Vol. 203 No. 8
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, line 58, after "section" to insert "and the references in the said sections to the Board shall, for the purposes of such application, be construed as references to the Company".
This is simply a drafting amendment. I have agreed with Deputies Corish, Tully and Casey who indicated that there should be some further elucidation in regard to the section and we have brought in this amendment to insert the above words. It is simply a clarifying amendment.
I move amendment No. 3:
To add to the end of subsection (2) the following:
"and the said sections shall be construed and have effect as if the Company were substituted for the Board in these sections".
I was interested to hear the Minister's remarks on the previous amendment and I was wondering if it is an indication that he is, in fact, accepting this amendment.
We are accepting the amendment in a form which is regarded as more suitable but it covers the point made by the Deputy.
No. 2 is in substitution for No. 3?
Yes.
Section 14 is designed to ensure that any employees of the company, that is, Ostlanna Iompair Éireann, which runs the CIE hotels and catering services, who may become redundant before 31st March, 1964, will be paid appropriate compensation by the company. The emphasis is on the company. In the case of the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958 and the Transport Act, 1958 where redundancy was involved, the compensation was payable by the Board of CIE. Therefore, it seemed to us to be appropriate to apply the compensation provisions of the 1950 Transport Act, Sections 41, 42 and 43, to compensation payable under either of the 1958 Acts to which I have referred, as the Board is mentioned in those sections. Under Section 14, compensation is payable not by the Board of CIE but by the company. Therefore, if it is desired to apply the machinery in Sections 41, 42 and 43 of the 1950 Transport Act to compensation under Section 14 of this Bill, it seems necessary to adopt those sections of the 1950 Act by substituting the company for the Board in these sections. That is the purpose of the amendment and it is felt that it is very necessary.
We have in our amendment done exactly what the Deputies require in slightly different words: "and the references in the said sections to the Board shall, for the purposes of such application, be construed as references to the Company."
If the Minister assures me that we are adequately covered, I accept it.
I move amendment No. 4:
In subparagraph (a), page 8, line 27, after "person" to insert the following:
"and any person claiming through him".
This is the same type of amendment. Will the Minister indicate that it is adequately covered by his amendment to subsection (3) of Section 14?
This is not the same thing. The Deputy is referring to something different. The Deputy was afraid for the dependants of members who, under Section 15, on being transferred, will qualify for the pension scheme of CIE. They may retain such entitlement. Obviously, the Deputies had in mind the case where the member died on the transfer from CIE, which would necessitate amending superannuation under paragraph (d), Section 15. I can assure the Deputy that it is possible to back-date the amending scheme, if it is necessary to provide for such cases, and the dependants of anyone who dies within this particular period would not be placed at a disadvantage as a result of the changeover. In my view, it is not necessary to have this amendment.
But if, in fact, the amendment gives effect to the Minister's intention—the Minister says it is his intention to see——
Yes.
——that a scheme will be back-dated to provide against the contingency for which the amendment seeks to provide?
Yes.
Suppose a case of this character arose and we ask a Parliamentary question of the Minister as to why the benefits accruing to Patrick Smith, who died in the critical period, would not go to his dependants as a result of his having died in the period. I think the Minister would reply to me that that is a matter for CIE in which he could not afford to intervene. If it be true that Deputy Treacy's amendment, in fact, crystallises the Minister's intention, would it not be safer to put it in? Otherwise, we may be in the embarrassing position that if such a situation arises we are precluded by the terms of the 1956 Act from intervening on the ground that we have passed over all these matters to the Board of CIE. If the Minister says to me: "I have the right, duty and obligation to provide against this contingency and I guarantee it will not be allowed to arise", then I am quite content.
I have to approve of any amending scheme submitted by CIE. An amending scheme will have to be submitted under the Act and in order that the Revenue Commissioners can make their arrangements for the rebate of the income tax on the contribution. In that way I can ensure that this matter will be covered.
We all agree on what we want to provide against and that is that, by the death of a beneficiary under the scheme at a critical time, his dependants would be deprived of the benefit they would otherwise enjoy. If the Minister says to me: "The terms of the Act impose a duty on the Minister for Transport and Power to look to that matter himself", I am quite content because then if any of us have a grievance in respect of any individual employee we have the right to raise it here.
However, if the Minister says to me: "After the scheme has been approved by the Minister for Transport and Power its administration is a matter for the Board of CIE", then I want to say this to him. Under the 1956 Transport Act—is it not?—we are precluded from raising any specific case which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of CIE. With reference to the addition to the terms of this Act the protection that we apprehend might be necessary in the case of the dependants of an individual who died at the critical time, if the Minister says, "No, my general obligation to approve a scheme invests me with the right and duty to protect any individual and his dependants", I am quite content that we can raise the matter in the Dáil. However, if, on reflection, the Minister says to me: "Once I have approved the scheme I have no further function", then I would ask him to consider accepting Deputy Treacy's amendment because that clearly places the statutory obligation on CIE to do a certain thing and if they fail to do it we can raise it here. I take it the Minister follows my point?
I understand the point but I have to approve of the scheme. I shall insist that any scheme put forward to me will include this provision of a carry-over period between the transfer of the employees and the operation of the scheme. I shall ask that the arrangement be inserted, if it is not inserted by CIE. Once inserted, it is perfectly clear. If Deputies feel they would like to have these amendments accepted, they can be accepted but I do not think they will serve any purpose. If Deputies feel they would like it made doubly clear, I am prepared to accept these amendments.
That is fair enough.
We would welcome that. We are primarily concerned in this instance with safeguarding the rights of dependants of CIE employees under this scheme. The purpose is to ensure that in the transfer from employment with CIE to employment by this new company the employee will continue to enjoy the same superannuation rights as he at present enjoys under the scheme operated by CIE.
Superannuation schemes make provision for widows and orphans and other dependants of employees. The rights which widows and orphans, and so on, have under these schemes are rights through the employees concerned. The purpose of this amendment is to make quite certain that persons other than contributors to the scheme, that is, the employees, will have all such rights against the company as they have at present or would have against CIE.
While the existing schemes themselves probably are sufficient to ensure that the rights of persons other than contributors are continued, it is desirable to put beyond all doubt that the widows of contributors will have their rights continued under this present superannuation scheme. That is why we welcome the Minister's suggestion that he will accept the amendments.
We all welcome the acceptance of the amendments.
I move amendment No. 5:
In subparagraph (b), page 8, line 38, after "person" to insert the following:
"and any person claiming through him".
That is the same.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 9, lines 6 to 9, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and to insert the following:—
"(a) either before or after such vesting, and
"(b) either before the passing of this Act (including a time before the passing of the Act of 1950) or after such passing,
and (in the case of services of trains which have not been operated since before the date of the passing of the Act of 1958) whether or not orders referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the said section 21 have been made in respect of the services."
Section 18, itself, provides for the extension of Section 21 which relates to the making by CIE of abandonment orders relating, under the Transport Act, 1950, to any railway line on which all services of trains have been terminated at any time. The abandonment legislation did not apply to lines on which train services were terminated prior to the transfer of the line, that is, lines operated by the GNR prior to its being taken over by CIE. It was an omission. This is being provided for in Section 18 (1). We have added an amendment which will enable CIE to cover such cases as the Broadstone-Liffey Junction branch line.
The train services to and from the Broadstone were transferred to Westland Row about 25 years ago by the Board's predecessors. When CIE was established in 1950 it took over the Broadstone line but the Board was not in a position to obtain an order formally terminating train services as the relevant statutory provision does not apply to CIE. Therefore, this amendment simply adds to the general section the provision that CIE can abandon lines such as the Broadstone-Liffey Junction branch line, which does not alter the principle.
It seems to be a queer principle, all the same.
I do not completely understand the section but I want to draw the Minister's attention to the situation that exists in regard to 85 people at present employed by Dundalk Engineering Works. I want to know whether these people are covered and whether it is intended to provide for them, if they are dispensed with before the end of the year. They know their positions are in jeopardy and that possibly their jobs will be lost before the end of the year because of the movement of railway work, the maintenance and repair of wagons and locomotives from Dundalk to other CIE depots. Is it intended to prolong the period during which severance pay can be provided for these people? Is this a change of policy?
No, it does not apply to the employees of Dundalk Engineering Works. The position is that ex-GNR employees will be exactly the same as employees of CIE in regard to compensation. There was a defect in the previous legislation and we are now arranging that any ex-GNR employee who becomes redundant as a result of a reorganisation scheme for a department of CIE which is the subject of an order made by me for redundancy compensation, will be entitled to redundancy compensation. It is merely correcting the defect in the previous legislation. None of the employees awarded redundancy compensation to date is in a worsened position but it is possible that some staff who may become redundant shortly would not be able to obtain compensation because of the defect in the previous Act. This places them on exactly the same basis as employees of CIE in regard to all redundancy provisions.
Does the Minister not see that there is still a grave defect in this legislation, in that persons who in 1958 passed on to CIE are now being adequately covered in regard to compensation and redundancy in the future, but these 85 people who were doing specific work—repairing railway wagons is not something that fits one for other work—are left in the position where the Minister for Industry and Commerce says he is not going to give them any more severance pay and because they were unlucky enough to be transferred, not to CIE but to the Dundalk Engineering Works, they have been told that they will lose their jobs, not because of any loss of business but because of the transfer of work to other depots for policy reasons. This Bill does not include any provision which would apply to these people.
They are dealt with under the Dundalk Engineering Works Act, in charge of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I am drawing attention to the fact that these men are in that position.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, line 62, to delete "Company" and to insert "Ostlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta".
This is an amendment to clarify the section and make it quite clear that when "the company" is mentioned on page 9, line 62, of the Bill, what is meant is Ostlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta. It was simply a suggestion made to us by Senator Murphy. I should mention that there is a slight error in this. It should read: "to delete the words "the company" and not "company". I should be glad if the House would accept this change.
Who suggested this?
Senator Murphy suggested it in the Seanad by way of clarification.
The Minister has only done half the job. If he is going to call the company by its full name all through, he should have deleted line 12 of Section 1. It is nonsense to provide a definition in Section 1 that "the company" means Ostlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta and then not use the definition. It is a most slovenly piece of drafting.
I thought it was sufficient.
If the Minister wants to introduce amendment No. 7— and I do not argue with him as to whether that makes it clearer or not— it can only be done by deleting line 12 on page 2. You cannot have it both ways. Either you define the hotel company or you do not. If you define it as it is defined in line 12, then you leave it that way. What the Minister is attempting at present is a drafting monstrosity. I suggest the Minister should drop amendment No. 7. That would be much better.
If we leave it in, it seems to me to clarify the position.
How can you call it by its name in one place and by its definition in another? Without pushing the Minister, this is a matter about which I might be supposed to have a little knowledge.
We are changing the Second Schedule to the 1958 Act. Is it not sufficient if we change it in that way?
Why put in line 12 on page 2 if you are going to have Section 21? You can do it that way in Section 21 and knock out line 12 in Section 1. In how many places is Ostlanna Iompair Éireann mentioned?
About four or five.
Is it not a fact that it should be mentioned everywhere by its name or by its definition?
I suppose one could say it is mentioned by definition in this Act and by its name in the 1958 Act. Let us leave it that way.
Amendment agreed?
Not at all, Sir. At the beginning of Section 21, it is stated:
The Second Schedule to the Act of 1958 is, as respects persons whose services with the board or the company——
That is the definition,
——are dispensed with after the passing of this Act, hereby amended by——
then you use this phrase for the same body in the same section. Really a solicitor's apprentice would do better.
I agree it is clear that it is Ostlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta that is meant. If the Deputy feels strongly about it, I do not mind.
I think the Minister should put Ostlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta everywhere and drop the definition. I do not mind which way he does it but he should do it one way or the other. If he wants to put Ostlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta everywhere "the company" appears, we will give the Minister special leave of the House for the necessary amendments.
I do not think it would be right to change them all. The best thing is to drop this amendment.
Very good—so long as you make it one way or the other.
I am drawing the Minister's attention to the fact that this merely changes the company, Dundalk Engineering Works Limited, to the more proper definition of the holding company, which holds all the shares in it, the Industrial Engineering Company Limited. Going back to the Second Schedule of the Transport Act of 1958 which is, in fact, amended by this section of the Bill we are discussing, one finds that the Minister in 1958— and he is continuing to do so now— reduced the amount of compensation payable or the amount of superannuation payable to persons who transfer to the very company about which I have recently complained inasmuch as there are employees who are now, because of transport policy, being disemployed and being deprived of severance pay or compensation, while at the same time under the Second Schedule of the Transport Act of 1958—and as continues to be the case now—the amount of compensation is reduced if they get a job in this company which the Minister says is not his responsibility but the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is like a conjurer with an egg. You do not know which hand it is in. It is always in the wrong hand.
The Minister is not a conjurer. He is not clever enough for that.
He is not a very good conjurer. We found him out. He tells us it is not his responsibility to look after these 85 men. Nine of them are disemployed and the remainder of them will be disemployed by the end of the year because of the removal of railway work from the Dundalk Engineering Works. We are told by the Minister that it is the job of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to look after them. Yet the Minister for Transport and Power in this and previous transport legislation is prepared to reduce their superannuation because they have got employment in a company in which the Minister for Finance holds the majority of the shares. They lose, no matter what way they go. They will not get severance pay or compensation, but if they are entitled to superannuation, the amount is reduced.
It has nothing to do with the section of the Bill we are discussing now.
It has. Paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule of the Transport Act, 1958, says if a person in receipt of a annual sum holds any office or employment remunerated by the Oireachtas or is employed by a local authority or a company in which the Minister for Finance holds the majority of shares and so on, the amount of the annual superannuation will be reduced by the amount of such excess for the duration thereof.
This refers only to the abatement of compensation for certain subsidiaries of the Dundalk Engineering Works. Employees of CIE and the GNR who are in receipt of compensation, if they join a subsidiary of the Dundalk Engineering Works, will have their compensation reduced in the same way as persons joining State companies and boards have their compensation reduced. It is simply placing them in the same position. It has no bearing on what the Deputy is referring to.
I must disagree with the Minister. I shall put it in plain words. If one of these 85 men transferred to the Dundalk Engineering Works is now disemployed, he goes out the gate and that is the end, as far as compensation is concerned. He may get superannuation, but if he had been transferred to CIE, he would be in an altogether different position. He would be entitled to compensation if a line were closed down. Deliberate transport policy is closing down the works repairing and maintaining railway wagons.
Section 21 does not apply to such people.
