Vol. 171 No. 7
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, lines 46 and 47, to delete "acquired by them under the Liffey Reservoir Act, 1936, or the Act of 1945" and substitute "vested in the board".
This is largely a drafting amendment. It is considered necessary to ensure the provisions of the section will apply to expenditure incurred in connection with a fishery which was not acquired by the board but which is any fishery arising, for instance, in a reservoir such as the Liffey reservoir.
I move amendment No. 2:—
Before Section 6 to insert the following new section:—
(1) In each financial year of the board an account shall be kept by the board of all moneys received or expended by the board —
(a) under the Shannon Fisheries Acts, 1935 and 1938,
(b) in the performance of the duties imposed on the board by Part III of the Shannon Fisheries Act, 1935, in relation to the Shannon fisheries, within the meaning of that Act, and
(c) in the exercise of the powers of the board under Section 16, as extended by this Act, of the Act of 1945,
and the balance on foot of the account shall be incorporated in the general accounts of the board.
(2) Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927, shall not apply in relation to moneys in relation to which this section applies, and sub-sections (2) and (3) and, in so far as it provides for the sending of accounts to the Minister and for the publication and putting on sale of copies of accounts, sub-section (4) of that section shall apply in relation to an account kept under this section as if it were an account kept under that section.
(3) Section 17 of the Shannon Fisheries Act, 1935 and sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act of 1945 are hereby repealed.
On reconsideration of Section 6 it was thought better to scrap it altogether and to replace it with a section which would set out clearly the obligations of the board in regard to keeping their fishery accounts. The original section referred back to sections in previous Acts and did not appear to be completely satisfactory. This section as it now stands, sets out in precise and clear form the total obligations of the board in regard to the form and presentation of the accounts of the board in relation to its fishery operations.
The board is still obliged to keep separate accounts?
Separate accounts for fisheries, yes,——
All fisheries, as distinct from Shannon?
——but some charges previously market up against fisheries are now going into the general account of the board.
Shannon fishery will no longer be separate?
Yes, it will be separate.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 have been ruled out of order.
I should like to say a word about the provisions of the section. I want to make it clear that all we are proposing to do here in regard to the powers of the E.S.B., is to enable them to pay compensation in the cases set out. They did not have that power heretofore and it was never, in fact, contemplated that they would ever pay compensation for the closing of a public road or a public bridge. In this case, it is proposed, because of the circumstances, to enable them to pay compensation and in fact they have now entered into an agreement with the majority of the people concerned and I think they will succeed in making agreements with all of them as to the amount of compensation in each case.
I would not contemplate arbitration. Indeed, I could not conceive the terms of reference you would give an arbitrator asked to determine what compensation might be due in circumstances where a public road or bridge ceased to be open to the public. I do not anticipate there will be any difficulty in concluding all negotiations in this instance.
Could the Minister state what is the amount of compensation for the Fitzgibbon Bridge?
I could do it, but perhaps it would be better not to mention individual cases. I may say that in every case I think the amount of compensation would exceed the market value of the holding.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 4, to delete sub-sections (2) and (3) and substitute the following new subsections:—
( ) Where a person who is either an officer or a servant in the employment of the board becomes a member of either House of the Oireachtas —
(a) he shall, during the period (in this section referred to as the secondment period) commencing upon his becoming entitled under the Standing Orders of that House to sit therein and ending either when he ceases to be a member of that House or, if it should sooner happen, upon his resignation or retirement from such employment or upon the termination of such employment by the board, stand seconded from such employment, (b) he shall not be paid by, or entitled to receive from, the board any salary or wages, as the case
may be, in respect of the secondment period,
(c) notwithstanding any provision of the Acts, as amended by this Act, or of any scheme made in pursuance of the Superannuation Act of 1942 —
(i) the secondment period shall, for the purposes of any such scheme, be deemed to be service of that person which is reckonable for superannuation benefits under the scheme if, but only if —
(1) he was in the permanent employment of the board and was a contributor under the scheme immediately before the commencement of the secondment period and is not an excluded person (which expression has the same meaning in this and the next following sub-section as it has in Section 13 of the Superannuation Act of 1942),
(II) he elects, by notice in writing given to the board within three months after the commencement of the secondment period, to pay contributions under the scheme in respect of the secondment period in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section, and
(III) he pays, at such times and in such manner as the committee duly appointed under the scheme to administer the scheme may specify, contributions under the scheme in respect of the secondment period equal in amount to the aggregate of the contributions which he would have paid and the contributions which the board would have paid in respect of the secondment period if he had remained without secondment under this sub-section in the service of the board during the secondment period and had been in receipt of remuneration from the board during that period,
(ii) the board shall not pay any contributions under the scheme in respect of the secondment period, but that part of the contributions payable by him as aforesaid which is equal to the amount of the contributions which the board would have paid under the scheme in respect of the secondment period if he had remained without secondment under this sub-section in the service of the board during the secondment period and had been in receipt of remuneration from the board during that period shall, for the purposes of the scheme, be deemed to have been paid by the board,
(iii) if the secondment period is terminated by his death or by his retirement from such employment, he shall, for the purposes of the scheme, be deemed to have died in or to have been retired from the service of the board, as the case may be, and to have been in receipt of remuneration from the board immediately before such death or retirement, as the case may be,
(iv) if he does not pay or if, having paid contributions under the scheme in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section, he ceases to pay contributions as aforesaid, he shall, for the purposes of the scheme, be deemed to have resigned from such employment —
(I) in case he ceases to pay contributions as aforesaid, on the date of the last payment, and
(II) in any other case, immediately before the commencement of the secondment period, and
(v) a reference in this or the next following sub-section to the receipt by any person of remuneration from the board shall be taken as a reference to the receipt by that person of remuneration from the board at the rate at which he was being remunerated by the board on the last day of his whole-time employment with the board before his secondment under this sub-section, and
(d) (i) notwithstanding any provisions of the Acts, as amended by this Act, if he is an excluded person and was in the permanent employment of the board immediately before the commencement of the secondment period, the secondment period shall, for the purposes of the payment of and calculation of the amount of any superannuation benefit to which he is entitled, be deemed to be service of that person which is reckonable for superannuation benefits payable by the board under Section 39 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927, or Section 13 of the Superannuation Act of 1942 and he shall, for the purposes aforesaid, be deemed to have been in receipt of remuneration from the board during the secondment period, and
(ii) if the secondment period is terminated by his death or by his retirement from such employment, he shall, for the purposes aforesaid, be deemed to have died in or to have been retired from the service of the board, as the case may be, and to have been in receipt of remuneration from the board immediately before such death or retirement, as the case may be.
( ) if a person who is or was an officer or servant of the board becomes entitled to a pension under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Acts, 1938 to 1952 —
(a) he shall not be entitled to reckon the whole or any part of his period of pensionable service, within the meaning of those Acts, for any superannuation benefits payable under a scheme made in pursuance of the Superannuation Act of 1942 or payable by the board,
(b) if he has paid any contributions in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section in respect of that period, so much thereof as is equal to the amount of the contributions which he would have paid in respect of that period under the scheme if he had remained without secondment under sub-section (2) of this section in the service of the board during that period and had been in receipt of remuneration from the board during that period, shall be returned to him if and when a payment of benefit or a return of other contributions is made to him under the scheme, and
(c) if he is an excluded person, an amount equal to the amount which would have been returned to him under paragraph (b) of this sub-section if he had not been an excluded person and had paid contributions in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section in respect of that period shall be paid to him by the board if and when a payment of benefit or other payment on foot of his superannuation entitlement is made to him by the board.
This is a fairly protracted amendment but I foreshadowed it on the Second Reading. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that where an employee of the E.S.B. goes up for election to the Dáil and secures election he will be seconded from the employment of the board but entitled to go back to that employment when he ceases to be a member of the Dáil and will, in the meantime, be able to preserve his pension rights by paying both his own and the board's contributions to the pension fund. By and large, that is the purpose of the section. There are special provisions dealing with the case of an E.S.B. employee seconded from the board becoming a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary and qualifying for a Ministerial or a Parliamentary Secretary's pension. In that case the amount of his pension from the board would be modified accordingly.
There is also a provision that an employee so elected may, if he wishes, cease to pay these contributions and will thereby be regarded as having resigned from the board's employment and having surrendered his pension rights with them. I mentioned on the Second Reading that the aim was to endeavour, as far as possible, to put employees of the E.S.B. on much the same basis as employees of C.I.E. have been in regard to election to the Dáil. Up to the present, of course, they were completely debarred from seeking election; now they are permitted to seek election but not to function as employees of the board during their period as elected representatives.
Could the Minister say if cases have occurred up to the present — without mentioning names — of people in the employment of the E.S.B. being elected?
It should not have happened; I am not saying it did not happen. Up to the present, employees of the E.S.B. were not eligible for election to the Dáil. I think what happened was that if any employee got elected — certainly one member of the Labour Party was in this position — he just ceased to be an employee of the board forthwith.
I am informed that amendment No. 5 has been passed over.
For the reason that the Deputy in whose name it stood was not here.
I intervened on the section to explain my position vis-a-vis the amendment.
Could we ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to go back on it now as Deputy Desmond was coming into the House to move it and was unavoidably detained?
I am afraid the Chair has no option in the matter.
I appreciate that, but in the circumstances——
I spoke for some time in the hope that the Deputy would arrive.
I would ask the Minister to consider this as it was actually impossible for me to get in. Would the Minister take that into consideration?
Perhaps the Deputy would raise the point on the Report Stage.
In view of the fact that the amendment has unavoidably not been moved on this stage, what advantage is there in that when I cannot move it on the Report Stage?
As a matter of fact, the Deputy would not be in order on the Report Stage in discussing it because it would not arise since it has not been discussed on this stage.
That is the point. I would ask the Minister, if at this stage, he is prepared to consider this?
I do not think it is up to the Minister.
If the Minister is agreeable, the Chair may be in a position to do something.
If the House agreed.
I should be only too glad to facilitate the Deputy but the Deputy should have been present to move the amendment. I am afraid I have no option. We are now on Section 9.
Could the House do anything about it?
I tried to explain my position on the amendment.
The House could, by agreement, recommit the Bill without prejudice.
Yes, the Bill could be recommitted before the Report Stage.
Not the whole of it.
No, in respect of this section.
I am quite prepared to facilitate the Deputy in respect of that section.
I assume, then, it will be treated as in Committee on the Report Stage — is that what it means?
I am not accepting the amendment.
Deputy Desmond wants the Minister to hear him on it.
Does "Increase of certain other pensions" refer to persons covered by Section 14 (1) of the 1942 Act? In relation to certain members, provision was made to add a certain number of years to bring them up to certain minimum pension standards. Are they affected by this section?
I am not quite sure what the Deputy has in mind. Section 12 says that the board may, if they think fit, increase the pension of any person "by such amount as the board think proper having regard to all the circumstances but subject to the limitation that the increase shall not exceed the appropriate sum" set out in Section 1. The reason it is in that form is because the manual workers' pension scheme is in such a complicated condition that only experts can understand it and it would have been quite impossible to insert in the Bill clauses designed to give effect to the full intention here.
The intention is that the same increase in pensions to former employees of the board will be achieved as were achieved for all other pensioners by the Pension Increase Act of 1956; in other words, the pensions of certain persons who were employed by the board will be increased by the amount set out in Section 1 in the same way as other pensioners got increased pensions by the general Increase of Pensions Act of 1956.
Perhaps I am talking of a different matter. Possibly the Minister has had representations in the matter. There are about 100 persons in the employment of the E.S.B. who would be, I think, correctly described in Section 14 (1) of the 1942 Act. These are certain elderly employees. Provision was made in the Act to add a certain number of years in the case of those who, at the date of the passing of the Act, were not less than 40 years of age.
The question of adding years to service for the purpose of pension does not arise in this Bill. This Bill authorises the board to increase pensions already granted to persons who have retired and are in receipt of pensions from the board.
I move amendment No. 7:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) There shall be granted and paid to each of Dr. T.A. McLaughlin and J.M. Fay, who each served as full-time members of the E.S.B., compensation by way of a gratuity equal to 128ths of the amount of the salary and emoluments of which each was in receipt at the date of the termination of his service with the said board.
This amendment is an effort to meet in a fair and reasonable way the cases of two former full-time directors of the board, other than the chairman whose case is dealt with in Section 14. The position is, as the Minister and House are probably aware, that the E.S.B. was the first State board established. When the Act establishing the board was in process of going through the Dáil it was stated that it was proposed that the full-time members of the board would be pensionable. At that time the pension for persons in the public service was at the rate of two-thirds of salary. Subsequently that was altered to half salary plus a lump sum of one and a half years' salary in lieu of the two-thirds method of calculation. The Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act of 1942 provided that the whole-time members of the board would have pensions at the rate of 20/48ths. That was the first occasion on which the undertaking given when the 1927 Act was passed was implemented. Subsequently, in 1954, the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act passed in that year altered the 20/48ths to 24/48ths, or half salary, and made no provision for a lump sum.
The proposal in the section in the Bill before the House is that half salary and a gratuity will be paid to the chairman. As the Minister explained on the Second Reading, the reason for that is because the chairman was prior to his appointment to the E.S.B. a full-time civil servant with 18 or 19 years' service and, had he retired from the Civil Service at that time, he would have been entitled to half salary plus a lump sum.
The position of the two other directors is somewhat different. One of them was in the Army, subsequently a civil servant, and ultimately joined the board of the E.S.B. The other pursued a very exhaustive course of study culminating in a number of degrees, secured mainly as a result of winning scholarships. During the period when he might have been gainfully employed by the State in some capacity or another he was acquiring very specialised knowledge, both in universities here and in Germany. When the E.S.B. was established he became a foundation member of the board. It is not necessary for me to enlarge here on the immeasurable services he rendered to the board or the work he did.
Now the directors of the board were precluded from joining the superannuation scheme when it was established in 1942. Both of these directors have served for lengthy periods with the board — one from the foundation of the board, with a short break, up to last year, and the other from 1930 up to last year. I believe there is a strong case for treating these two directors on the same basis. Their service and their previous experience are not quite comparable, but one is at least comparable with the chairman inasmuch as he was a civil servant. The other, Dr. McLaughlin, acquired exhaustive experience before joining the board on its foundation. The position is that Dr. McLaughlin was retired from the board at the age of 61. The chairman, I understand, will have the right to continue until 68. Taking into account the relative ages, Dr. McLaughlin suffered a disability.
It may be argued that this is a precedent or that there is a danger of creating special treatment but I think that is answered by the fact that the E.S.B. was the first State board and, although a number of State boards have been established since the setting up of the E.S.B., the conditions have not been comparable and in recent times a more uniform pattern of dealing with directors has been established. Two former civil servants on other State boards have been dealt with on lines similar to the treatment being afforded to Mr. Browne, Chairman of the E.S.B. Mr. Courtney, who was Chairman of C.I.E. and Dr. Beddy, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, had their service in the Civil Service included for pension and gratuity purposes.
It is unlikely that future boards will have full-time directors other than the chairman or, probably, the managing director or general manager. In any event, if directors are appointed in future to State boards they will know the basis on which they are being appointed. In the case of Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay, they joined the E.S.B. before any pension rights had been settled or granted. The only undertaking was that given by the Minister moving the Act when he stated in the course of the debate that it was proposed to make them pensionable. Therefore, the question of a precedent or different treatment for certain directors compared with others does not arise.
I believe, therefore, that in this case there is a very strong argument in favour of giving to these two former full-time directors a gratuity on the same basis as applies in the case of the present chairman when he retires and as applied in the case of a former chairman of C.I.E. and the chairman of the Industrial Development Authority. It is true that only one of these directors, namely, Mr. Fay, had service in the Civil Service but, as I have said, during the period when both Mr. Fay and Mr. Browne were gaining the time qualification during their service in the Civil Service, Dr. McLaughlin acquired specialised knowledge which has undoubtedly been of benefit to the E.S.B.
The E.S.B. is a vast undertaking. The total capital invested now amounts to about £100,000,000 and to these two men, as well as to many others, much of the credit for that achievement is due. I believe, therefore, that this is a reasonable proposal and I put it to the Minister that it is a proposal which could be accepted on the basis that, while no specific terms were expressed, an undertaking was given and, on the basis of the scheme which was subsequently settled, there is a reasonable case for giving the same treatment to all the full-time directors as is given to the chairman of this board and as has been given in the two other cases that I have mentioned.
I should like to be associated with the amendment in the name of Deputy Cosgrave. The country generally owes a great deal to the efficiency of the E.S.B. It is an undertaking of which we can be very proud and which during the emergency years enabled many citizens to earn their living and to cook and to keep their houses heated and lighted. The essential services were maintained during the emergency years and industry as a whole owes a great deal to the board.
Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay spent the greater part of their working years in this concern, the benefits of which have been enjoyed by the country at large, and we would be remiss if we did not reward these men, give them what is really their due, for having spent so many years in building up this huge enterprise. Therefore, I trust the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
I, also, should like to support Deputy Cosgrave's amendment. Most Deputies and people outside are conscious of the treatmendous service which Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay have given to the success of the electricity undertaking which was started in this country almost 30 years ago. The amendment that has been put forward by Deputy Cosgrave is couched in reasonable terms. It asks no more than would appear to be what is owing to both these directors and I would hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the principle involved in the amendment in recognition of the lifetime service which Dr. McLaughlin, in particular, has given to the building up of the first major undertaking of this kind in this country.
Deputy Cosgrave said that the purpose of his amendment was to provide similar conditions for retirement for Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay as are provided in this Bill for Mr. Browne. I think, however, he completely misconceives the situation because, if I were to do what he said, both of these former members of the E.S.B. would be greatly worse off than they are now. The terms of the pension provision for Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay, that is to say, the pension which they are receiving related to the length of their service to the E.S.B., are much better than the terms which are proposed here for the chairman, Mr. Browne. I should, perhaps, explain that a little further without going into any personal details.
Under the Civil Service (Regulations) Acts the retirement provision is intended to be reasonable for those who have spent a long period in the service of the State, the maximum provision being earnable by those who have served the State for 40 years. In the case, however, of all State-sponsored bodies it is customary to base eligibility for pension upon shorter service because of the fact that most people who come to serve on these boards in a whole-time capacity are appointed much later in life than is normal in the case of entry to the Civil Service. In the case of the E.S.B. the full pension of half the retiring pay can be attained after 24 years service. As I said, in the case of the Civil Service a pension of half-pay can be earned only after 40 years' service.
In the case of Mr. Browne, the chairman of the E.S.B., he was appointed to the Civil Service in 1911 and he became chairman of the E.S.B. in 1930. When he became chairman of the E.S.B. he retained all his entitlement to pension and gratuity in respect of his period in the Civil Service under the Civil Service code. His service with the E.S.B. would entitle him to full pension on the basis of half of his retiring pay under the existing scheme relating to whole-time members of the E.S.B. and also to secure on his retirement his rights as a former civil servant.
The effect of Section 14 is that there will be applied in his case the normal provisions which apply in the Civil Service, that is to say, his pension will be based upon eightieths. His 40 years' service will entitle him to full pension and his 45 years' service will entitle him, in addition, to a gratuity, based upon thirtieths. In return for the application to him of these conditions, he is surrendering all and any entitlement he may have to a pension under the Civil Service Acts.
Were similar conditions to be applied in the case of Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay, both of them would suffer a very considerable diminution in their pensions. Dr. McLaughlin had a total of 29 years' service in the E.S.B. and Mr. Fay a total of 27 years. The effect of providing in their case the same provisions as are made for the chairman would mean a very substantial reduction in their present pension. It is true they would get a gratuity, but on the basis of their normal expectation of life the amount of that gratuity would not make up for the amount of the reduction in pension they would suffer. It is clear, therefore, that the present provision in relation to these two former members of the board is really quite generous.
Deputy Cosgrave mentioned that the old position in relation to the Civil Service was a retiring pension of two-thirds salary without a gratuity. That applied up to some date in the 1920s when the present system of half salary plus gratuity was substituted for it; but even that two-thirds salary under the old Civil Service provision — it applied to those who were appointed to the Civil Service before 1909 — was secured only after 30 years' service. Therefore, even in respect of that old provision, the present arrangements for the two former members of the E.S.B. which have been mentioned are more generous.
In the circumstances, I could not agree to this amendment. Indeed, there is no precedent whatever for the giving of a gratuity in addition to pension after the comparatively short service which both these gentlemen gave. The gratuity provision is something that was substituted for another provision in respect of people who had very long service. As I said, in the case of these gentlemen the present situation is better for them than if we applied to them the same proposals as are now contained in this Bill in relation to the chairman.
It may be true that these two members had substantially shorter service, but that merely emphasises the point I made earlier. Both of them had a different background. They were both engineers. One of them had served in the Army and subsequently served in the Civil Service. The other, Dr. McLaughlin, was engaged in what are called, I suppose, advanced or prolonged studies of a scientific nature. I do not think it would be a good thing that, say, all the directors should have that particular type of qualification. It so happened that Mr. Browne had longer Civil Service service than Mr. Fay; but my point is that the other qualifications or work which they did would surely entitle them to reckon that work and that experience in the same way as the service which a person serving with an uninterrupted term in the Civil Service would have.
Under the Local Authorities (Superannuation) Act of 1948 there is power to add years. In one case — admittedly in the case of the abolition of the office — when the office of the former Clerk of the Seanad was abolished, added years were granted. I feel that, in this particular case, basing them on comparable service, undoubtedly they have shorter continuous service but it is only reasonable to take into account the experience which they had got and the experience gained in other fields, which was applied to the benefit of this undertaking. Therefore, while it does not reckon in the ordinary sense of service in an uninterrupted way, nevertheless there is a strong case for taking it into account in directing the treatment which should be given to them.
I think the Deputy knows that particular cases make bad law. The Deputy suggests that the circumstances of one case need not necessarily tie in with another. I disagree with that completely. I think that our aim should be to provide similarity of conditions for all the whole-time executives of State boards. We have not got that at the moment — indeed, we have a wide dissimilarity — but the Government is determined to try to establish a basis for creating similar conditions in regard to pension rights and similar benefits enjoyed by the whole-time executives of State boards. One could not contemplate any circumstances under which service for as short a period as 24 years would qualify not merely for full pension but a gratuity as well. It would be far and away above anything that any other State official could hope to secure. Indeed, the retirement after 24 years' service, on half pay is, I think, a generous provision and I certainly would not like to hold out the prospect of making any more generous provision in relation to these particular former members of the E.S.B. or to other whole-time executives of State boards. I am quite certain that having regard to the standards of private employers these conditions are quite reasonable and generous.
The Minister said that particular cases make bad law. Surely he is also aware that generalisations can lead to injustice. In this particular case concerning these two men, Dr. McLaughlin spent a number of years preparing himself for the work which he afterwards did in the E.S.B. At that stage the E.S.B. could not have employed a junior person, as the board needed a person of the widest possible electrical experience. At the beginning, starting that vast undertaking, they had to turn to experienced people and these are the two particular cases that do not make any precedent, because it was at the beginning of the E.S.B. when they had to get experienced men that these two men came in and it is not fair to compare them with people who spent their whole lives in the Civil Service.
Does the Deputy not appreciate that they are getting full pension after a much shorter period and surely that is compensation enough?
The E.S.B. derived full value from the years they were preparing themselves for the work they afterwards did in the E.S.B. and I am sure the Minister will admit the country reaped the benefit of it.
They are already getting compensation.
The country reaped the benefit of the years Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay spent preparing themselves in a practical way for the work they had to do afterwards. That is not on all fours with a civil servant who went in with Civil Service experience. Civil Service experience would not have been any use in the case of Dr. McLaughlin.
A civil servant would have to spend 16 years more before he would get the same pension.
Added years could be given.
Remember, a doctor in the Department of Health would have specialised knowledge.
They are unfairly treated. They have a case for the added years.
That is taken into account.
Frankly, I was rather disappointed at the Minister's reception of this amendment. I can see and I can understand the difficulties that may be created for the Minister or any Minister in relation to exceptional treatment as applied to individuals. But this particular section sought to be amended is a special section dealing with a special case. If we include the amendment, we are dealing with one of the most particular cases we have had in this country over the last 36 years. In effect, we are dealing with the men who pioneered one of the major State undertakings since we established this State in 1922.
Dr. McLaughlin, who was the technical brain behind the electricity undertaking at the end of the 20s, went into the E.S.B. as a young man in his early 30s. He is now discharged from the service at the age of 61. Is it to be suggested that, merely because some administrative problems may be involved, the Minister representing the people should be churlish, hesitant and grudging in relation to the manner in which a lifetime of service should be compensated and recognised by the State? I would urge on the Minister that you cannot apply Civil Service canons and principles to a case of this kind. To pioneer the Shannon scheme and the electricity undertaking in this country at the turn of the 20s required guts, energy, imagination and vision; and, fortunately for the country, they were available in the persons of those who piloted and initiated this scheme. Merely because from 1930 to 1957 or 1958 is a period of time which is short of an ordained number of years in the accepted code for pensions and schemes of that kind should not prevent us here from recognising the work which has been given to the State by both Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay.
I would urge on the Minister this argument. I think it is important that we are dealing with pioneering members. We are dealing with those who contributed to the success of a scheme which was largely of an experimental kind some 30 years ago. In 30 or 40 years' time directors who join the E.S.B. now and who serve for 30 or 40 years are serving in an undertaking that is well established, that has a wealth of experience behind it and they have not to face the kinds of problems the early directors had to face. I feel, by reason of the fact that these two directors contributed as pioneers to the undertaking in its early days, when all the problems had to be faced, when all the technical and administrative problems had to be overcome, when they had — certainly in the case of Dr. McLaughlin — to spend some time equipping themselves for their tasks, that we should now recognise that it is not merely a problem of asking "How long did you serve?" and saying, "merely because you only served 25, 26, 27 or 28 years, you shall be entitled only to such and such a pension". There is a lot more in it than that. It is not merely the length of service; it is the success that has been achieved.
The Minister has mentioned that in relation to other bodies Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay would require 16 or 17 years more service to achieve the rights they now have. That is true but it is only a debating point, as the Minister himself knows. Certainly, in the part of the State service of which I had some experience, in relation to local authority service, the maximum service for pension rights may be 30 years, 35 years, 40 years or whatever it may be, but it is certainly the experience of anyone in the Custom House that unless there is a very exceptional case the power to add years is regularly exercised. A local authority officer, who may have 24 or 25 years' service short of such as would entitle him to full pension rights, generally gets the added years so that, in fact, he is entitled——
They do not get many years added.
Quite frequently if the gap is short enough it is bridged both by the local authority and the Minister responsible in order to entitle the officer to full pension rights. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare mentioned the cases of medical officers in the Department of Health. I do not think that is a fair argument. I am sure it is known to the Parliamentary Secretary, if not, it is known to the Minister, that for many years medical personnel in the Department of Health have been making the case that they have had to face seven, eight nine, or perhaps ten years qualifying for the post to which they are eventually appointed. They have urged for many years that portion of the necessary period of qualification and service outside the Custom House should be reckoned at the end of their service for superannuation purposes.
I think quite a separate approach should be made in regard to superannuation to the technician, scientist or the person who has to equip himself before he begins service with an undertaking in order to do it properly. In regard to a seconded civil servant who, because of his individual ability or personal attributes, is seconded to a particular job it is easy enough to say that he went into the Civil Service on such and such a date, commenced this job on another date and has been there so long that we will add his Civil Service period for pension purposes. That is understandable and it is done very fairly and properly in relation to the chairman of the board in this section but the Minister should have regard to the fact that the scientist, the technician, the technical brain behind this undertaking and behind its success at the time, had to invest quite a lot of his time, youth and energy in acquiring the necessary scientific equipment to bring into the board and eventually invest it in its success.
The purpose of this amendment is to ask the Minister representing the people in this regard to recognise that Dr. McLaughlin's service should not merely be measured by the years he served as director, which I would regard as a lifetime, but also recognise that he spent quite a number of years before he went into the board enabling himself to do his work properly.
It is quite unrealistic to suggest that the matter can be decided on the merits of individual cases. I am not prepared to agree. No Minister could agree that the qualities required on the board amongst the whole-time members of the E.S.B. in the past are superior to those qualities required by whole-time members of that board or any other State board in the future. Does Deputy O'Higgins contemplate some future Minister, when approached by some other whole-time executive from the E.S.B. or some other board, saying he was not as good as those in the past? I suggest that is an impossible case to put forward here. When Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay were appointed to the supply board there was no provision of any kind attaching.
There was an undertaking.
There was no undertaking or understanding.
The Minister stated it in the Dáil at the time.
No. I state that there was no pension provision and no understanding that there would be a pension provided. I enacted legislation which provided a pension on the basis of 20/24ths. I think that is what it was. It was a provision which did not enable them at any time to secure a pension of half pay on retirement. Later, I amended that provision to secure that they would be entitled, after 24 years, to a pension of half pay when they were retired. They regarded that arrangement as completely satisfactory and, indeed, as generous. Having regard to the provisions for civil servants and others, it is generous and makes ample provision for any time they may have spent before being appointed to the board preparing themselves for the duties attached to such membership.
I do not believe that either of these former employees of the board suggested this amendment. I am not even certain they wished to have it moved here. I think the amendment is the product of a misunderstanding of the provisions proposed in this Bill for the present chairman of the board, Mr. Browne. If we gave to Dr. McLaughlin and Mr. Fay the same terms as we gave Mr. Browne, it would mean a substantial diminution on their present pensions and the gratuities would be substantially less than the amounts they would lose having regard to their normal expectation of life. I regard the present arrangement as quite satisfactory. It is generous—more generous than the present arrangement for pensions to most other people employed in the State service in any capacity.
I would much prefer to work towards uniformity in regard to these arrangements rather than towards any special provisions for special cases.
I agree with the Minister that we should work towards uniformity but it was not these directors who fixed the terms. The fact that there is not uniformity does not lie at the door of the directors of any of the State companies. Ministers or Governments are responsible. It is true that in successive measures they introduced different terms for different boards. Some are appointed directly by the Minister for a further term. Others are appointed by Governments and still others hold office as nominees of the Minister for Finance probably with the consent of whatever other Minister is concerned.
The lack of uniformity is the responsibility of Governments or Ministers. I certainly share the idea that uniformity should be established. In fact, there is even some case for introducing legislation to change Acts in order to bring them into line so that there will be a general uniform system, but these particular directors were appointed, as I said initially, and as the Minister mentioned a few moments ago, without having pension rights.
I have here a quotation from Deputy McGilligan who was Minister at the time. It says:—
"I believe that a board such as this should eventually establish a pension scheme for the officials. In fact, I have a certain idea that there might be a pension scheme for members of the board, because they will be taken from fairly lucrative occupations, so as to get the proper men and they are given a small tenure of office."
These people accepted offers on an expressed understanding. It may not have been made to them in any written undertaking. They accepted at that time what the Minister said as covering Government and parliamentary responsibility for it. It is true that if they got the terms which the Minister mentioned they would get conditions comparable to the chairman. Whatever about the future treatment of directors—there will, in future, be very few full-time directors, probably only the chairman and the managing director who will probably be an official of the board—as I believe this is the only instance of full-time directors other than the chairman, there is some case for giving them consideration that they have served in a full-time capacity when other directors, with the exception of chairmen of State companies, do not do so.
The practice of boards in recent times has been to have the chairman alone on full-time and probably the managing director. As I say the directors themselves were appointed and remained as such because continuing Governments or successive Governments reappointed them in that capacity.
Before the Minister finally makes up his mind——
My mind is finally made up. There is no doubt about that.
I do not think so.
If the Deputy had been dealing with this matter as long as I have, his mind would be finally made up.
There is no doubt that the services rendered by Dr. McLaughlin particularly in the initiation of this scheme were outstanding. There will not be another situation in which you will have a similar case. I want to submit to the House, to the Minister and to the Government that the work done by Dr. McLaughlin and his colleagues over a number of years was of such an outstanding nature that if there were an order of chivalry it would be bestowed upon him and it would carry with it a very substantial financial advantage. But the Minister has tackled this as if they had done an ordinary day's work. I think the Minister should forget his prejudices.
I resent emphatically the suggestion that I am influenced by prejudice in this case. I have made my case logically and I think that is a most unwarrantable suggestion.
The Minister will get my suggestions as to what I think, and what he thinks about my suggestions does not worry me.
It is a contemptible suggestion.
Again, what the Minister considers contemptible does not worry me. If they were in any other country—and some people across there are very happy to follow the examples of other countries and cite other countries as to what should and should not be done—is it not true that they would get that honour? But no matter how outstanding they are, they are to be regulated into the common herd.
Generalities are very important and very sound principles are equally important, but in this case we have two men with outstanding merit who have rendered signal services to the country. The Government and the Minister do not think it worth while to say: "Yes, they are outstanding. They are not in the same category as others." There is little likelihood that new developments of that calibre will be initiated in this country again, although we hope there will be, and if there are citizens of this country who have taken a great interest in the building up of industries or institutions that will be of much advantage to the country, we should recognise them as being of outstanding merit. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to reconsider the matter and not just throw it overboard like that.
This question as to the method of pensioning directors of State-sponsored bodies has been the subject of much discussion particularly in the State-sponsored bodies over many years. There are some directors of State-sponsored bodies who have no pension whatever. For example, no member of the Labour Court is pensionable and I do not think members of the Industrial Development Authority are pensionable. The members of quite a number of other State-sponsored bodies have no pension at all.
The Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority.
Not as such.
He is a seconded civil servant. Quite a number of these people have been asked to leave positions to come into the State service.
Some of them have contracts. They are there for a shorter time.
Let me come to this scheme. Many of these people would be reaching the stage at which they will leave the State service without any pension or gratuity whatever unless the State takes some steps to provide for them, and frankly on the obvious merits of the case I think a case can be made. I certainly made it in my time as Minister for Industry and Commerce to the Department of Finance that a scheme ought to be devised to provide pensions for those who give certain minimum periods of service as directors of State-sponsored undertakings and I hope the present Minister will pursue that policy. It is indefensible to take these people into employment, to avail of their services for a long time, sometimes at rates of pay which are less than they can command on the commercial market, and allow them to go out without any pension or gratuity whatever.
In this case of the E.S.B. directors, I had representations made to me. The chairman of the board made representations and felt that he was not being fairly treated in respect of his pension. The chairman of the board was a civil servant who was seconded, I think, from the Revenue Commissioners to the E.S.B. On secondment to the E.S.B. his pension arrangements were frozen; in other words it was ascertained what pension he would have been entitled to at the time of his secondment and that was, as it were, parked there for him and it would be paid to him when he reached the normal retiring age from the Civil Service at 65. In the E.S.B. he is on an entirely different basis. Subject to correction, I think his pension in the E.S.B. is 1/48th of his pay for each year of service subject to a maximum of 24/48ths.
That has been changed here. It is 1/80th.
The chairman felt he ought to get a lump sum as well, as he would have got had he remained in the Civil Service. There was some force in that because of the unusual position in which he stood as a civil servant coming to the E.S.B. I considered the matter at great length. I was anxious to avoid any obvious injustice and at the same time not to create a situation in which others without a claim as strong as the chairman's would use the chairman's rather unique and strong position to say: "We are entitled to the same benefits."
I said to the chairman of the E.S.B. that I was prepared to allow him to do either of two things, but not both. I said: "You cannot get a lump sum in addition to your pension because other people in that category are not getting that lump sum, but you can have this alternative. You can aggregate your Civil Service service and your E.S.B. service and then you can calculate your pension on the Civil Service pattern. If you calculate on the Civil Service pattern then you will be entitled to not 1/48th for each year of service but 1/80th for each year of service and you will be entitled to the customary Civil Service lump sum of 1/30th for each year of service, subject to a maximum of 45 1/30ths."
The chairman would get half his pay as pension under the E.S.B. scheme because 24 years' service would qualify him for half pay where the pension was based on 48ths. However, under the Civil Service scheme, he would have to give 40 years' service before he would get half pay.
Thus, the position was that if the chairman is getting under this Bill— and I undertook the governmental approval to give him this—a lump sum and a half pension he is getting it only because he has rendered a sufficiency of service, that is, 40 years, under the Civil Service pattern to get half pay as a pension. He gets the lump sum because the lump sum in the Civil Service goes where the pension is based on 80ths as against 48ths, under the E.S.B. scheme. Possibly the E.S.B. directors could have the same but if they opt for the same or if it were offered to them they would get a lesser pension and I do not think it would be advantageous to them in the long run.
Therefore, the chairman of the E.S.B. is in a rather unique position because of his previous service in the Civil Service. In fact, for the purpose of this Bill and for the purpose of his pay and lump sum, he is being treated in exactly the same way as the former chairman of C.I.E.
It must be said as well that, under the new scheme which provides for the pension of the chairman here, he loses the Civil Service pension which had been marked for him for many years. I do not know whether or not he knows it but it seems to me he could have claimed it, since he was 65 years of age. However, if he had claimed, the eagle eyes of the Department of Finance would have seen that and provided in this Bill that he would get this pension provided only he refunded what he would have been entitled to since 65 years of age.
There is a difference between the chairman and the other members. If something is to be done for the other members, that could be considered, but there are other people in the State service who would have to be considered and there are persons in the State service who have no pension and gratuity at all. They have a claim for urgent consideration because of the complete absence of any provision for them on retirement.
Amendment negatived.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 6, to add to the section the following new sub-section:—
( ) In this section "dependant" means, in relation to a person to whom the said Section 14 or the said Section 15 applies, a member of the family of such person (being the father, mother, step-father, stepmother, son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, step-son, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, son-in-law or daughter-in-law) who, at the time when such person notifies the board of his wish to make a surrender under this section, is wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of such person.
It is necessary to have a definition of "dependant". This section allows an employee of the board to surrender some of his pension rights in consideration of a dependant. It is necessary to have a definition of the class of dependant to whom he can thus surrender some of his rights.
We had a discussion during your absence, Sir, arising out of Section 7, to which Deputy Desmond had an amendment. Deputy Desmond was not in the House when the section was called and consequently did not have an opportunity of moving his amendment. I agreed that we might recommit the Bill now in respect of that section, if feasible, to enable him to move the amendment and discuss it.
I thought you would take the Report Stage next week.
The date for the Report Stage was about to be named.
Therefore, it is not in order to recommit it?
No, until Report Stage.
Take the Report and other Stages next Tuesday.
That will be fine. I take it that it will be up to Deputy Desmond to have himself in order then and to be here.
