The improvement proposed in this Bill could be considerably enhanced if the Minister would consider the position of those members of the E.S.B. who entered into the employment of the E.S.B. as finished tradesmen at the start in 1927 and contributed greatly to the success of the venture. For the period of their service up to 1942 they were, through no fault of their own, unable to secure maximum benefits under the superannuation scheme because (1) of their age of entry and (2) of the delay in introducing the scheme. Would the Minister consider introducing some provision to compensate them or allow them to be compensated for loss of pension rights?
Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Fifth Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
This Bill, like the curate's egg, is good in spots. I again draw attention to the fact that this Bill carries in it Section 7. The Minister must understand that in passing this section, as it will be carried by a large majority, we are doing something very strange. The Minister was warned of the gravity of his action should he interfere. He was warned of the danger of putting himself in contempt of court. Because there is a strong Government, the court is being ignored by the Minister and the rights of the court are being denied.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Kyne, I should perhaps say a few words in explanation of the situation. The pension scheme was introduced in 1942. It was a contributory scheme. Pensions are paid out of a fund to which the staff and the board make equal contributions. In relation to service prior to 1942, and the establishment of the fund, the board also pay contributions so that, without any further action by any member of the staff, he becomes entitled to pension in respect of half that prior service. He is further entitled to avail of a scheme, a scheme agreed with the staff representatives, to make increased contributions to the fund and buy for himself pension rights in respect of the other half of his prior service.
It was appreciated that, in respect of employees who were over 40 years of age at the time the scheme was introduced, the cost of the units required to secure these pension rights in respect of prior service would be too heavy and, consequently, the board were empowered to add for employees over 40 years of age at that time up to ten years' service, at their discretion, without contribution. That seems to me to be a quite adequate provision to meet the cost of the staffs of the E.S.B.
A suggestion was contained in an amendment which Deputy Kyne had on the Order Paper that in respect of employees who were under 40 years of age in 1942 full pension rights without contribution should also be allowed at the discretion of the board. That would not merely completely upset the scheme which has been in operation for some years but would be obviously quite unfair to those members of the staff who have been contributing over those years the higher contribution required to get these additional pension rights, and I do not think I could possibly agree to any such proposal.
With regard to the point of view expressed by Deputy Desmond, I want to make it quite clear that nothing is being done in this Bill except to empower the E.S.B. to pay compensation, to give them the means of paying compensation to the people concerned in that part of the country, which they had not got up to the present. There is certainly nothing in this Bill which interferes with any proceedings before the courts or which alters the powers of the board in any other way. If this section were not passed into law on the enactment of this Bill, the board would have no power to pay compensation.
The Minister was warned that if he did interfere last February he could be before the court for contempt of court and he did it.
That would be a lovely thought.
Question put and agreed to.