There is one amendment on the Order Paper but it is out of order.
Committee on Finance. - Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) (Amendment) Bill, 1961 — Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: That Section 2 stand part of the Bill.
I had hoped that the Minister would be able to give us some indication of the method envisaged for the allocation of the liability for superannuation between two boards in the case where one man happened to be chairman of both boards.
He would be included in the Dublin scheme or the Cork scheme. I take it he would be included in the Dublin scheme and the Cork Board would make its proportionate contribution at some period — say, at the end — towards the superannuation of the individual concerned.
I do not quite follow that. I take it that when the scheme was formulated you would have the rather unusual situation of a part-time servant of the Dublin Board qualifying for superannuation? That is not a very usual feature of superannuation schemes that ordinary provide for full-time employment for the person in order to qualify for superannuation. There is in respect of this one individual servant of the two boards a peculiar situation in that he is a servant of both boards. That applies to nobody else. There must, therefore, be an exception made that this part-time servant of these Boards will receive superannuation. I cannot see how that can be arranged except on the basis of prescribing, either by regulation or Ministerial Order, that in the light of our experience since he first started to function in this dual capacity three-fifths of his superannuation is the responsibility of the Dublin Board and two-fifths the responsibility of the Cork Board, or whatever other fraction appears to be equitable in the light of our experience of the last few years.
Unless provision of that kind is made, I do not see how under any superannuation scheme you can provide that one of the boards shall pay the entire superannuation with some right of recovery against the other board, because you are dealing with two funds. I suggest to the Minister that before a superannuation scheme for either board is approved, provision would have to be made declaring that the superannuation would be divided between the two boards.
There is a further problem here. I do not believe the remuneration of the chairman of the Dublin Milk Board is identical with that of the chairman of the Cork Milk Board. If my recollection serves me right, his salary from the Dublin Milk Board will be somewhat greater than his salary from the Cork Milk Board. It may be that these would be the fractions in which the liability for his total superannuation would be calculated. But some basis of calculation ought to be incorporated in the superannuation scheme or there is bound to be trouble when the time for his superannuation comes, inasmuch as there is only one case involved and it is highly unlikely that another such will arise.
The problem is not very material, and yet, if we want to avoid trouble, I think it had better be provided for. If the Minister says now that it is his intention in examining any superannuation scheme submitted to him to provide an equitable distribution of the liability of the two boards for the total pension of the chairman, that is an adequate undertaking.
That is what I thought I said.
I did not understand the Minister to say that. I understood him to say that, when the time came, the Dublin Milk Board would pay the pension and would get compensation from the Cork Milk Board.
It would have to be part of the scheme.
So long as there is provision made in the scheme that the superannuation will be borne in a predetermined ratio between the two boards, I think the difficulty is removed. But that provision ought to be there.
The individual in question is in this position. His employment is wholetime and it has to be whole-time in order that he may be included in a scheme. But while his employment is full-time employment, it is given as between the Dublin Milk Board and the Cork Milk Board. Therefore, the scheme would have to provide that he would be included in the Dublin scheme but it would also have to provide the method by which the Dublin Board and the Cork Board would make their contributions on a proportionate basis. As the Deputy suggested, that would have to be done by agreement and would have to be kept in mind when whatever scheme is submitted comes up for examination and approval.
What I cannot quite follow is how this man can be a full-time employee of two separate bodies.
He is in full-time employment as between the two.
I agree. He is not an employee of the Minister. He is an employee of the Dublin Milk Board, on the one hand, and the Cork Milk Board, on the other hand. The fact is that he was the full-time chairman of the Dublin Milk Board. A vacancy arose in connection with the Cork Milk Board. I felt at the time it was not beyond the capacity of one man to be chairman of both boards, so I appointed him chairman of the Cork Milk Board. Suitable arrangements were made for the payment of his salary for this dual function, but the question of full-time employment to qualify for superannuation did not then arise. But, mark you, if you confine a superannuation scheme to full-time employees of either board, you may be in the difficulty that you cannot contend that one man is the full-time employee of two different persons, and that Cork Milk Board is a different "person" altogether from Dublin Milk Board. If you can overcome that difficulty and determine that he is qualified to be superannuated by both boards, then you have got to determine the amounts. It is something to watch, if the scheme is to be confined to wholetime employees of both boards.
It has to be.
If it is, how can you maintain one man is the full-time employee of two different persons?
I do not think that is difficult.
If the Minister would reflect for a moment, how can you be the full-time employee of two separate persons?
You are in the employment of two boards in a full-time capacity.
No. If he were in the employment of the Minister, he would be a full-time employee of the Minister with duties with regard to the Dublin Milk Board and duties with regard to the Cork Milk Board. But he is not the employee of the Minister. He is the employee of the board.
The Minister appoints him.
But he is the servant of the board. He is paid by the board.
But he is chairman of the board and is appointed by the Minister.
Yes, but he is not the servant of the Minister. He is not paid by the Minister; he is paid by the board. Therefore, he must be deemed to be their employee. How can you say a man is a full-time employee of two different bodies?
He is not an employee in that sense, I think.
He must be occupied full-time in order to come within the ambit of a superannuation scheme.
He is in full-time employment.
It is agreed between us that that man should get his superannuation. All I am concerned to ensure is that when a superannuation scheme comes to be drawn, we shall not have left in the Act an insuperable obstacle to an equitable arrangement. If the Minister is advised that his employment by two separate persons is not an insuperable obstacle, I am prepared to accept that. But I want to emphasise that, if that preliminary obstacle is removed, it is very important that an equitable distribution of superannuation liability should be incorporated in the original scheme as between the Cork Board and the Dublin Board. I should be glad to know how the Minister can give a pension to cover full-time employment with one board to a man who is employed by two separate boards?
In the case of the present chairman, no difficulty would arise at all if he had remained chairman of the Dublin Milk Board only.
None.
He became not only chairman of the Dublin Milk Board, but also chairman of the Cork Milk Board.
Which had the effect of increasing his total income.
Which had the effect of increasing his total income. It is only reasonable that he should be eligible, first of all, for superannuation and, secondly, that each of the respective boards should make their proportionate contribution to that scheme. I am advised that the present position does not present any difficulty. It is an equitable and fair arrangement.
There does not seem to be any difficulty at all in relation to paragraph (b) of subsection (1). The difficulty arises in relation to paragraph (a) because the board can prepare a scheme for the chairman only if he is employed in a whole-time capacity. I cannot see how anyone can say that the chairman of the Dublin Milk Board is employed in a whole-time capacity. He is not. He is employed by the Dublin Milk Board and by the Cork Milk Board. He is whole-time between the two boards. The paragraph is restrictive because it says: "A board may prepare and submit." It is not the two boards.
Some one or other of the boards must.
I agree. The chairman is undoubtedly in a whole-time capacity between the two boards, but I do not think he is in a whole-time capacity within the meaning of paragraph (1) (a) as it stands.
It is qualified by paragraph (b) I am advised.
That may be. Paragraph (b) deals with the method of contribution, not with the authority for the scheme.
I am advised that it is perfectly all right.
As I see the arrangement now, what the Minister really proposes is that the Dublin Milk Board can deem the chairman to be in whole-time employment under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section 2, and the Dublin Board can submit a scheme of superannuation in respect of their chairman and recover from the Cork Milk Board "such part of the cost of the allowance as may be determined by agreement between the latter board and that other board or, in default of agreement, by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance". I find myself in the rather odd position of having energetically to protect the interest of a citizen who has never concealed his political allegiance but who is, at the same time, a citizen whom I appointed to the Cork Milk Board. I am anxious, therefore, to ensure that the superannuation to which he is entitled shall be equitably fixed.
Is the Minister creating for himself the difficulty that under a scheme, which will presumably provide a common basis of remuneration relating to salary, he may have to go out of his way to fix a different basis for the chairman? I do not know what his remuneration is. Say it is £750 for the Dublin Board and £500 for the Cork Board. The Minister wants to give him superannuation on the basis of a total salary of £1,250, but under the provisions of this Bill the Dublin Milk Board must give the chairman his total superannuation and then recover from the Cork Milk Board whatever is due by that body. Suppose the superannuation works out at half and he gets £625, on the understanding that the Dublin Milk Board will recover some part of that from the Cork Milk Board, in fact the scheme will have to provide that he gets £625 superannuation from the Dublin Milk Board on a salary of £750.
It is true they will recover from Cork £275 as Cork's contribution, but the scheme will look a bit lopsided if everybody else has his superannuation based on 50 per cent. of salary and the chairman is getting six-sevenths of his salary on the date of retirement. If that is the best the Minister can do, then that is the best the Minister can do, but it will create a problem. The Minister would have been wiser to provide that in respect of the chairman his superannuation would be based on the salary received by him from the Dublin Milk Board and the salary received by him from the Cork Milk Board without regard to the provision relating to permanent employment, which is the normal provision in normal circumstances. We are dealing here with an exceptional case.
We all saw this difficulty but we were advised that legally this was the way to meet this special problem. So long it is legally possible, I do not see that there is any great difficulty at all in working out the mechanics of the arrangements as between the two boards. It should not be a difficult problem to provide as to the amount of the contribution to be made by each of the boards in question.
So long as the man gets equitable superannuation I do not mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
This Bill deals with the question of making provision for the superannuation of the chairman and members of the staff of the Dublin Milk Board. I should like to take this opportunity to point out that the staff of this board appear to be in a unique position. They are the only staff employed in boards set up by Dáil Éireann who do not enjoy the protection of the Industrial Relations Act and who have no right to avail of the machinery of that Act.
Surely that does not arise on this measure?
It is a reference to the staff. It is by way of comment.
It does not arise.
The staff in this case are deprived of the right to avail of the machinery——
The Deputy must not proceed on that line.
——of the Industrial Relations Act. As well as that the Minister at times has exercised his powers——
The Deputy must not pursue that line.
——to permit——
I have told the Deputy that he must not persist in that fashion. That does not arise.
I would ask the Minister at this stage whether he would again consider this situation?
That does not arise on the Bill.
I am aware——
The Deputy is ruled out of order.
I am aware it does not arise, but I want to appeal——
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
I want to appeal——
That does not arise on the Bill.
I am aware it does not arise on the Bill. I want to appeal to the Minister in ordinary common justice to extend——
The Deputy will please resume his seat. That does not arise on the Bill at all.
Question put and agreed to.