Vol. 116 No. 6
I move amendment No.1:—
In page 3, at the end of Section 2, line 21, to add the following sub-section:—
(8) An Order under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made.
This amendment is in accordance with the undertaking which I gave on Committee Stage and it provides that Orders made under the section shall be laid before both Houses.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 7, Section 10 (1), to delete lines 33 and 34 and substitute the following paragraph:—
(b) either—
(i) was awarded, under the First Schedule to the Act of 1927, a gratuity on account of such loss of employment, or
(ii) would have been awarded, under the First Schedule to the Act of 1927, a gratuity on account of such loss of employment if the reference in paragraph 1 of that Schedule to a period of not less than two nor more than five years had been a reference to a period of not more than five years, and.
I undertook on Committee Stage to consider the position of certain employees of the Dublin Corporation who were employed at the Pigeon House at the time of the closing down of the station in 1930 but who, owing to their short service—less than two years—were not entitled to either pension or gratuity. This amendment, if accepted, will enable the Electricity Supply Board to count the prior service of these men with the Dublin Corporation in addition to their service with the board and to grant them non-contributory pensions. I think I should say at this stage that on the Committee Stage Deputy Lemass referred to certain individuals covered by the section who received gratuities on the closing of the Pigeon House Station in respect of their service prior to the date of closing and he urged that the pensions that would be payable to these individuals under Section 10 should be based not only on their service with the Electricity Supply Board but also on the prior service at the station before it was closed. The men already received compensation in respect of that prior service by way of a gratuity and, as I said on Committee Stage, it would be objectionable in principle to give double credit in respect of the service by allowing it to count ultimately for pension purposes. I am prepared to make an offer to the individuals. As the section stands, they will on retirement be entitled in respect of service with the Electricity Supply Board either to get a pension in respect of that service or to get a reduced pension with a gratuity. The option as to which form of award will be taken rests with the individual.
Any individual who opts to take in respect of his service with the board a pension and a gratuity and who also agrees to an abatement of the gratuity ultimately to be received on retirement by an amount equivalent to the gratuity already received in respect of service before the Pigeon House was closed could be given credit on ultimate retirement for all his service and, if that is agreeable, I could move an amendment in the Seanad to give effect to that. I think we must adhere to the principle that you cannot give double compensation in respect of service and if the men are prepared to abate their ultimate gratuity by the amount which they received in the earlier gratuity, I can move an amendment in the Seanad to meet the Deputy's point.
I think that is a fair enough offer, but I want to be sure that I have it straight. On retirement these men are entitled to a pension plus a gratuity.
They have an option. They can either get a pension and a gratuity or a higher pension.
And the offer is that, if they take the first of these alternatives, a pension plus a gratuity, and deduct from that the gratuity they already got, then the pension will date back to the beginning of their service?
Yes.
That seems reasonable enough. It is better than nothing anyway. I can understand fully that the adoption of the proposal which I made here in Committee might prove embarrassing in some other cases, perhaps in future cases which have not yet arisen, and that perhaps it is not the right kind of precedent to establish. I felt that as the position which existed in the Pigeon House was being cleared up, it was better to clear it up completely because there will always be a sense of grievance because some men may get what they consider to be less favourable treatment than others. The suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be a reasonable compromise and I should be glad if he would do as he suggested, arrange for the submission of an amendment on these lines in the Seanad. I can undertake that the amendment will be suported here when it comes back.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 8, to insert before Section 11 the following section:—
Where—
(a) on the date of the passing of this Act, a person is in the continuous employment of the board and is paying contributions and is entitled to superannuation benefits under a superannuation scheme under the Superannuation Act of 1942, and
(b) he was formerly employed in relation to the generation or distribution of electricity by the Dublin United Tramways Company (1896) Limited,
the following provisions shall have effect:—
(i) sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 shall apply to such person subject to the modification that the reference in the said sub-section (3) to actual service in the undertaking from which the transfer to the board took place shall be construed as a reference to service in the employment of the Dublin United Tramways Company (1896) Limited,
(ii) for the purposes of Section 8 of this Act, such person shall be regarded as a person to whom Section 15 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 applies.
This amendment is to deal with the case of a few former employees of the Dublin United Tramways Company who are now employed by the board. On Committee Stage, Deputy Lemass suggested that consideration might be given to the possibility of applying to these men the provisions of Section 15 of the Superannuation Act, 1942. Briefly, that section applies to persons transferred from an acquired undertaking who had no pension rights on transfer and who had reached an age that the pension they would receive would be insufficient to maintain them.
In the case of a person who, when he retired, was eligible for a contributory pension under a superannuation scheme of the board, the board may at their discretion grant that person a supplementary pension. A supplementary pension is generally one-half of whatever pension would be payable under the board's scheme if it was based on the person's service with a former undertaking. The amendment will enable the board to grant supplementary allowances to these former employees of the Dublin United Tramways Company. I should say that it will be necessary for the Electricity Supply Board to take account of pensions or gratuities received by former employees of the Dublin United Tramways Company in calculating the supplementary allowance to be granted to such persons in respect of their service with the board.
That is fair enough.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say if this amendment also covers the small number of men to whom I referred?
I think they are the same people. I meant to mention that Deputy Martin O'Sullivan had also raised the matter.
In fact, they will get credit for the service they had before?
Yes.
The board may supplement their pensions.
The board may, yes.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 9, to delete Section 12, lines 9 to 30.
This amendment, if agreed to, will have the effect of deleting Section 12 from the Bill. On Committee Stage a number of Deputies questioned the need for the powers contained in the section. I have had the matter further considered in consultation with the Electricity Supply Board and it is felt that the powers may not in fact be required for general development schemes, which the section as it stands held in contemplation. Consequently, I think there is no need to retain the section in the Bill and, if the Dáil agrees, I propose to delete it.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 9, to delete Section 13, lines 31 to 41.
Deputies will remember that there was objection on Committee Stage to the granting of powers in respect of urban areas. Deputy Lemass in particular objected to the extension of these powers in respect of urban areas and I agreed to introduce an amendment on Report. Since the Committee Stage, I have consulted the Electricity Supply Board. If the amendment which the Deputy moved were accepted, it would make the position even more difficult. It is better to delete the section altogether because in some cases the wayleaves concerned are affected both by a rural electrification scheme and by an urban scheme and it would mean probably two notices on a single occupier. So, the easiest way out of the difficulty is to delete lines 31 to 41.
Amendment No. 6 stands in the name of Deputy Larkin who cannot, unfortunately, be here at the moment. I have not the papers in connection with the amendment but I am familiar with the arguments that were advanced in connection with the case of the investment of the moneys. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would read the amendment and explain how far he has gone in this connection.
The whole way.
Deputy Larkin wants a guarantee. Does, in fact, the repeal in the third column of the Schedule mean that there is an absolute guarantee of 4 per cent., on the moneys invested, to the trustees? That is the point of difference emphasised throughout the debate.
There is not actually a guarantee but it meets the point Deputy Larkin—and, I think, Deputies from all sides of the House—wanted on the Committee Stage. Amendment No. 7 does not actually delete it in the section but if the Deputy turns to the Schedule of the Bill on page 10 he will see the answer in the third column. Amendment No. 7 reads as follows:—
In page 10, to insert in the third column of the Schedule "the words ‘or by the board to such trustees' in paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 8;" after "sub-section (1) of Section 3;".
In this amendment, these words in the 1942 Act will be repealed. The effect of the section is to require the Minister to make regulations setting out the notice which the board shall give to the trustees of its intention to repay moneys held on loan by the board from the trustees. As the House is aware the board was advised that as long as any statutory provision exists the board would be in a difficulty. Consequently, this amendment amends the difficulty—although I do not entirely accept the contention of Deputy Larkin that there was any ground for apprehension—and perhaps the Deputy would be prepared to withdraw his amendment in favour of it. I think that while there is no definite guarantee in this, it enables the board to make whatever arrangement is necessary with the trustees. I understand that that meets the trustees' point of view. The trustees were apprehensive lest any step that might be taken would in any way weaken the solvency of the fund. As I understand it, the actuarial calculation is based on payment of 4 per cent. While there is no statutory guarantee here, the board, once these words are removed, are apparently prepared to pay 4 per cent. That will satisfy the actuarial requirements and it will relieve the trustees of any apprehension. Consequently, I do not think there is any need for the amendment in the form in which Deputy Larkin wants it.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 10, to insert in the third column of the Schedule "the words or by the board to such trustees' in paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 8;" after "sub-section (1) of Section 3;".
At this stage I think it is right that I should say that the Deputies on this side of the House are very pleased with the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary met the points that were raised here during the Committee Stage of the debate.
I should like to acknowledge the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has received the points made.
I appreciate the cooperation I got from all sides. I think that this Bill does tidy up a number of loose ends.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—agreed to.
