who were disemployed in the Pigeon House at that time and, in the belief that it would not be reopened, they sought completely alternative employment. Therefore, even though there may be sympathetic merits for the case and I, like other Deputies, might feel that in a generous mood these loose ends might be tied up, I am inclined to submit to the view of the Parliamentary Secretary that to do it in this way might be creating a precedent. There may be an alternative way, without crystallising it into this actual Bill, by which the board, by regulations which it may make subsequently, if the Minister is disposed to be sympathetic in this way, could add a certain number of years' service in lieu of that, if they so liked. It would, however, be a dangerous precedent to put into legislation.

Mr. Colley

I would like to support the amendment. I do not think the case quoted by Deputy Collins is definitely on all-fours with the case of these men. It was not due to the action of this House that those people were changed in their employment nor were they actually thrown out of employment through the action of this House. At the time this took place, I happened to have some personal knowledge of it. Any man who was under the corporation in the Pigeon House at the time would be automatically entitled to permanency of service after two years and to pension rights. If he had continued under the corporation, those pension rights held. Instead of that, through the action of this House, those men were actually thrown on the street, and the amount of compensation they got would not at all cover them, as has been mentioned here. It only barely covered them for the period of unemployment, if it did even that, and it did not cover them for loss of rights. I cannot see that it would create a precedent for such cases as mentioned by Deputy Collins. Our first duty is to do right by these men. It was the action of this House that brought it about; we have an opportunity now to settle it, and it is our duty to do so.

Mr. S. Collins

I think the Deputy has slightly misunderstood what I am driving at. It is not the fact that these men should be compensated or anything made up to them that I am opposing. I am in complete sympathy with the idea. My only objection is that we may be making this the thin edge of the wedge—if we grant one group of people this, others will interpret it as a type of double compensation and it may cause agitation of another nature which we do not want. My suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary is that it may be possible to do this in a less conspicuous way and still have the same effect.

Major de Valera

There is this difference straight away from Deputy Collins' argument. To take the example he has quoted, in the first instance the employment was of a temporary nature, where a gratuity was given. It was a temporary one, and one that automatically determined the gratuity or compensation which was given in respect of the time already lost and the opportunities lost owing to service in the Army rather than anything in the nature of compensation covering future periods. With regard to the subsequent appointment the Deputy mentioned, these are appointments which, of their very nature, cannot be related to any particular duration in time. They simply start from whatever day the person happens to be appointed. You have two very distinguishing facts in the illustration the Deputy gave to differentiate them.

Mr. S. Collins

I am not putting them on all-fours.

Major de Valera

The point that Deputy Colley has made is fundamental. Here were these people with permanent, pensionable employment.

Mr. S. Collins

The expectation of it.

Major de Valera

Yes, the expectation was there. Everyone who knows the Dublin Corporation system knows that once a person is in satisfactory employment there it becomes permanent employment. That being the position, there was a break, or an interference which brought a break. The compensation was hardly anything more than would remunerate them for the actual break. Therefore, at the end of it, on re-employment, they were no better off than they had been. In other words, the compensation given at that time, taken together with their re-employment, did nothing more than restore them to the position in which they were. Therefore, having regard to that and, if necessary, to the change in our outlook to which I have referred already, they were clearly entitled to reckon their pensionable period from the beginning to the end. I think there is no difficulty in making an equitable distinction and, if one can make a clear cut equitable distinction in the matter, such as we can make on the facts here, there should be no difficulty about making a legal distinction, and there is no reason why a technicality should prevent it.

Mr. Hickey

I wonder if there is any great fear of this proposal, if accepted, being quoted again as laying down a precedent.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not think there is a great deal involved, but there is definite danger of a precedent. The question quoted by Deputy Collins is not quite on all-fours with this, but there is the possibility that cases might arise under the proposed transport legislation. One cannot speculate on what may arise and a precedent established here may be quoted afterwards.

Mr. Hickey

Every case should be dealt with on its merits.

Mr. Cosgrave

If we dealt with every case on its merits, you might have this quoted and there might be substantial sums involved.

Mr. Hickey

It was rather a disruption of employment.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is only when looked at in retrospect that there was disruption of employment. When compensation was paid to those people, their employment had ceased, the Pigeon House was closed, and in respect of the period of service they were given gratuities. Subsequently, when the Pigeon House was reopened, they were re-employed. Some of them had pensions and the pensionable employees became entitled subsequently to pensions in respect of the previous employment and are now entitled to pensions in respect of the period served since. Those who were entitled to gratuities are entitled to pensions from the date of their re-employment and got gratuities in respect of the previous period.

Mr. Traynor

The situation in which these men found themselves was, more or less, brought about, I believe, by an over-estimation by the officers of the Electricity Supply Board at that particular period. They believed, and honestly believed, that they would be able to produce more than sufficient current through the medium of the Shannon at that particular time and that the necessity for the Pigeon House would not arise. As a result of that miscalculation, these men found themselves unemployed. There can be no doubt about it that they did not go voluntarily from the corporation. I have a very clear recollection of the particular period, when some of these men made representations to those of us who were members of the corporation in order to secure them in their position in the corporation. They felt that it was not in their interest to have themselves transferred. However, they were transferred in due-course and, through this miscalculation, in the course of time they found themselves unemployed.

I understand that the period for which the Pigeon House was closed was a rather brief one—I think it only ran into months. The gratuity which they received could very easily be regarded as being merely the equivalent of what many employers give to their employees, in lieu of notice. It is a very usual procedure for an employer to give a sum of money in lieu of notice and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to regard the situation as being something like that and not to allow himself to be overawed by the fact that this is a precedent. If a precedent stands between us and our doing something which we believe is right, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not let it stand in the way. All we are doing here is asking him to defer judgment at the moment and to have it examined and if, after examination, he feels that he cannot accede to the request made by Deputies, we shall have to accept his judgment.

Mr. S. Collins

I am entirely in agreement with Deputy Traynor's attitude to that extent, and, in so far as it is possible to re-examine the case in a sympathetic way, I will urge the Parliamentary Secretary to do so. The only reason I made my argument at all is that there is a danger, looking at it from the purely legal point of view, that, where you create a precedent in one way, you will create bulges in another way, and you will have people feeling, even though their cases are not and could not be on all-fours with this, that they have a grievance. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could examine it with officials of the Electricity Supply Board with a view to finding some way in which he could tell the House that the matter was being looked after by the board in their own normal way rather than to have it enacted as a principle in the Bill. If the Parliamentary Secretary explores that possibility, he will possibly be able to meet the House.

Mr. Lemass

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could examine whether the powers given in Section 15 of the Act of 1942 of giving supplementary pensions might not be applied to this case. If I withdraw the amendment, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would promise to examine it with a view to getting more information as to the dimensions of the problem—the number of people involved and so on.

Mr. Cosgrave

I will undertake to do that. I cannot promise that I will cover the position, but I will undertake to find out the position and to consider whether it is possible to get a solution under Section 15.

Mr. Larkin

May I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to something which is not clear to me? We have here two groups of men—one group to whom pensions were given on the cessation of their employment and another group to whom a gratuity was given. It is proposed in the Bill that we should allow these persons to have their service counted from the date of their re-employment by the board and the point at issue is the creating of the precedent of giving double credit for the same service. I happened to look at the White Paper which has been circulated and, in regard to this group of men who went out and who were given pensions, I take it that they spent their pensions while unemployed, and I notice that on their reabsorption into the employment their pensions were abated and their new pensions were to be calculated upon the aggregate service (a) up to the closing of the station, and (b) from the date of re-employment to the date of final retirement. Does that mean that they did, in fact, draw pensions in cash during their period of unemployment which they spent and now are to have their service calculated for pension purposes on the basis of their service prior to the closing of the station?

Mr. Lemass

They got a pension for the few months they were out and are now entitled to a pension on the basis of the whole service.

Mr. Larkin

The White Paper says that the pension already awarded at the time of the closing of the station was to be terminated and a fresh pension substituted, the latter being based upon the aggregate service (a) up to the closing of the station, and (b) from the date of re-employment to the date of final retirement. If we substitute "gratuity" for "pension". it is exactly the case we are discussing.

Mr. C. Lehane

So the precedent is already created.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 13:—

In sub-section (7), page 9, to add at the end of the sub-section "and, if before the passing of this Act any contributions were paid by any such person, or by the board in respect of any such person, to the fund set up for the purposes of a superannuation scheme under the Superannuation Act of 1942, the contributions shall be repaid."

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

I mentioned on the Second Reading that, as the Government were proposing to go ahead with this legislation, which reopens to some extent the question of pension rights of persons who entered the board's service from the service of other electricity undertakings, it was inevitable that claims would be forthcoming from those who were not covered by existing legislation. The position, as I understand it, is that those who transferred to the board's service from pensionable service with local authorities have, under legislation promoted by the Minister for Local Government, the right to a pension from the board equivalent to what they would have got from the local authorities.

Those who are in the board's service and who entered it from the service of local authorities but had not got pension rights on the date of the transfer have also been given pension rights, if the employees of the local authorities which previously employed them have since got pension rights. Section 15 of the 1942 Act gave the board power to supplement the contributory pension of persons who entered the board's service from the service of authorised electricity undertakings where the amount of the contributory pension, by reason of the age of the employee on the date on which the scheme came into operation, would, in the opinion of the board, be unduly low, or the contributions he would have to pay to get an adequate pension would be unduly high.

There are people who entered the board's service from the service of electricity undertakings which went out of business because of the establishment of the Electricity Supply Board for whom there is no provision and who are, I think, even excluded from the provisions of Section 15 of the 1942 Act. I have in mind particularly the former employees of the power station of the Dublin United Tramways Company. Deputy M. O'Sullivan referred to certain trainees of the Dublin United Tramways Company, and their case appears to be a special one, but there are ordinary workers who were employed in the Dublin United Tramways Company power-house and who are now in the service of the Electricity Supply Board. It is true that the company could have continued to operate its power-house and that its successor, Córas Iompair Éireann, could have continued to do so, but, in fact, the Electricity Supply Board were keen to get that business of supplying power for the Dublin trams, and, when in a position to undertake the supply, quoted a price for electricity which was lower than the tramways company could produce it for itself and, in fact, a price which involved the board in a loss. As a result, the Dublin United Tramways Company took the offer and went over to the Electricity Supply Board supply and shut down their power-house. The employees of the power-house were at that time not entitled to pension. A pension scheme for the employees of the Dublin United Tramways Company came into operation subsequently, just as pension schemes came into operation for employees of local authorities, subsequent to the acquisition of local authority electricity undertakings by the board. These men are also in this position, that if the Dublin United Tramways Company power-house had kept going for a little while longer they would have come under the Dublin United Tramways Company pension scheme, whereas they are now, in the service of the board, entitled only to such pension rights as they can get under a contributory scheme, which for many of them will be low because of the fact of their being advanced in age when entering the board's service.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether or not it is possible to extend the provisions of Section 15 of the 1942 Act to give the board discretion to pay in such cases a pension supplementary to the contributory pension. I would not attempt to draft an amendment to have that effect. It would be completely beyond the resources of a private Deputy and I can see at once the danger that the extension of the provisions of Section 15 to a distinct group like the former employees of the Dublin United Tramway Company power-house may lead to similar applications on behalf of persons who were merely employed as salesmen for electricity apparatus or something of that kind and who entered the board's service as individuals. There is, in the case that I refer to, the particular hardship that the company that employed them was also operating a public utility which has since become subject to legislation, the present employees of which have now got pension rights.

Mr. Cosgrave

I will consider the matter the Deputy raised to see if it is possible to have them included under it, but I cannot undertake at this stage to have them included. It may be that it will be possible to have them considered under the pension scheme of Córas Iompair Éireann, although I would hesitate to add to the burdens of that company at the moment.

Mr. Lemass

I would not attempt to draft the amendment. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks it cannot be done, I will not press it.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 14:—

Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The provisions (other than the excepted provisions) contained pursuant to sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 in the manual workers' superannuation scheme shall cease to have effect.

(2) In sub-section (1) of this section, the expression "the excepted provisions" means the following provisions contained pursuant to sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 in the manual workers' superannuation scheme, that is to say:—

(a) the provision that only continuous service in the employment of the board ending on the date of retirement from employment on account of age or ill-health shall qualify or be reckonable for superannuation benefits under the scheme,

(b) the provision that in the reckoning of continuous service in the employment of the board of any manual worker, any period of service of the worker in the employment of the board prior to a break after the passing of the Superannuation Act of 1942 in that service shall be included if, but only if, either the contributions to the fund set up for the purposes of the scheme by the worker in respect of such period of service remain in the said fund or, where a sum in respect of such contributions or such contributions and interest thereon has been repaid to the worker, such sum is refunded to the said fund whether with or without interest,

(c) the provision consisting of the overriding limitation that only that service prior to such break which would have been so reckonable if such break had not occurred shall be included.

This amendment is consequential on the deletion of Section 7. The section removes the penal clause in respect of the manual workers which was imposed by Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) (Superannuation) Act, 1942, and it is necessary that an amendment on these lines should be made in order that the general employees as well as manual workers should be covered.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17, I think, go together.

Mr. Lemass

Nos. 15 and 16, anyway. Amendment No. 17 may raise a slightly different point. I have no objection to their being discussed together.

Following are the amendments in the name of Deputy Lemass:—

15. In sub-section (1), paragraph (b), line 15, to delete the words commencing with the words "the board" and ending with the words "the order" in the same line and substitute therefor the words "the Minister certifies".

16. In sub-section (1), to insert after paragraph (b) a new paragraph as follows:—

Every certificate given by the Minister under the provisions of this sub-section shall be laid on the Table of the Dáil as soon as may be after the giving of such certificate.

17. In sub-section (1), to insert after paragraph (b) a new paragraph as follows:—

No certificate shall be given by the Minister under this sub-section unless the special order proposed to be made by the board relates to lands and premises required for the construction and extension of generating stations.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 15. Under Section 45 of the Act of 1927, the board is given power compulsorily to acquire land or rights over land, to impound water and otherwise to interfere with private property. But the Act of 1927 required the board before making such order for the compulsory acquisition of land or for any other purpose under this section to give certain public notice, to deposit and keep open for inspection plans and specifications and other documents which would show clearly the land to be acquired or the right to be interfered with. It was obliged to give notice to persons likely to be affected of its intention to make the order and, if expedient, it was authorised to hold a public inquiry before making the order. The proposal in the Bill is that the board will be released of its obligation to deposit plans, to notify the public and to hold if necessary a public inquiry if it certifies that the making of the order is a matter of urgency. I recognise fully that the procedure laid down in Section 45 of the 1927 Act is a slow procedure and that if we are to speed up the work of the board. particularly in regard to the rural electrification scheme, it is necessary to have some other procedure. I am not objecting to the proposal here to shorten that procedure where circumstances justify it but I think that the decision as to whether there exist considerations of urgency which should exempt the board from the obligation to comply with sub-section (45) of the Act of 1927 should rest on the Minister and not on the board. I think it is giving the board far too much power to say that the board's certificate will settle the matter and that nobody can question its certificate. Therefore, my suggestion is that instead of the board deciding and stating in the order that the making of the order is a matter of urgency, the Minister should certify that in his opinion it is a matter of urgency.

I am quite agreeable to bringing the Minister into the function of the board in this particular case because there is quite clearly a question of public interest involved. The board has power to interfere with private individuals and their property. That power is surrounded by certain safeguards at the present time and we should not lightly remove those safeguards in a manner which would not merely preclude the Minister from having any say in the matter but would make it impossible for the Dáil to question the Minister. If we require the Minister to certify that there are considerations of urgency which justify the new procedure, then the matter could be raised here if necessary and there is, at any rate, brought to bear on the problem not merely the minds of officials who are anxious to get on with the job and to cut the red tape, but also the mind of a public man who will have consideration for the public interest. The whole object of my amendment is to transfer from the board to the Minister the obligation of deciding when urgency exists and that would short-circuit the procedure laid down in the 1927 Act.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

As a member of the Port and Docks Board, may I say that the board is deeply concerned with the rather drastic form in which this section is drawn? Ordinarily, the term "port" is interpreted in its very narrow meaning. A port is usually regarded as the immediate quay or waterfront and the sheds and equipment on the lands abutting but the Port of Dublin, like every other port, must be taken in rather wider terms. In the case of Dublin regard must be had to the use to which the port district is being put. There is the use of the port district by importers, exporters, warehouse men, manufacturers and so on. Under this section, if it remains in its present form, it will be open to the supply board compulsorily to acquire any land without question within the vicinity of the port without any reference back to the port authority. The board regard that as something new, something almost without precedent and something that might act detrimentally to the interests of the port. Deputy Lemass suggests that, while he recognises that the supply board must act with speed on certain occasions, if the Minister is brought into the problem there is a safeguard—so far as the port authorities are concerned, in any case—which will ensure that the matter will be taken outside their purview for a while until the Minister will adjudicate upon it. Having regard to the interests of the port authority in the Port of Dublin, the board feels that it might have, generally speaking, an oversight on the development of the port generally. This matter was raised with the Minister's Department. I understand they are relying on the fact that there is protection in Section 130 of the Transport Act of 1944. But that protection is of a restrictive character. It is confined to the board's own property.

Now the board takes the view that, immediately outside the confines of its own property, developments could take place along the lines I have indicated detrimental to the port. They seek to bring the Minister into it in such a way that the interests of the port would be protected. There is no suggestion that the board would go in immediately but there is always the possibility. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the form in which that particular section is drawn at the moment is drastic. Whether it is necessary is a matter for argument. As a member of the Dublin Port and Docks Board I have been asked to speak on behalf of the board and to say that they view with a certain amount of concern the form in which that particular section is drawn.

Mr. S. Collins

Like Deputy Lemass and Deputy M. O'Sullivan I would urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that he would consider, if not the actual amendment as drafted by Deputy Lemass, amending this section himself on the Report Stage to give the Minister the ultimate decision as to what he would deem a matter of urgency as far as the board is concerned. I think that a great deal of disquiet has arisen over the particularly bald nature of this section. I am talking now, representing as I do an area that is shortly to come under the rural electrification scheme and a flooding scheme on the Lee. It is just the reaction of the ordinary persons themselves that they feel that, if this section is going to go through as it is—no matter what considerations may arise that should normally cause the board to defer for a period the doing of anything—there will be no machinery under this section by which the reason for such a delay could be brought to bear on the board.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary should consider that it would be serious—and very serious, I think, from an ordinary public interest view-point—to allow this section stand where we are in an arbitrary fashion throwing away what check I feel, anyway, as a public representative, a Minister responsible to this House should have on this body. I am thoroughly in agreement with the view Deputy Lemass propounded. While it is recognised by everybody that there are difficulties that may be raised by way of obstruction and so forth against the board's activity—and in those circumstances they want powers and support to cut through certain objections so they can get on with their work—I feel that the ultimate analysis of what is urgent and what requires that particular type of remedy should rest in the hands of the Minister responsible to this House in so far as he is responsible for the activity of the board. In that way it ultimately comes back to the responsibility of the collective Dáil, as representatives of the people, to see that whatever powers and functions are delegated by this House to the board are exercised in accordance with the public interest. I can visualise, as Deputy M. O'Sullivan visualised in the case of the Port and Docks Board, that it could happen—I do not say that it would happen, but the possibility exists—that you would have a semi-State board armed with this arbitrary power doing things which would conflict with other interests and at the same time with the general interest and the public interest. I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary should consider interposing and imposing the Minister at a stage of this section on the board so that he himself, as custodian of the public interest, may be the final judge on the question of whether or not urgency exists.

Mr. C. Lehane

I have not very strong feelings about Deputy Lemass's amendment in the form in which he moved it, but Deputy Collins has raised some queries in my mind. If I thought the effect of Deputy Lemass's amendment would mean that we would have not alone a check but a brake on the carrying out of the board's work— I am thinking particularly in terms of their projected schemes of rural electrification—I would certainly ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reject the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

Am I right in saying that, so far as hydro-electrification schemes are concerned, the position is as it is proposed to make it here—that it is only extending that provision to cover other activities of the board?

Mr. Cosgrave

That is the position.

Mr. C. Lehane

Deputy Collins spoke about the apprehension of his constituents in West Cork. I had occasion to speak to some of Deputy Collins's constituents and other people living along the Lee valley. I know that human nature being what it is, the natural desire was not for effective checks but to see that this hydro-electrification scheme did not go through because they felt that certain local interests would be affected by it. On this the Parliamentary Secretary should bear in mind—when he is deciding whether he is going to accept or reject this amendment—whether the speedy carrying out of the board's work will be best achieved by allowing the section to remain as it stands or by accepting the amendment; in other words, not whether it will be in the interests of private individuals but in the general interest of the public as a whole.

Mr. Larkin

This is a most interesting section. We have on the one hand Deputy Lemass, who apparently had some interest in the drafting of the Bill at one stage and who is accepting the section with some minor alterations, and on the other hand we have the Minister who is responsible for the Bill. Nobody seems to be concerned with the actual effect of the section. I have no objection to the section, but I would be very interested if we could apply the same powers to the housing problem. So far as the section is concerned, the board can make an order and 30 days after the order they can enter the land; 90 days after the order they can occupy premises. We spent hours and weeks and months dealing with the much greater problem of electrification in regard to the housing question. Every local authority knows that one of the most heartbreaking factors they have to deal with is the impossibility of getting in on land. Here, we are quite gladly giving to a semi-State board powers we have denied not only to local authorities but even to the Minister in charge of local government. I have no objection to that, but if we accept what is proposed in Deputy Lemass's amendment we should realise that we are creating a precedent. I suggest that some of us are not likely to forget the precedent when we come to deal with other matters.

I suggest that the amendment of Deputy Lemass should be accepted as we have had one or two instances so far as the Electricity Supply Board is concerned where they put up a pole in a front garden. I think there should be some responsible person to look at the matter from a technical aspect. I think the Minister should be attached to the powers which are being given under the section to ensure that, while delay is not to be caused to the board, the board will be required to have some ordinary common-sense approach to the rights of a private individual, even if he is an ordinary householder apart from a businessman. I think it could be done through the form indicated by Deputy Lemass. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Government, does not overlook the precedent he has created which we shall quote at a later date.

Major de Valera

It seems to me that the universal feeling in the House at the moment is a feeling that the section as it stands is dangerous. On principle, I think it is. We are in the peculiar position that, apparently, the Minister insists—reverting back, if I may for a moment, to the first amendment debated last night—on actively interfering largely in the internal matters of the board. There are some of us who would take a more conservative attitude on that. Incidentally, I should like to explain my use of the word "nationalisation" last night. I used it as a term of moderation, knowing that in one sense the board is a nationalised board. I used it in the sense of making the board a complete Government Department. If we are going to have the Minister interfering actively in the internal affairs of the board to the extent that was contended last night, logically it seems to me that the responsibility of the Minister in matters affecting co-ordination between the board and the outside interests should become a necessity.

No matter what view you take on the first issue, this is clearly a point where you are not dealing merely with the affairs of the board itself. You are dealing with the affairs of other people. In other words, the board in relation to the problems here visual sed is exactly in the same position as any company, body, local authority or anybody else that is empowered by statute to interfere with the property or rights of other persons who are not associated with it. In other words, the question here involved is simply this: that the board is a statutory body—a kind of a juristic entity before the law —with absolutely no ordinary rights to interfere either with the occupier of land that Deputy Collins mentioned or a similar board or body or local authority, such as Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned, or the private individual whom Deputy Larkin mentioned. That is the ordinary state of the law. The board cannot interfere with their property or rights unless and only in so far as a statute expressly confers upon them the power to do that. The conferring of power upon the board so to interfere actively with the rights of other bodies or persons is a matter for this House. In practical effect, it is a matter that is almost universally initiated by the Government and put through this House first and then the Upper Chamber. To that extent, the responsibility for initiating it must be the Minister's or the Government's. That is where the real responsibility ultimately lies for the conferring of such power, in practice at any rate, if not in theory.

If the ultimate responsibility lies there, why then should not the executive faculty of exercising that responsibility, so to speak, lie where the responsibility lies? In other words, on that argument it seems clear that it must be the Minister who should decide whether interference is warranted, whether the board is right, whether the claims and the equities and the rights of the other body, the body interfered with, are paramount. In strict legal theory I suppose you would say it is the Oireachtas should decide. But the plain fact of the matter is that you could not come back here as used to be done in the older days when Parliamentary life was not so burdened with business, when it was customary to deal with all matters of that kind either by private or semi-public Acts of Parliament. In strict theory, the whole matter should come back here. But, under modern conditions, the Minister must exercise the responsibility and the right.

I think there is no case for delegating that responsibility and that right beyond the Minister, that the merits of the case and the interests of all parties are adequately safeguarded if the Minister himself exercises this jurisdiction, so to speak, and balances the rights of the parties involved. He has the machinery available to him to control it; he has the information readily available to him. He is in fact the body, at least through the Government, that will be in direct contact with all the other interests that are involved. The Government, anyway, and in some cases the Minister, will be the body best fitted to come to an impartial and balanced judgment in regard to the question of the rights involved here.

Mr. Hickey

Possibly the Minister is not responsible to this House for what the board has done.

Major de Valera

The Deputy is putting me back on to something. So far as the internal working of the board itself is concerned, he is not. But this is not a matter of the internal administration or the exercise of the ordinary powers of the board. It is a question of the relation of the Electricity Supply Board with other bodies and individuals and that is clearly a matter that is his responsibility and ultimately ours. He is the person best fitted to deal with it. Just to meet the Deputy's argument, suppose you leave the section as it stands, you have an utterly contradictory situation where the Minister will have, theoretically anyway, the power under the section that we debated last night to deal with matters that would, normally anyway, be considered the private matters of the board, such as its economic charges and matters like that. He would have the right to interfere very actively there and, when he is surrendering completely, through the medium of this House, the right to deal with the question of the relation of the board with other bodies and individuals—I accept the decision of the House as it appeared to be last night—I cannot see any case for giving this arbitrary power to the board to come along and to exercise summary jurisdiction like that.

Deputy Larkin and myself have been at cross-purposes on the question of the technical board. I do not want to go into that. I agree with him that the board, being a board set up for a particular circumstance and for a particular purpose, will naturally look at it from its own point of view. No matter what fairly-minded people are engaged executively in such a project, they are naturally biassed in favour of what they want in the interests of efficiency. It is asking too much of human nature to ask them adequately to balance the interests of the people on whose rights they are going to encroach. The temptation to certify is urgent; it is really almost too strong for human nature. However, a conception of urgency may appear to one person from one point of view and to another person from another point of view. On the other hand, the Minister will naturally feel the pressure of other bodies such as the Port and Docks Board. He will be subject to a near equalised pressure anyway and, therefore, would naturally be inclined to come to a more general decision in the matter. Whether the actual wording of Deputy Lemass's amendment is acceptable or not the principle is clearly one to which we must subscribe.

There are other matters which perhaps I might mention. I was rather keen on the point when I was on the other side of the House. In legislating here we should try to avoid a certain temptation that has been evident in some of our legislation to throw responsibilities on to such bodies in such a way that it has the effect that the Minister has no direct responsibility and consequently cannot be held amenable in this House. If it is left to the board completely the board certifies as urgent, short circuits all the formalities in this matter and proceeds. They have got full statutory authority to do so and the Minister cannot, so to speak, interfere actively in their responsibilities in that regard, except in so much as some other section, which I have not examined in detail, allows him to do so. Granted that for the moment there is no getting at the Minister in that way, then we are left with no remedy but to bring in positive motions to deal with these matters and that is unsatisfactory.

There is one other matter arising under the section, as Deputy Larkin pointed out, the question of the need for expedition in these matters. There again we have to balance urgency and the unnecessary infringement of the rights of other people. It is probably better, from a practical point of view, not to prescribe the statutory formalities such as they were and such as are wiped out by this section, because experience seems to show that the statutory formalities leading to inquiries and literal interpretation of the statute simply make, so to speak, a field day for some lawyers here and those who will exercise their ingenuity to bring about delay and negotiate for compensation in consideration of delay and so forth, although from another point of view it is objectionable. Probably the best thing is to give the Minister a simple power of signifying urgency or not. If he does we can then hold him answerable for his decision. For all these reasons I think the principle embodied in Deputy Lemass's amendment is desirable and certainly not contradictory to any previous stand in regard to internal relations of the board.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think there is a good deal in what Deputies on both sides of the House have said so far as the rather wide powers which this section contains are concerned. I think it is desirable that wherever a board of this nature is dealing with the acquisition of private property, adequate safeguards should be provided for the people whose property is to be acquired and for that reason I will have the section reconsidered. However, Deputy Lemass's amendment, I think, goes rather further than anything that has previously been the policy in so far as the Electricity Supply Board is concerned. This amendment is drawing the line of demarcation rather heavily in comparison with the circumstances we were discussing last night. At any time acquisition of private property is an important step but it is inconceivable that the board would acquire private property merely as an ordinary administrative function of the board and while, in practice, it is only acquired by compulsion in cases where they are extending some existing schemes or where a new scheme is being started it has not been used for the acquisition of showrooms or anything of that nature. Deputy Lemass's amendment would require the Minister to give a certificate and the certificate would have to be laid on the Table of the House. I think that proviso would be a considerable infringement on the day to day activities of the board. In certain circumstances it might be desirable where a matter of policy was concerned but merely where land is being acquired for the purpose of a routine extension of the board's activities there is no reason why a certificate should be made available to Deputies.

On the general question of the adequate notice and time which should elapse I will have that examined between now and the Report Stage. I will undertake to get a suitable amendment drafted which will cover the points raised by Deputy O'Sullivan. As the Deputy is no doubt aware, Section 45 of the 1927 Act gives the board wide powers for the acquisition of land. It is true that they must have previous consultation with the Minister but it is phrased rather loosely.

Mr. Lemass

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the 1927 Act gives the board this power of compulsory acquisition but surrounds that power with certain obligations which were intended to be safeguards for the public. Now we are proposing to modify or remove the public safeguards. I have no objection. I agree that the 1927 Act proved, in operation, to be cumbersome and slow and I should like the procedure speeded up. In doing so we should consider whether the circumstances justify other procedure. If you leave it entirely to the board, the board will certify in every case. That is obvious. There is nobody to question their decision and it saves a terrible lot of delay and trouble. If the objection is to the laying upon the Table of the House information in the certificate concerned, I would not press that. I think it is quite enough to establish that the consideration of the justice of urgency should be taken, not by the board, but by somebody else, and the obvious person to do it is the Minister who is the custodian of public property in the matter.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the third amendment which relates to this. It was designed to ensure that the short circuit procedure for compulsory acquisition should be used only in connection with the construction of generating stations and it should not be used for the purpose of buying a shop, or an office, or property that should ordinarily be acquired without compulsory powers.

Mr. Cosgrave

Deputy Larkin mentioned a matter of some significance. There is no doubt that, as the section stands at the moment, it could be quoted as a precedent in the future. There is a difference, however, I think between the powers which a local authority has and what we are dealing with here. Deputies are aware that the procedure under which local authorities act is slow and cumbersome. Great delay occurs in acquiring sites for houses. In fact, the delay there is often far greater than the delay that occurs in the construction of the houses. Under the local authority procedure, where a person's property is being acquired, he has the right of appeal to the Minister for Local Government in the event of disagreement. In this case, if a proviso of that kind were included, it would, I think, make the procedure rather cumbersome. There are a large number of local authorities in the country, and there is plenty of machinery for dealing with the problems that arise in their case. In this case, if a proviso of that kind were included, it would cause delay generally and would interfere with the normal progress of electrical development.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 18:—

After paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to any lands or premises situate within the administrative area of a borough or urban authority.

This section deals with the matter to which Deputy Larkin reterred, namely, with the power of the board to put a pylon or a pole in somebody's front garden. Most Deputies know that in years past there was no subject which aroused more acrimonious discussions here than the exercise by the Electricity Supply Board of its right to way leave. The Act of 1927 gives it this right to way leave across land. The section seems to me a rather peculiarly drawn one. As it stands, the board must give 14 days' notice to the occupier of land of its proposal to put fixtures on his property. If, within 14 days, the occupier consents, or consents with conditions acceptable to the board, the board can proceed to erect its fixtures on his land. If, however, within 14 days the occupier refuses his consent, the board can still proceed to put its fixtures on his land. Where it is a case of technical requirements such as overhead line construction or convenience for the board's engineers, it has often been argued, and sometimes it has been proved, that the board has acted with insufficient consideration for the rights and interests of individual persons.

There is a proposal in this Bill, however, which is designed to modify still further the restrictions upon the board's powers in this regard. I know that is likely to cause a great deal of discussion in the future because the number of poles to be erected by the board will be very much greater than in the past consequent on the extension of the rural electrification scheme. Because of the rural electrification scheme and because of the necessity for getting ahead quickly with it, it is probably desirable to release the board from the obligation to deposit plans or to draw a diagram for the information of the person concerned. It is sufficient to require it to tell in a general sense the land occupier what is intended.

I think, however, it should be made-clear in the Bill, and that is the purpose of the first amendment in my name, that the additional facility which is being given to the board is to be used only in connection with the rural electrification scheme, and that, therefore, we are excluding from it the board's power to way leave within a borough area or an urban authority area. I know that many borough and urban authorities are often incensed with the board because of the way in which it constructs over-head lines and, generally, with its distribution arrangements by reason of its complete disregard not only for the plans of local authorities but sometimes because of the manner in which it disrupts the plans of the local authorities. No case has been made for altering the powers of the board by way of easement in regard to a borough or urban authority area. Therefore, I think we should not do it. I think there is a case for examining the desirability of restricting the powers of the board in the matter of way leave in borough areas.

That is the purpose of the first amendment. It proposes to confine the additional powers of the board to the rural electrification scheme. The second amendment in the name of Deputy Allen is much wider because it proposes to place on the board the obligation to have regard to the reasonable objections raised by the owners of land. There may be a difficulty in making that a legally binding obligation, but it does raise the whole issue of the use of way leave by the board.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not know whether the amendment is necessary because the position is that the board generally informs the people concerned in advance. It is true that, under the extension of the rural electrification scheme, the number of persons concerned is being greatly increased. A difficulty would arise in giving a full description particularly where you have an extension of the scheme with an increased number of poles and so on. Very often the board is obliged to send a representative to the spot.

Mr. Lemass

I think it is necessary that this should not affect the borough areas.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not think the section, as it stands, proposes any substantial change so far as borough or urban areas are concerned. The powers of the board in this matter are governed by Section 53 of the 1927 Act. The board is also under certain obligations under the Town Planning Acts. If it would meet the Deputy's point, I could ask the board to inform the occupier whose property it was about to occupy and to give him a description.

Mr. Lemass

It must give such persons 14 days' notice and also a plan. I am agreeable to release the board from the obligation in regard to the plan in areas where the rural electrification scheme is being carried out.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think that, so far as the rural electrification scheme is concerned, a description of the actual position is often more necessary than it would be in an urban or borough area. In the latter case it would not matter very much whether the pole was in the front or back garden.

Mr. Lemass

What the farmer wants is the right to have to say that where the board is putting a pole it is placing an obstruction in his path to the byre or to the carrying out of some other normal function on his farm. He says, for example, to its engineers that if they put the pole two feet back or two feet forward it would solve his problem, but the board say "X marks the spot and that is where the pole is going and nowhere else."

Mr. S. Collins

They are not that bad.

Mr. Briscoe

So far as the City of Dublin is concerned, this amendment is of great importance. If it is accepted it will help to relieve a problem that is constantly cropping up not only so far as individuals are concerned but local bodies as well. The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the Town Planning Act. We have a town planning scheme under the Dublin Corporation, but it has no statutory existence. Anybody who is familiar with the position in Cabra, Drimnagh and Crumlin will see what has occurred so far as the actual placing of poles by the Electricity Supply Board is concerned. In my opinion, the Electricity Supply Board cannot be proud of the erections it has made in these areas. They are causing a great deal of difficulty in city administration. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should accept amendment No. 18, which suggests that there should be some understanding reached between the Electricity Supply Board and the Dublin Corporation, for example, in regard to this matter of the erection of poles in borough and urban areas. I could give the Parliamentary Secretary, as I am sure any other member of the corporation also could, a list of instances where they ride roughshod over the local authority if the local authority do not agree with them, and sometimes there is no attempt by them to compromise. If the Parliamentary Secretary takes a run in his car through Crumlin and Drimnagh he will see a situation which, I am sure, would annoy him even, in driving his car, because at the crossroads you have to drive around these things which are, in fact, dangerous to the public. This would never have been permitted by a public authority if the Electricity Supply Board had not the powers which it has.

Mr. Cosgrave

I suppose agricultural land is more important than urban land from the point of view of the occupier except that, in the case of a town-dweller's house, whatever small garden a person may have it is more precious in one sense. On the other hand, it is not a source of livelihood in the same way as is the farmer's property.

I hardly think this amendment is necessary because, under this section, once the occupier asks for a description of the nature of the interference he is entitled to it, and this merely absolves the board from the necessity of giving every person whose property is about to be entered upon a full description of the nature of the work.

Mr. Lemass

The case for that is the rural electrification scheme.

Mr. Cosgrave

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

Confine it to that.

Mr. Cosgrave

I will. We will accept that, but I think the local authorities are well able to look after themselves.

Mr. Briscoe

They are not; they have no power at all.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it an amendment will be introduced on the Report Stage?

Mr. Briscoe

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does that affect amendment No. 19?

Mr. Lemass

Let Deputy Allen make his own case.

Amendment No. 19 not moved.

Mr. Briscoe

Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree on the Report Stage to consider the case to be made by Deputy Allen in view of the fact that the amendment is being withdrawn now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course, the Deputy has his rights.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 20 and 20a are out of order.

Section 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 20b:—

Before Section 16 to insert the following new section:—

Section 8 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 is hereby amended by the deletion in sub-section (3) (c) of the words "or by the board to such trustees".

The purpose of the amendment is to deal with the situation which has arisen in regard to the superannuation scheme. I do not know what attitude the Parliamentary Secretary will take towards this amendment and, therefore, I will briefly indicate the grounds on which it is being put forward. The House will have noted that in the Bill the Minister is amending Section 8 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 to the extent of leaving it at the discretion of the board to pay a rate of interest of 4 per cent. on moneys invested with them by trustees of the superannuation fund.

That amendment has been the outcome of a situation which arose in connection with the scheme. When the scheme was drafted in 1942, the board were informed by the Department of Finance that they could proceed to draft the scheme on the basis that 4 per cent. could be paid by them in respect of any moneys invested with them by the trustees of the superannuation fund. On that basis the actuarial aspect of the scheme was worked out and, more important still, when the scheme was put before the employees of the board, it was done through a high pressure selling campaign by the board. The employees were advised—as a matter of fact, induced—to become members of that scheme on the understanding that the rates of contribution and benefits indicated in the draft scheme would be enjoyed by them so long as they were members of the scheme. But the enjoyment of those rates of contribution and benefits was dependent, so far as the actuarial basis of the scheme was concerned, on the continuation of the payment of that rate of interest of 4 per cent.

In 1943 the view was conveyed to the board that the undertaking to pay the 4 per cent. should be reviewed in view of the fact that there was a fall in the yield of gilt-edged securities. The matter was considered and in deference to the views of the board and the trustees, as well as the pension committee representing the employees, the board was given permission to continue to pay the 4 per cent. In 1946, the actuary made a valuation of the fund and he pointed out that it would be impossible to value the fund and advise the board and the members of the scheme as to the actuarial soundness of the fund unless he could have definite knowledge of the rate of interest which would be payable on the moneys invested by the trustees of the fund with the board. He pointed out that in connection with funds of this character, short-term loans were highly unsuitable and it was essential that there should be something in the way of a guarantee of the rate of interest over a long period. He also indicated that his original calculation in respect of the fund had been at the rate of 4 per cent.

The Minister has tried to meet that situation in the Bill by leaving it at the discretion of the board to pay 4 per cent., but the difficulty is that in the 1942 Act there is a clause which makes it impossible for the board to give the type of guarantee indicated by the actuary and which is fundamental to the proper continuance of the fund. In Section 8 (3) (c), it is laid down:—

"such moneys shall be repayable on such notice by such trustees to the board or by the board to such trustees, as shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this section";

so that, even though the board might undertake to pay 4 per cent., they can give no guarantee that at any date in the future they will not have recourse to the power given to them in that sub-section and, after giving due notice, repay the moneys to the trustees and require them, if they wish to take them on any further investments, to accept them at a lower rate of interest.

The purpose of the amendment is to take away that discretionary power of the board to give notice to the trustees that they desire repayment of the invested moneys. It has been argued that there is the same power with the trustees, but there is this difference, that the trustees would be anxious to maintain the invested funds at a rate of interest which is continuous and has some form of guarantee behind it. The only purpose in leaving with the trustees the power to give notice for the repayment of the moneys is that at certain periods during the life of the scheme it will be necessary for the trustees to withdraw certain of their capital in order to pay back and, therefore, they must be left with that power. That was accepted by the board. I do not know what the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary will be to the amendment, but I am speaking, not with authority, but with a certain knowledge, when I say that the board itself has definitely indicated to the Minister its agreement with the principle embodied in the amendment and its willingness to undertake the commitments which, if the amendment is accepted, will be imposed upon it to the extent that any investments of funds that the trustees may make with the board would be on a long-term basis—a basis of 4 per cent.—and would be repayable only on notice from the trustees and not from the board.

The important thing to bear in mind is that we are dealing here with a semi-State body. Many of these employees are closely associated in their work with the employees of local authorities. It has been accepted as a principle by employees of local authorities generally throughout the country that employees of this nature have got certain recognised rights in regard to superannuation; and that principle is being more and more widely extended. In so far as this board is concerned, we have tried to provide a superannuation scheme. Quite frankly, I do not think it is as good as should have been provided, but it is there now. Even that limited scheme, limited to a payment of 50 per cent. of the retiring salary and on which there is a very heavy payment as regards contribution by certain of the employees, and many other limiting factors—even that scheme in its present unsatisfactory form will be completely disrupted unless there is some guaranteed basis in respect of the investment of the funds provided for the scheme. If for the sake of argument, the rate of interest were to drop from 4 per cent. to 2½ per cent. it would mean in the case of members of 20 years of age an increase in their contribution by approximately 50 per cent. for superannuation purposes in respect of their future service and an increase of 14 per cent. in respect of the payment of the lump sum under the insurance section of the scheme. In respect of members of the scheme at 60 years of age there would have to be an increase of 12 per cent. in contributions in respect of their future service. Quite clearly if that situation arose the scheme would collapse because even the present rate of contributions is beyond the payment of many of the members. A member of my union is paying £2 4s. 0d. per week towards his pension. I agree he has only got a year or two to go before he retires. That situation does arise under the scheme. Quite clearly, as the board and the trustees have been advised, it is essential to the welfare and continuance of the scheme that the board should be put in the position of continuing to pay 4 per cent. That has been dealt with by the Minister.

Secondly, the board should be put in the position of being able to enter into some form of guarantee over a reasonably long period. These two conditions are essential to the scheme. I think, then, the responsibility devolves upon the Minister to consider that matter very seriously. I understand he has been advised that the only practicable way to do that is along the lines of the amendment I have put down—namely, to take from the board the option of repaying these moneys to the trustees as and when the latter desire to submit a certain notice. There is no objection on the part of the board to that. That suggestion has the support of the board, the trustees, the representatives of the employees and the actuaries. It is merely a question then of convincing the Minister that this is essential to the preservation of the scheme, for which he must now accept responsibility. It would be wrong for a scheme which has been subjected to so much criticism to be placed in jeopardy, and I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider this amendment sympathetically. It is essential from an actuarial point of view apart from any other consideration.

Mr. Cosgrave

This amendment would enable the trustees to continue to require the board to repay the loan and would place no similar obligation on the trustees. I do not think it is reasonable to put all the obligation on one side. The section, as it stands, alters the section of the 1942 Act and it replaces the obligation on the board to pay up to a maximum of 4 per cent. In the 1942 Act the phrase was "with the consent of the Minister for Finance." The consent of the Minister for Finance is no longer essential under this. But in any superannuation scheme it is generally accepted that the superannuation fund pays into it up to whatever rate it is in a position to pay, and I understand that at the moment the board is repaying the money borrowed at the rate of 4 per cent. I think the Deputy will agree that is a reasonable rate at the present time.

Mr. Larkin

It is much less than any private employer would guarantee.

Mr. Cosgrave

It may be, but I think in general, if the fund were to look for money at the present time, they would have to pay less than 4 per cent. For that reason I think the provision in this section which puts the ceiling at 4 per cent. is a reasonable one and, in view of the nature of the fund, I think it would be somewhat inequitable to place all the responsibility on one side and all the advantage on the other. For that reason I am reluctant to accept the amendment. In this case the board has agreed with the trustees to take 4 per cent. I suppose the board, any more than anyone else, is not prepared to tie itself for the future. The fact that it is paying 4 per cent. at the present time is a matter worth consideration and it will be taken into account by the board in the future, or by any other board that may replace the present board.

It is true, as Deputy Larkin says, because of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the establishment of this fund and, in particular, because of the delays in bringing the superannuation scheme into operation, that a number of employees who are now near the end of their period of service with the board are obliged to pay heavily. On the other hand, employees who are young in years and young in the service of the board have more reasonable contributions. Despite the problem presented by these circumstances, I think it would be unreasonable to place on the board the obligation to continue to repay at the request of the trustees.

Mr. Lemass

Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate in any way the circumstances under which the board might want to repay its borrowings from the trustees without the consent of the trustees?

Mr. Cosgrave

It might want to terminate the loan.

Mr. Lemass

Only for the purpose of reborrowing at a lower rate of interest. That is all. As Deputy Larkin has rightly pointed out, this superannuation scheme was sold to the Electricity Supply Board employees on the basis of the benefits which could be secured on the investment of the fund at 4 per cent. If the scheme had to be prepared on some other basis less than 4 per cent., then the benefits would be correspondingly less or the contributions would be correspondingly higher, and the scheme would be less attractive. I should like to say that the Electricity Supply Board Superannuation Act, 1942, is not one of the achievements of my Ministry of which I am proudest. The Act has many defects in it. I should like to say that these defects were due to the influence of the Department of Finance which was dominant at the time. I do not think that it is desirable that we should hold out at the present time the prospect that the pension scheme provided by the Act could deteriorate from the point of view of the employee. Any alteration in the terms of borrowing which would reduce the interest earned on the fund by the trustees must lead to a deterioration of the scheme. I think it is unlikely that that is contemplated by the board, the Department of Finance, the trustees or anybody. The circumstances of the board are such that the moneys borrowed are permanently invested by the board. There was at one time an idea that the board could repay all the advances made to it and amortise its assets as well. That is the legal obligation of the board still, but we must recognise that, in practice, it will never happen and that the money invested in the generating stations is permanently invested. The board is taking this money and they have contracted to pay 4 per cent. on it. There can be no circumstances in which they will not want to pay that rate, except for one purpose and that is the wrecking of the superannuation scheme.

It may be undesirable—and I can see that it would be undesirable—to change the wording of the 1942 Act, but I think it should be possible to devise some other safeguard which would ensure that the board could not arbitrarily decide to reduce the rate of interest on borrowings from the trustees merely because of, perhaps, some trade dispute. The only circumstance under which the board would want to do that would be in case of a strike of the employees. If that possibility is eliminated, if it is clear that the only circumstances under which the question of repayment would arise—that is, repayment without the consent of the trustees—would be an unusual situation such as might compel the winding up of the Electricity Supply Board, then it should be possible to devise some safeguard. It might cause legal embarrassment at some stage and I am quite sure the Parliamentary draftsman would be horrified to have to contemplate a position in which the board would not be in existence, but I think it should be possible to give an assurance, which the actuaries require, in order to calculate the benefits which would accrue in future to the staff who have contributed to the fund.

Mr. Briscoe

As I see it, there should be a very-simple way of dealing with this. When Governments and local authorities borrow for specific long-term purposes, they contract to take the loan for a certain period. I can quite see that if a specific period is not agreed to, you are going to have at some time or other an attempt by the board to change this arrangement. Possibly if money is cheap and is available at 2½ per cent. they might not wish to continue to pay 4 per cent. I would suggest that in order to meet Deputy Larkin's point of view there ought to be some undertaking that this fund cannot be interfered with from the point of view of a reduction of the interest accruing from the moneys invested. Workers cannot be expected to have first-hand knowledge of financial conditions in the world so as to be able to know whether they will have to pay more for their benefits.

The board should be obliged to take this money and should not be allowed to reconsider the question of repayment before a certain period of time. If you specify a certain period, say 15, 20 or 25 years, the matter can be reviewed at the end of that period. At the present time, as I understand it, the superannuation scheme is in its initial stages and is more or less out of plumb due to circumstances referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary but in time, with the growth of employment in the Electricity Supply Board as a result of its expansion and the intake of younger people, the scheme will be put on a more permanent and stable basis. Until such time as that stage is reached, I think Deputy Larkin would be agreeable if there was an arrangement that for a specific period of years the board should be bound to take all the money offered by the trustees, invest it in the undertaking and pay 4 per cent. After that period has elapsed, the trustees can again consider the matter. They may even reach a position at that time when they will be able, out of invested money, to look forward to a greater income than will be necessary to cover the superannuation repayments. As I see the matter, it cannot be arranged in any way other than by saying that there must be a minimum period for which the board must keep this money at a specific rate of interest.

Mr. Lemass

We could put 4 per cent. into the Act and it would require legislation to change it.

Mr. Larkin

Even that is not sufficient. I think there is some misunderstanding in regard to this matter. Even if the amendment is accepted, it will be the board which will be the authority to decide the terms on which they will receive the money invested. The point is that the money should be invested under a guarantee of an irrevocable rate of interest for a definite term but the board has been legally advised that under existing legislation it is within its statutory rights if it decides to repay this money. The board with its present personnel may be quite willing to continue to guarantee 4 per cent. but what will be the position of their successors in ten or 15 years' time? One thing we lose sight of is that it is a most common feature of superannuation schemes to have agreed rates of contribution and a certain rate of interest is charged. The most common feature of such schemes, even with private employers, is that the employer guarantees to make up whatever deficiency arises through a deterioration in the rate of interest. Surely this board has a commitment to its employees equal to that of any private employer? There are many private employees who are at present guaranteed rates of interest, even up to 10 or 12 per cent. in order to make up deficiencies in the fund. Here we are not asking them to do anything that they were not a party to doing at the time the scheme was put to the members of the board. It was laid down that they could calculate on a basis of 4 per cent. and on that basis the employees were assured that if they entered into the scheme they would have to pay certain contributions and would receive certain benefits. It may be quite true, as Deputy Lemass said, that no occasion is likely to arise when the board would seek to repay these moneys. The only possibility that might arise is if it desired to find the money at a lower rate of interest or if the board expressed a desire to avoid that charge and substitute a lower rate than 4 per cent., but that is not likely to arise. The difficulty is again—it has happened on one occasion—that the Department of Finance would desire a lower rate of interest and I do not think it is fair to the employees of the board that they should be expected to put greater trust in the future members of the board, of whom they have no knowledge, than in the Department of Finance. Even the Minister and his predecessor seem to lack faith in the Department of Finance. The board is anxious to give a guarantee and to proceed and the actuary is pressing for some basis on which to make an actuarial examination of this scheme. The employees are very concerned and tonight in fact there is a meeting of the members of the scheme to consider the position. I can see no good reason why this amendment should not be accepted.

Again on the question of precedent which has been raised a while ago, a precedent in this case is necessary because of the way we dealt with the superannuation scheme in its initial stages. We could have avoided all this difficulty if, instead of basing the actuarial nature of the scheme on 4 per cent., we had said that the employees should pay a certain contribution and that the board would make the necessary payments to meet whatever was necessary to the fund. This is the practice in many cases of private employment, and in many schemes which are better than the Electricity Supply Board scheme the employee pays a contribution and the employer pays what is necessary to keep the fund sound. We did not do that in the case of the Electricity Supply Board but tried to strike a balance on a fifty-fifty basis and strike that balance by the payment of 4 per cent. If that 4 per cent. is not guaranteed the whole scheme is upset. We have a definite responsibility, and if the only way we can do it is that the board should say on its own account—for no compulsion is placed upon it by the amendment— to the trustees: "We are prepared to take the money from you and pay 4 per cent. over a period of 20 years," there is no danger of a precedent, because if it enters that commitment it is doing it voluntarily; it knows what it is doing and it is doing it in pursuance of a pledge given in 1942. I would urge strongly upon the Parliamentary Secretary to view it in that light, and view it in the light of the fact that this difficulty has been created because instead of deciding on this scheme in 1942 we could have had a scheme which would be much more simple and could have avoided all these difficulties at this stage.

Major de Valera

Arising out of Deputy Larkin's remarks—I am approaching the question on the basis of what he has said—I understand that at the beginning there was representation that the rate of interest should be 4 per cent. and that the scheme was based on that.

Mr. Larkin

Yes.

Major de Valera

Then it seems to me that the difficulty arises from (a) the Parliamentary draftsman's way of framing the Act or (b) repercussions in the Department of Finance. The Parliamentary draftsman would naturally put in the phrase, "Not exceeding 4 per cent." And, of course, it would not be long before the custodians of the purse would, if necessary, interpret that as meaning literally what it says. If that is the position, why not amend that? Why not amend the drafting by saying "4 per cent."? There is no greater finality in giving a term of years than in doing that. You can remedy it by putting in "4 per cent"—that is if the case made by Deputy Larkin is to be substantiated and I am accepting that for the purpose of the argument. If the phrase reads, "not exceeding a rate of 4 per cent." you can delete "not exceeding". It is as good a guarantee as you can get. Admittedly it can be changed by this House at any time, but so could the whole scheme.

Mr. S. Collins

Would you not think a minimum number of years would help?

Major de Valera

If you make it definitely 4 per cent. it must come to this House before it can be changed.

Mr. Larkin

All I want is a guarantee.

Major de Valera

Would not Deputy Lemass's suggestion then give the Deputy just as efficient a guarantee as he is seeking?

Mr. Larkin

Probably more efficient.

Major de Valera

And would it not be a simpler and more direct way of dealing with it?

Mr. Larkin

It has already been asked for and refused. A question which arises on that is the difficulty the Department of Finance finds in underwriting the guarantee of 4 per cent. and because of that difficulty and the problem of overcoming it, the representatives of the employees and the board itself have tried to find an easier way round the problem of seeking an amendment which would make it possible for the board itself to give a guarantee, not a statutory guarantee embodied in a Bill, but that the board should be left free to give a guarantee for the period which it desires. Having given it, however, it would not have the right at the end of a period of three months or three years by giving notice to say: "We will repay". Deputy Lemass's suggestion guaranteeing the 4 per cent. was the original suggestion, but apparently there were very great objections to it and this is another way of getting round it.

Major de Valera

Exercising one's ingenuity on this, supposing one adhered to that suggestion and left whatever underwriting would be involved to the Department of Finance, but the draftsmanship on that would, I suppose, be as difficult as the draftsmanship contemplated by the Deputy now.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is true that some private firms are probably paying more than 4 per cent., but I think it is fair to say that they are the exception ; the number of these concerns cannot be very large. I think the Deputy will agree that if the trustees were now looking for an investment in which to invest the money they would be fortunate if they were able to get anything exceeding 4 per cent. In fact, I imagine it would be considerably less. In view of the fact that there has been no suggestion, as far as I am aware, by the Electricity Supply Board to pay less than 4 per cent. or to repay at a lower rate, the amendment is unnecessary. This amendment has altered the original which contained the phrase that the set interest shall be paid at such a rate with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The consent of the Minister for Finance is no longer required and a ceiling is put on the rate. I think that is an indication to the board that 4 per cent. is regarded as a fair rate of interest. I frankly cannot conceive any set of circumstances in which the board would be likely to want to pay less than 4 per cent. unless there was a very great drop in the value of money. In view of the fact that they would immediately incur strenuous opposition from the trustees, it is unlikely that the board would attempt to do it. For that reason, I do not think this amendment is really necessary. It is a ceiling indication, but nevertheless there is a definite indication there that 4 per cent. is regarded as a fair rate, and I think the difficulty the Deputy foresees is unlikely to occur. While the scheme was based on payment of 4 per cent., I think there was no great actuarial difficulty. As long as 4 per cent. is actually paid, there will not be any difficulty and I doubt if there is any likelihood, either now or in the future, of this or a subsequent board attempting to pay less.

Mr. Lemass

The fact is that 4 per cent. is a generous rate and if the trustees had to go out to invest money in the open market they would have difficulty in finding an investment to earn 4 per cent. If there was a life assurance company assuming that it could invest its money to earn 4 per cent., there would be doubt as to its solvency.

I take it that the difficulty of the trustees is to estimate the future income in relation to the obligations they have undertaken and they are doubtful of the wisdom of continuing to calculate on the fund earning 4 per cent. The actuary of a life assurance company would be wary about advising the board of directors to calculate its solvency on an assumption that 4 per cent. would continue to be earned.

I am not at all clear why, if this amendment is passed and the Minister for Finance is taken out of the picture, it is not possible for the board to tell the trustees: "We have borrowed your money at 4 per cent. and will continue to do so." If this assurance is given to the trustees, I think it will be quite good enough for the trustees' actuary.

Mr. Larkin

Taking the Minister for Finance out of this section leaves it at the discretion of the board to pay 4 per cent., but it is not merely the actuary and the trustees and the members who are dissatisfied: the board itself is dissatisfied. Might I quote a letter from the board:—

"I agree that the amendment to Section 8 (3) (b) of the Act which you enclose will enable the board to pay 4 per cent. on the moneys borrowed by it from the funds, but it does not oblige the board to accept the moneys or to pay this rate. Under the amendment to which you refer it will be open to the board to decline to agree to an interest rate of 4 per cent. In the actuarial calculations upon which the funds are founded, the actuary, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, has assumed an interest rate of 4 per cent. Unless this interest rate is maintained throughout the membership of those persons who have entered the schemes to date these members shall be faced by the possibility that in the future their rates of contribution for membership may be increased, or the benefits to be derived from their contributions may be reduced. In the board's view this is not a satisfactory position from the points of view of the board, the trustees or the members. The adoption of the proposal to guarantee the interest rate of 4 per cent. will have the effect of giving the schemes that element of stability which the actuary emphasises is so fundamental and which is secured by statute to the officers and servants of local authorities under the Local Government (Superannuation) Act of 1948."

The whole point that is involved here is that, under local authority superannuation schemes, the actuarial basis is guaranteed. Under private schemes, the private employer says: "If you put into this scheme a certain rate of contribution, I will set up and constitute a trust fund and I will accept the responsibility of guaranteeing these benefits in return for the contributions, and I will make up whatever deficiency there is." The board has not accepted that responsibility. It has merely said: "Here is a scheme worked out on a basis of certain contributions in return for which you will get certain benefits, if we continue to receive your money as an investment and continue to pay 4 per cent. to you—but there is no guarantee that we will continue to do that. While the existing members of the board have every sympathy with this and are desirous of giving you this guarantee, we cannot bind their successors." In their opinion, the scheme as at present constituted cannot be regarded as actuarially sound and is not certified in that form by the actuary. I do not know what steps the Minister may take to meet that situation. If he likes to give a statutory guarantee, that is quite satisfactory; if he likes to make it possible for the board to forget about the rate of interest altogether and merely say they will accept money on loan from the trustees when they desire it at such a rate as they may desire to pay and they will make good any deficiencies in the scheme so far as existing benefits and contributions are concerned, that will suffice. Any of these devices will meet the situation. The only point the members of the scheme are concerned with, the board also and the trustees, is that a superannuation scheme that has got no actuarial soundness is not a superannuation scheme and it is not fair to call it by that name. That is the actual position so far as the Electricity Supply Board is concerned.

If the rate of interest is reduced we will have men of 20 years of age being faced with a 50 per cent. increase in their rates of contribution. This is the scheme that was proposed by the board, with the support of the Government and the responsible Minister, with the assurance that if the employees entered into the scheme they would make these contributions and receive these benefits. Why should we go back on that now? I do not want to press the amendment, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary should accept the responsibility of considering this matter between now and the Report Stage to see if he can meet the difficulty. I do not mind how he does it so long as he gives to the employees of the Electricity Supply Board, members of the scheme, some assurance that they will be given the same rate of pension from this semi-State body, that has the backing of the State and of the responsible Minister, as the employees of an ordinary individual industry would get. It is not too much to ask—much less than what their fellow-workers in the Dublin Corporation are receiving to-day. Remember that these men in the Electricity Supply Board are doing substantially the same work as the employees of local authorities, but the employee of a local authority gets his pension for roughly ½d. in the £ and he can get up to a maximum of two-thirds of his retiring wage. He gets many other facilities not available to the Electricity Supply Board, whereas the employee of the Electricity Supply Board starts at a contribution of 1/6 at 18 years of age and is limited to 50 per cent. of his salary and if he has to pay for past service, for which they have to try and obtain credit, the payments can go on an average—as they have, in many cases—as high as 12/- or 14/- a week. As against that, we have the very bad position of employees, with considerable service in the board, working on salaries of £400, £500 and £600, and going out on pensions of £100. I think the less said about this scheme in public the better. If they could only try and give these people the assurance we promised to them in 1942, we would relieve ourselves of a very awkward responsibility.

Mr. C. Lehane

I fail to see how the Parliamentary Secretary can reasonably refuse this amendment, or some amendment calculated to achieve almost the same purpose. While it may be correct that the majority of similar schemes operating in private undertakings are not at as high a rate as 4 per cent., nevertheless it should be our attitude in this House that where a semi-State corporation such as the Electricity Supply Board is concerned, we should not be looking for the minimum standard but rather for the highest standard possible.

Deputy Lemass and the Parliamentary Secretary both mentioned the question of assurances and, in fact, told Deputy Larkin: "Really, we do not believe you have any need to worry." That does not achieve any useful purpose unless there is some amendment to this section which will effect the purpose that the present amendment seeks to achieve.

Mr. Briscoe

I cannot understand how the Parliamentary Secretary does not see what can and, I should say, will happen. First, the section says that the board may pay a rate not exceeding 4 per cent. and obviously if the trustees ever come to negotiate— because there is a question to negotiate —the board will say: "That is the maximum, but we are not going to give you that," and trouble will arise when the fund assumes larger proportions and when there will be a considerable amount to be invested. The board will say: "There is this very large sum and do you expect us to pay a 100 per cent. greater interest rate than the rate at which we can get money in the market?" That is where the problem will arise. I agree with the point of view expressed by the mover of the amendment, that this is something in respect of which there must be a settlement, with no further discussion or argument.

The question of private employers has been brought in, but, in the case of the private employer who has a pension scheme for his workers, it is very easy because he does it through an insurance company—it is more or less on the basis of an annuity in many cases—and secondly, it does not matter to him whether he is generous or not because he can get relief in his company's income-tax payments. This is something quite different and I take the view that the Electricity Supply Board should be in the very same position as any Department of State and that the workers are entitled to know, from the moment they join the scheme, what their retirement income will be. It is unfair to have them in the position that, ten years or seven years hence, a new set of gentlemen on the board may, in the interest of saving money, start arguing about whether they will pay 4 per cent., 3½ per cent. or 3 per cent., thus putting the whole scheme back and bringing about a position in which there might even be a trade dispute because the workers sought increased wages in order to meet the increased demand on them for the superannuation scheme.

It is a simple matter for the Parliamentary Secretary to say he will consider the amendment with a view to finding if there is any method by which some stability can be secured. The rate of 4 per cent. is what the actuary wants guaranteed, the rate on which the scheme was initiated, and the Bill should be amended to make 4 per cent. the rate and have an end to the discussion. We are discussing it here and we are supposed to be reasonably intelligent people representing various views and various sections of the community. If, some time in the future, a dispute arises between the trustees representing the subscribers to the scheme and the board on this matter, there will be a deadlock, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to agree to consider it before Report Stage, with a view to finding out if some form of amendment to meet the point of view expressed is possible.

Mr. Davin

I suggest that, in respect of a State subsidised concern of this kind, it is not unreasonable, especially in view of the high rate of contributions from certain sections of the members, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government to give a statutory guarantee in respect of the payment of the pensions fixed under the existing scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary is merely asked by Deputy Larkin to look into this alternative between now and the Report Stage. If he consults his advisers, he will find that this House has, by legislation in the case of at least one public service company, given a guarantee, a guarantee which is given in the form that, if the superannuation fund fails to meet, out of its own resources, the payment of pensions in any one year, the assets of the company can be realised in order to ensure the payment of the pensions. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to ask him to look into that aspect of the matter.

Major de Valera

With regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's remark about the Minister for Finance being out of it and about the factual position, it seems to me that one comes back very much to the proposal made by Deputy Lemass, namely. that the words "not exceeding" are simply not necessary. A simple amendment of that type in the relevant section would meet the position very easily and efficiently.

Mr. Briscoe

Provided it was made clear that the Electricity Supply Board had no right to refuse moneys offered to them by the trustees.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is a different matter.

Mr. Briscoe

It must be made clear.

Major de Valera

If you make the 4 per cent. rate mandatory, it will meet the position.

Mr. Cosgrave

I agree with Deputy Larkin that this superannuation scheme is in an entirely different position from that of most other schemes, in view of the circumstances surrounding its establishment and so on, but the comparison made by Deputy Lemass between this scheme and the actuary of a life assurance company who has to assess the future trends of interest rates was not, I believe, valid. Under this scheme the actuary has a reasonable assurance—it is not a statutory guarantee, but in view of the terms of the section, which impose a ceiling of 4 per cent., it is an indication which amounts to a direction that 4 per cent. be paid. It is, in fact, a substantial advance on the original section which imposed on the board and the trustees the obligation of getting the consent of the Minister for Finance. That consent is no longer required under Section 15, and, while there is not a statutory guarantee to the trustees that the board will pay 4 per cent., that indication is there. In view of the fact that there is no indication by the board that they propose to repay the loan or have any desire to pay a lower rate of interest, I doubt if there is any real ground for apprehension in the mind of the actuary. However, if it will satisfy the trustees, I will have the matter examined between now and Report Stage and see if it is possible to meet their fears, but frankly, short of putting a statutory obligation on them to repay at a certain rate of interest which, in view of the whole circumstances of the fund, I do not think would be reasonable, I do not know that there is any way in which the position can be met.

Mr. Larkin

I am quite prepared to leave it to the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary. He stressed, however, that, with the Ministerial amendment, it is most unlikely that any change in the rate of interest will take place. Might I remind him that, in 1942, the board, with the consent and approval of the Department of Finance, fixed 4 per cent. as the rate of interest and that, in 1943, the Department of Finance was looking for 2½ per cent.— 12 months later? Is there any reason why the ordinary employee should place greater faith in the board in 15 or 20 years' time than in the Department of Finance?

Mr. Cosgrave

The Department did not get the 2½ per cent.

Mr. Larkin

But they sought it, 12 months after the scheme had been launched on the basis of 4 per cent. Surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, in 15 or 20 years' time, there may be in existence a board which may have an entirely different outlook on this matter. The Department of Finance changed its mind in 12 months and, as the board itself has pointed out, superannuation schemes must have a basis of security—otherwise they are of no value to people who join them—and this security cannot be given in present circumstances. They also point out that, from the other angle, it is not entirely without advantages. The trustees have indicated their willingness to invest the money at 4 per cent. and to accept that limitation and the board points out that there is a certain value from their point of view in having a steady rate of interest to meet. What they are concerned with is the fact that the scheme was introduced not merely to meet the rightful claims of employees of the board to a superannuation scheme but in an effort to improve the relations between the board and the employee because it is an essential undertaking.

Remember that in that essential undertaking, in 1937, we had a general stoppage of work. For many years there was an unhappy relationship between the board and the employees. The board are anxious to overcome that strained atmosphere. They tried to do it in one way by trying to convince the employees that they had security of employment. In return for that, in 1942, they asked the employees to undertake to give up certain of their rights in so far as certain matters might arise. First of all, even to-day and even under the amending Bill, they are bound to refer all matters in dispute to the tribunal. They are no longer under the penal clause once this Bill is passed. All of this was part of an effort to improve relations. One of the things that the board is concerned with now is that the idea may get abroad that the board as the employer may be guilty of bad faith at any time in the future and that the unstable atmosphere in the relationship with their employees may continue. It is not too much to say that the board is most anxious to give the superannuation scheme this form of assurance that is looked for because they believe the employees are entitled to it and that they as employers will benefit from the greater stability that may be brought into the relations between the board and their employees. I would press the Parliamentary Secretary to concentrate on what is being sought rather than on the suggestions that have been made so far to try to solve the problem and, if it is at all possible, to try to meet us on this matter because it is a responsibility that devolves on the Minister and he cannot escape.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is no doubt that what Deputy Larkin says has a great deal of weight in it but I think it even reinforces the point I was making that any board in future that would attempt to impose conditions or, in this case, to impose a rate of interest, which would involve serious opposition from the trustees of the fund would not merely jeopardise the scheme but would inevitably cause deterioration in the relations which exist between the board and its employees. For that reason, I think, more than any other, any board imbued with a sense of responsibility and a desire to continue harmonious relations between itself and the employees concerned would hesitate before it would seek to secure a lower rate of interest or take any step that would result in relations deteriorating. Anything that would in any way jeopardise this scheme would I believe have serious repercussions which the board could not ignore.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 20 (c) not moved.

Section 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Amendment No. 20 (d) not moved.

Sections 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 21:—

After "sub-section (1) of Section 3" in the third column to add "the words ‘in particular, the effect of a break due to wilful action which causes or might have caused an interruption in the generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity by the board or which impedes or might have impeded the due performance of any of the functions or duties of the board, and' in paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 12."

This amendment is consequential on the new sub-section before Section 12 and has the effect of deleting from paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 all reference in that paragraph to the Superannuation Act, 1942, to penalties due to wilful or strike action by manual workers.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, and Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21st June.