Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Jul 1961

Vol. 191 No. 12

Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) (Amendment) Bill, 1961—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The purpose of the Bill is to authorise each District Milk Board, that is the Dublin District Milk Board and the Cork District Milk Board, to provide a superannuation scheme for its chairman and staff.

These two Boards were established under the Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) Act, 1936, the Dublin District Milk Board in 1936, and the Cork District Milk Board in 1937. Their function is to regulate the supply and distribution of milk for human consumption in their respective areas, to advise the Minister for Agriculture in prescribing minimum prices payable to producers for milk, to promote milk publicity campaigns and to encourage increased milk production such as in operating artificial insemination services.

Each Board consists of a chairman and a number of ordinary members representative of milk producers, wholesalers and retailers. The ordinary members who are elected give their service on a part-time basis and receive no remuneration but are paid allowances for expenses for attendance at meetings. The chairman is nominated by and holds office at the pleasure of the Minister for Agriculture. He receives such remuneration as the Minister may fix after consultation with the Minister for Finance. At present the same person occupies the post of chairman of each of the two Boards. Each Board employs such staff as are necessary for the performance of its functions and these hold office on terms and conditions determined by the Minister for Agriculture. The present staff of the Dublin Board numbers 79 and that of the Cork Board 11.

The expenses of each Board are met out of the Board's own income which is derived from a statutory levy on milk sales and from the commercial operation of its artificial insemination service. Each Board is required to keep a fund into which all money received is paid and out of which any expenditure authorised by statute is met.

The Dublin Board has sought my approval for the introduction of a superannuation scheme for its employees and I have given approval in principle, subject to the enactment of the necessary legislation which of course would also apply to the Cork Board. In deciding to approve of the proposal in principle I was influenced by the fact that legislative provision has been made for the operation of superannuation schemes by other statutory bodies such as An Bord Bainne, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Bord na Móna, Electricity Supply Board, Bord Fáilte Éireann, An Foras Talúntais, etc., and also by the consideration that, as far as can be foreseen, the District Milk Boards will remain a permanent feature of the liquid milk trade.

The operation of a superannuation scheme for the staffs of the Dublin and Cork District Milk Boards will also necessitate the operation of a superannuation scheme for the chairman of the Boards who is the only member who receives remuneration for his services.

This Bill follows generally the pattern of previous legislation authorising the grant of superannuation allowances to the employees of statutory bodies. It has been necessary to make special provision for a person who, as at present, is chairman of more than one board in view of the fact that his service in relation to either board alone might be regarded as of a part-time nature only. Recent social welfare legislation which provides for contributory old age pensions will be taken into account when schemes are being prepared under the Bill.

The Bill will not involve any cost to the Exchequer. The cost of the superannuation scheme will be met out of the Boards' statutory funds into which any staff contributions will be paid.

I trust the Bill will commend itself to the House.

This a permissive Bill to which we see no objection, but I think the Minister might have made it more clear what is the exact implication in Section 2 (b). It is a matter of very great consequence because one individual occupies the post of Chairman to the Dublin District Milk Board and to the Cork District Milk Board and I cannot decipher from the text of the Bill how it is proposed to divide the liability for his pension between the two boards. How much time of his service does he devote to each board——

I suppose he will be included in the Dublin scheme as a whole-time chairman and at a later stage the Cork Board, by agreement, will make whatever proportionate contribution to the fund is necessary in respect of the individual concerned.

These are the kind of things that give rise to trouble when you try to sort them out later on. If we are going to pass a Bill authorising the two boards to create a superannuation scheme, the sooner the scheme is adopted the better. Unless there is some provision for resolving the respective liabilities of the Dublin Board and the Cork Board there will be a row and unless there is somebody authorised by statute to arbitrate in that difference it is a row which could go on for ever. I am not clear, from my perusal of the Bill, whether the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture have responsibility.

I think Section 2 (b) (i) makes it clear.

I feel sure that if one had drafted 2 (b) (i) one would know what it means. All I want to be sure of is that there will be machinery to arbitrate in any dispute between the two boards as to liability.

The Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance in the event of any dispute.

They will settle it?

I gather the scheme is to be a contributory one because the Minister says that any funds from the staff's contribution will be paid into the boards' funds. Of course, most of the boards' servants at present have had quite a protracted period of service. Are we to understand then that there will be contributions to the superannuation fund in order to make it viable or are there to be contributions towards the superannuation fund at all? I understand there are two systems under which you can operate these superannuation schemes. One is to charge them on the general funds of the board and deem them to be part of the salary of a servant of the board. That is the principle that obtains in the Civil Service. Alternatively, you can set up a fund into which the board pays something and the employees pay something and the fund bears the cost of the pension.

In the latter event, there will have to be some substantial capital expenditure from some source to make the fund actuarially viable but if we are to proceed on the precedent of Civil Service salaries it will become a charge on the board's general fund. If that is the principle I do not see where there is any room for staff contributions. These are all details which do not affect the underlying principle of the Bill, which is a permissive measure to give the board power to set up superannuation schemes. However, we must be sure what kind of schemes we are authorising them to set up—whether they are to be contributory or on the same lines as those of the Civil Service.

The Bill has this element of importance. If a man is in enjoyment of a salary as of to-day which is deemed to be adequate for the work he is doing and is given the right of two-thirds of that salary as a life pension, we are giving him a very large addition to the present salary he has. If that is what we are doing I want to know so. If, on the other hand, there is to be contributory assistance whereby people's contributions are graded according to the number of years they have still to go in employment, that has to be examined to see if it is fair and equitable. I should like to know which scheme the Minister has in mind when he gives this general authority to the board. I assume that both he and the Minister for Finance have some knowledge of what the two Milk Boards have in mind to do under the permissive powers the Minister now wishes to give them.

I should like to welcome the introduction of the Bill since it meets a request made by the workers through their organisations. It was promised some time ago and it is good to see it coming to fruition. There is one simple matter to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. I asked a Parliamentary Question in the name of Deputy Larkin yesterday requesting the Minister for Agriculture to remove the restrictions that exist at present preventing the employees of the Milk Board from dealing directly with the board in connection with conditions of employment and wages. The Minister's reply was satisfactory. He said that in the past questions on such matters were referred by him to the Labour Court.

That is quite true in relation to those workers engaged in the artificial insemination side of the work, but there was a difference in respect of the clerical workers. I should now like to ask the Minister if it would be possible to amend this so that the Dublin and Cork Milk Board workers would be given the same facilities as those in An Bord Bainne where they have the right to negotiate directly with the board? The 1936 Act restricted the power to the Minister. As I understand it, an amendment of two subsections of the 1936 Act by the substitution of the word "Board" for "Minister" would meet the case.

The employees are anxious to have the same facilities as ordinary employees of semi-State bodies and I am sure it is not the Minister's intention to prevent their having them. In his opening speech he drew attention to the fact that An Bord Bainne and other semi-State bodies have certain facilities and that he intends to give the same facilities to the Dublin Milk Board. I would ask the Minister to consider having that amendment embodied in this Bill and then I am quite sure the Bill would give 100 per cent. satisfaction to the employees.

What is the suggestion?

That the workers would have the power to negotiate with the Board rather than with the Minister. In the 1936 Act it is confined to the Minister and unless the Minister refers any dispute about wages and conditions to the Labour Court of his own free will the workers have not the right to do so.

Such questions have been referred to the Labour Court on a number of occasions.

Only when the Minister wants to do it.

The Minister has always done it when the occasion arose.

I did it twice and I think the late Deputy Tom Walsh did it also.

Would it not be simpler to give this board the same rights as other bodies have? Would it not be simpler, in view of the fact that the Minister is not exercising his right to enter into negotiations in connection with disputes as to wages and conditions, that the Board should be able to negotiate directly with their employees?

I cannot see the point at all. On at least three occasions their claims have been referred to the Labour Court.

Not in relation to the clerical staff, as far as I know.

They have.

Once only, within 24 hours of going on strike.

My information is that they have been referred on three occasions to the Labour Court.

In the case of the artificial insemination section.

And the clerks.

On one occasion, according to my information. Perhaps I could put it in this way. We intend to put down an amendment to this Bill and we could then give the Minister full particulars.

I do not think it would have anything to do with this Bill or that it would be appropriate to it.

That is what I was worried about.

My information is that the clerical staff employed by the board had a claim submitted to the Labour Court on three occasions.

Would the Minister give me an assurance that he will investigate the complaint?

I have not looked at it recently but it is one with which I had contact some time ago.

My information comes from employees of the board and I would expect it to be correct.

I met them. They came as a deputation to me. My memory is not fresh at the moment as to what transpired but I have a general idea of the case.

I am deputising for Deputy Larkin who normally deals with these matters. He is at a trade union congress in Cork. He would be in a much better position to give the details. As I understand from the employees of the board today, the point is that under the 1936 Act there are two subsections providing that all negotiations in regard to wages and conditions are to be dealt with by the Minister direct. The board does not come into it. It is quite true that the Minister, excercising his functions, when it came to that stage referred it to the Labour Court. The employees simply ask that the Minister would amend that and, if he cannot do it in this Bill, to do it in some other way so that there may be direct negotiations between employees and the board.

There is some kind of snag because it is odd that the employees of the Milk Board approach the Minister and do not deal with the board. I seem to remember some snag about that.

I received a deputation consisting of Deputy Larkin and others but I cannot remember the details.

On the question as to whether the employees of the board come under this Bill or not, the Long Title of this Bill is:

An Act to authorise the making of superannuation schemes by boards established under Section 8 of the Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) Act, 1936.

It would appear that this is the wedding, so to speak, of all the Acts from 1936 on. That would imply that the Minister could make the suggested amendment.

He could, if he so wished.

The Minister may refer a case to the Labour Court but all we ask is that the Minister should allow the clerical staff and others, directly through their union to negotiate with their employers, the board. In other words, the Chairman, the Secretary and the members of the board on the one hand and the union on the other hand could deal with these matters and, if necessary, arrange for arbitration or refer matters to the Labour Court. We appreciate, as the Minister and Deputy Dillon have stated, that cases were referred to the Labour Court. That is all right but we wonder why it should be the Minister who should give the permission. Why should not the Minister pull out altogether and allow negotiation to take place between the employers and workers themselves and, if necessary, have arbitration? All we want is that in this case the Minister should do what has been done in other cases, that is, keep out of any dispute that may arise between worker and employer, let them iron out their problems and as a last resort have arbitration or go to the Labour Court. That seems to be a sensible approach and the request is reasonable.

I do not think it is a subject appropriate to the Bill before the House. I cannot see where the necessity arises because, on every occasion where a dispute arose as between employees and the board as to wages, the claim was submitted to the Labour Court and the recommendation of the Labour Court was fully implemented on each occasion. The distinction is so fine that I cannot grasp it as between giving the board the power and retaining the power in the Minister. It is a matter that can be debated some other time and I shall refresh my memory on this whole business as soon as I get an opportunity to do so.

I have been asked what sort of scheme we have in mind. I must confess that I have no idea at all as to what the scheme will be like. As Deputies have stated, this is a permissive measure and a scheme will be prepared by the boards on the understanding that the Department of Finance and we will have to be satisfied. I cannot say whether they would favour a contributory scheme or otherwise. I must confess that I do not know whether or not schemes which have been prepared by other bodies not unlike this one are contributory. Permissive schemes will be prepared by the board. Whatever they decide and prepare will be submitted to us. I am sure that, as a result of discussions, whatever they propose will be amended and an agreed scheme will finally result. That is all I can tell the House at this Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Could the House give me all Stages now? There is nothing in it.

I should like to, but we should like to have this amendment tested.

I do not think that amendment could be taken on this Bill.

I am not so sure of that.

Do not rush him. Put it down for next Tuesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 1st August, 1961.
Top
Share