Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 1969

Vol. 238 No. 9

Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of the Bill is to enable An Bord Gráin to provide a superannuation scheme for its whole time officers and servants. The Bill also provides that the remuneration and allowances for expenses of the staff of the Board will be determined by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

An Bord Gráin was established in July, 1958, under the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Act, 1958, to purchase and dispose of home-grown millable wheat surplus to milling requirements, the losses involved being met by a levy on growers of millable wheat. The Act also empowered the Minister to assign additional functions to the board in regard to grain. The board has not, in fact, exercised the original statutory function in regard to surplus millable wheat because a surplus of millable wheat was not produced in any year until 1968 when, however, as the House is aware, no levy was imposed and the cost of disposal of the surplus wheat has to be met by the Exchequer.

The board has, however, carried out a variety of other functions in relation to the marketing of the wheat crop, such as the marketing of unmillable wheat and the payment of special bonuses to growers in 1962. Additional important functions in regard to coarse grains have been statutorily assigned to the board over the years. The principal of these has been the purchase and resale of home-grown barley. The floor price guarantee for feeding barley is implemented by the board who purchase for resale such quantities of dried barley as are offered to them on 31st December each year. The board purchases the dried barley at a price which enables merchants to pay the growers the floor price for green barley and to meet the cost of drying, handling, interest and storage. The barley purchased by the board is resold to compounders and feeders on an exstore or delivered basis and the board's activities in this regard are self-supporting. The board also subsidises the cost of the transport of barley from the areas in which it is grown to the deficiency areas mainly in the west, and this is financed from the proceeds of a levy of £1 a ton on imported maize. The board also operates a purchase and resale arrangement for home grown feed wheat and the new floor price arrangement introduced this year for oats.

Additional functions also assigned to the board cover the purchase, importation, and distribution—subject to my approval—of maize, sorghums, imported feed wheat and feed barley. The board in the fulfilment of these functions generally operates through the established grain trade.

The board employs such staff as are necessary from time to time for the performance of its functions. At present there are 13 whole time persons on the staff of the board who would be eligible to participate in a contributory pension scheme. The number of staff may vary according to the functions of the board. The expenses of the board are met from income derived from its trading activities under the various functions statutorily assigned to it.

An Bord Gráin has sought my approval to operate a superannuation scheme for its staff and I have given my approval in principle, subject to the enactment of the necessary legislation. The board's operations have proved very useful and of particular benefit to farmers and, so far as can be foreseen, it will remain a permanent and essential feature of the grain trade in this country. The staff employed by the board should be regarded as on a permanent basis. Provision of a pension scheme brings the board's staff into line with other statutory bodies.

With the introduction of enabling legislation to operate a superannuation scheme, it appears to the Minister for Finance, and I agree, that the terms of remuneration and allowances for expenses to the staff which are now a matter for the board should for the future be determined by me with the consent of the Minister for Finance. This is already the case with the staff employed in the Dublin and Cork District Milk Boards.

The Bill follows generally the pattern of previous legislation relating to the operation of superannuation schemes by statutory bodies. The provision for Ministerial control of the remuneration and allowances for expenses of the staff of the board is made by an amendment of section 13 (3) of the original Act (Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Act, 1958) under which the board was established. The Bill will not involve any cost to the Exchequer.

Mr. Clinton

As the Minister says, this is just enabling legislation for a desirable purpose which I think all of us in the House would be anxious to facilitate and support. One wonders why, in fact, it has taken ten or 11 years to bring in such a scheme. It is an extraordinary thing that a statutory board of this kind is in existence for ten years before there is any question of a pension scheme of this kind. I am prompted to ask the Minister whether at any time during that ten or 11 years the board in fact submitted a scheme to the Department and, if they did, when they submitted it? If they did not, is the Minister aware of any reason why they should not have done so, because to me it represents a fairly serious neglect of responsibility? I think it must be without precedent in the country to have a board of this kind in operation for ten years with no superannuation scheme.

If and when a scheme is formulated and submitted, will it have retrospective application? I am quite sure there were at least some members of the staff in continuous employment over the past ten years, or whatever number of years they have been employed. Will the scheme envisaged have retrospective application over this period? It is important that it should have. It would be all wrong that employees of a semi-State organisation like this should not have this type of pension scheme when in all other boards they have such a scheme.

It also occurs to me to question the change that is proposed in section 2:

Section 13 (3) of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Act, 1958 is hereby amended by the substitution of "Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance" for "Board" where that word secondly occurs.

That is a significant change in that it appears to me that in return for organising a pension scheme for this Board the Minister is exacting a quid pro quo. He wants the board to surrender their right to fix the salaries and wages and general remuneration of the staff. I question whether this is a good thing and whether it is general practice. The Minister has said there is a precedent for this in the Dublin District Milk Board and in the Cork Milk Board. I suggest to him that the record of industrial relations in both organisations has not been so good as to justify taking this step in this case, mainly because when there is an application for an increase in wages or salary or an improvement in conditions there is far too prolonged a time lag before the application can be dealt with and before the subject-matter of the discontent can be dealt with. It is simply because State bodies move slowly and it is not possible to have the same speed in reaching the kernel of the problem in dealing with it. We would have far better industrial relations generally between staff and management of these boards if they were allowed to fix the rates of pay and salary for their own workers. I do not know why the Minister considers that in this Bill it is important that this should be changed. It is obviously a condition of the Bill going through that section 2 should give the Minister this particular power.

The Minister referred to the type of work being done by the board and the importance of it and the fact that it is pretty obvious that the board will be in existence for a considerable time, that it will become a permanent feature. He mentioned that the board was operating a purchase and resale arrangement for homegrown feed wheat and a new floor price arrangement introduced this year for oats. Perhaps, when the Minister is replying, he might tell us whether in fact the board have purchased any oats in the present year and, if so, what quantity.

I agree with the Minister that this is an important board. In fact, it would be much more important if the recommendations in the Provender Milling Report of 1963 were followed, because in that Report there were very strong recommendations for broadening the functions of this board and giving it wider control over the whole grain and feeding-stuffs industry. It has always surprised me that you had part of this responsibility spread over the Grain Board and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Personally, I think it is a job for either one group or the other and that it does not and cannot work properly when you have a Grain Board responsible for home-grown grains and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries dealing with the import of things like pollard and maize. I am sure it is very difficult to have a proper balance between home-grown feeding stuffs and imported feeding stuffs unless they have control and responsibility for the entire feeding-stuffs and provender industry.

To draw the Minister's attention to the recommendation for broadening the control and power of this board, in paragraph 114 on page 42 of that Report, the members have this to say:

National considerations require that native feeding grains be used in this country to the greatest extent. It is a logical conclusion that to ensure this the availability of imported feeding grain and wheat offals must depend upon overall supplies of native feeding grain. Ad hoc arrangements which separate the marketing of native barley and feed wheat and which provide for importation of maize and wheat offals prior to determination of the overall supply position of native grain from a harvest are incorrect in the face of the increase in feeding barley crops and the probability of supplies of feed wheat being available. In the opinion of the team the only method by which overall control could be achieved would be the establishment of a central grain authority.

They go on to say, in paragraph 150:

The team recommends that control over marketing and distribution of all home produced feeding grain and over importation and distribution of maize and wheat offals should be vested in An Bord Gráin.

I wonder whether serious consideration has been given to this question of extending the power and authority of An Bord Gráin to control the whole grain industry and the whole feeding-stuffs industry. Division of control has certainly operated very much against the general interest of the producers. I do not want to go too deeply into this matter because it is probably outside the scope of the Bill. I just draw attention to it only because the Minister has referred to the powers and responsibilities of this board in endeavouring to justify the legislation he has brought before us today. As I have said, it is desirable legislation; it is legislation to which the House would like to give a quick passage, unlike some of the legislation about which we had discussion and argument the other night which we were not prepared to have steamrolled through the House. The scheme outlined in the Bill is something we are all anxious to see in operation as soon as possible. If the Minister wants all Stages today, we will be prepared to give them to him.

Subsection (7) of section 1 of the Bill is as follows:

Every scheme submitted and approved under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is approved and if either House, within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the scheme is laid before it, passes a resolution annulling the scheme, the scheme shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

I take it that what would have to happen is that either the Government or the Opposition would be so dissatisfied with the scheme as to move a Motion in the House to annul it. Otherwise, the matter would not come before the Dáil. There does not appear to be any power provided in the Bill to amend the scheme or to recommend amendment of the scheme. There is power to annul.

I should like to express the hope that the Minister, when replying to the debate, will give an assurance that this scheme will be retrospective to cover members of the staff who have been employed by An Bord Gráin since 1958 or for some years past and that they will get credit for that service in any pension scheme and, also, that the Minister will comment on the reasons why he considers it a good thing to have State control in dealing with the salaries and wages applicable in this organisation. I should like him also to deal with the other points I have raised, namely, why this has not come up sooner or, if it has come up, why nothing was done about it.

Mr. James Tully

I shall be very brief. The purpose of the Bill, according to the Minister's brief, is to enable An Bord Gráin to provide a superannuation scheme for its wholetime officers and servants and also to provide that the remuneration and allowances for expenses of the staff of the board will be determined by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

I am glad that it has been decided to introduce a superannuation scheme for these people. I hope the superannuation scheme will give credit not only for service with the board since July, 1958, but for service in other semi-State bodies before becoming employees of the board. This is a matter which occasionally gets fouled up. There is a tendency to forget that people may have been in employment which would entitle them to a decent pension on retirement. The Bill refers to "officers and servants". I hope this will not be the usual case that those above the line will be looked after while those below the line must look after themselves. Trade unions, particularly the union I represent, have been pressing the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and many other Departments for a number of years in an effort to get them to bring in a superannuation scheme for employees of their Departments who are at the bottom of the line as far as wages are concerned. We find the greatest reluctance on the part of Department to bring in such a scheme. I notice that only a small number of employees are affected in this case.

Is there any possibility that the Minister will decide, when he is introducing this type of scheme in this case, to review the situation with regard to employees on State farms and other employees of his Department whose service is not pensionable? It is rather a scandal that in 1969 there should be this anomaly. However, the Bill is for the purpose of providing a pension scheme for wholetime officers and servants of An Bord Gráin and, therefore, we welcome it but I should like to know from the Minister when he is replying what exactly is meant by "wholetime" because we do find occasionally that there is a little twist put on these things and certain people who may appear to be on the same conditions of employment as others are ruled out because it is decided that some employees are wholetime and others are not wholetime. I should like this matter to be cleared up.

With regard to the determination of remuneration and allowances for expenses, I notice that the Department have decided that they should be responsible for that in future. Does this mean that the staff will come under the conciliation and arbitration schemes affecting the Civil Service or does this in any way reduce their chances of being paid a decent wage or salary? Perhaps the Minister would give us that information when he is replying to the debate?

Mr. Clinton

I also intended to ask the Minister if there was any term other than "servant" that he could apply to the wage-earning class.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I would agree with the previous speakers that this scheme is long overdue, and that those servants who are wholetime should be pensionable and should be fully looked after. I would be very much in favour of An Bord Gráin and the functions it carries out.

There is one matter which puzzles me in relation to the Bill. Is it not possible for a statutory body such as An Bord Gráin to create a pension scheme without recourse to the Minister? I know that according to the Schedule of the 1958 Act under which the board was set up the Minister appoints the board and the chairman, but I notice that today the Minister said:

The expenses of the board are met from income derived from its trading activities under the various functions statutorily assigned to it.

I take it from that that what the Minister meant is that the board is completely solvent and self-supporting, that it does not receive any contribution or subvention from the State. The Minister also said that the Bill will not involve any cost to the Exchequer. In other words, here is a statutory body which, in my opinion, is a great success and which has been of considerable benefit to farmers who grow grain—a matter in which I am particularly interested as I come from a very strong grain-growing constituency — that functions perfectly and is completely solvent. Yet, we have legislation introduced here which seems to me to impose a greater burden on this board. For what purpose is this necessary? After all, if there is a board and it is functioning satisfactorily as a liaison between the Department of Agriculture and the grain growers, why has there to be further State control? The board acts in the capacity of a middleman; it provides an outlet for surplus grain and it encourages merchants to buy since they know they will be recouped any losses sustained. The board performs a useful function from the point of view of tillage. If the Minister tells me this legislation is necessary to enable the board to provide a superannuation and pension fund I shall be quite satisfied. The Schedule to the 1958 Act provides that:

The Board shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and power to sue in its corporate name and to hold land.

Would it not be better to leave the board as such? The Minister said that this proposed contributory scheme will be subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. With all due respect, I see no reason why it should have anything to do with either the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister for Finance. The body is solvent and could surely make its own arrangements for its employees. The Minister for Finance will not contribute any money. If this legislation were merely to give these employees that to which they are entitled I would be quite satisfied.

The Minister tells us there are 13 members. The chairman and members are nominated by the Minister. There is not outside nomination. Would the Minister not consider liberalising the position a little, by way of amendment on Committee Stage, and opening wider the ranks from which appointments may be made to the board? For instance, there could be appointments by agricultural organisations. I am not advocating now that the NFA should have a nomination to the board, in case the Minister jumps too hastily to that conclusion; it is not for me to fight the battles of the NFA. I merely suggest it would be wise to open out nomination to this board. Most semi-State organisations favour a wider coverage with regard to membership as against nomination by the Minister. I do not suggest the Minister's nominations have not been suitable. I know for a fact that they are. I know one member from Wexford. I am not referring to a late member. This man was on the board at one time but I have a strong suspicion he was removed from the board fairly recently.

There is a new floor price arrangement introduced for oats. The Minister may have made quite an extensive statement on this at some stage, but I am not aware that he did. If he did not, perhaps, when he is replying, he will give us some idea as to what this floor price is and tell us also who the buyers will be. It is pretty well-known who the buyers are in the case of barley. It is more than likely, with an innovation like this, that there will be a new group with a special licence. Because of the trade agreement with Britain we are limited to buying seed oats from Britain. There are parts of Europe— the Scandinavian countries, for instance —in which it is possible to procure more suitable oats for our purposes. We seem to get all our seed barley and seed oats from Britain.

Mr. Blaney

The principal reason for the introduction of this Bill is that no provision was made in the 1958 Act.

Mr. Clinton

Can the Minister say why this provision was not included in the original Act?

Mr. Blaney

I should imagine that it might not have seemed necessary at that stage. That may be the reason why, too, no such effort was made by the board before 1963 and no suggestion was made as to the need for such a measure as this. That was probably due to the circumstances of the time. It was not clear that this was likely to be a permanent feature of the operations of the grain business. It has, however, now become quite apparent that this type of board is necessary both from the point of view of the utilisation of home-produced grain and the importation of foreign grain to meet requirements.

All three speakers have queried why this legislation should be subject to Ministerial approval, whether by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister for Finance. Over the years a disparity has emerged in the pattern of remuneration, superannuation and benefits of one kind and another where these boards are concerned. Since all of them are created by this House to serve this State and, since our responsibility is thereby tied up with them, it seems absolutely essential that there should be a method of bringing about uniformity of approach, both as to their remuneration and such things as superannuation.

It is for that reason that in this measure here we are now putting it into the legislation that this tie-up, as it were, this effort to have a uniform approach to remuneration and superannuation in our State bodies should be channelled into some centre. Whereas the board in question is under my Department, other boards are under various other Department, and we still might not have the uniformity which I think is desirable from every point of view unless there was a co-ordinating head amongst us all. Therefore, you will find in other boards where matters such as these come forward in the future, there will be this channelling through by the consent mechanism to one Minister, namely the Minister for Finance. That is pretty useful. It is desirable, and it is for that reason we are proposing to do it in this way.

It has also been suggested that the functions of the board might be widened. This, of course, we have the power to do. It might be true to say that its job today is very different from what it was when it was first projected and formed in 1958. At that time it was set up to deal with wheat really. Wisely at that time we included the power to allow the board to do other jobs if, as and when they arose. Other jobs are, perhaps, the bigger element of its business now. That is as it should be. Under the 1958 Act the rôle it plays can be widened and changed and expanded or contracted in the circumstances of the day. I am quite well aware that we have this opportunity to do these things, and I am not unmindful of certain aspects where greater participation by the board in grain trade and grain policy could be of considerable benefit and concern to the producer.

With regard to its effectiveness in relation to oats, up to the 31st December which was the date we set this year initially for the purchase of oats, the Board has purchased somewhere under 5,000 tons. We will be arranging for the board to have another purchase date to allow for the late threshing which is still in the traditional oatsgrowing areas by far the bigger end of the crop. So, while we would have got 5,000 tons covered by this floor price arrangement up to 31st December, it is likely that there will be a further date after which the board will purchases further oats when they come on the market and we expect there will be further oats on the market as threshings take place.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

What is the floor price?

Mr. Blaney

The price which the board will take it up at is identical with the barley price. Around £27 14s a ton would be the take up price. This would be for a dry ton. In addition to that, there is an arrangement for a premium price for quality oats above and beyond that. It can very but basically—this is the floor price.

Mr. Clinton

Will they sell this oats back for feeding or milling?

Mr. Blaney

The quantity taken up so far this year up to 31st March was about 1,500 tons of quality oats. This may be used and, perhaps, is being used for horse feeding or bloodstock feeding. I am not sure what use it has gone to. It has been bought in two lots, so to speak: 1,500 tons of quality oats, as it is described, and somewhere over 3,000 tons of feeding oats which could go back into compounds and ordinary general animal feeding stuffs. The quality oats can be used in oatmeal milling and can possibly be made use of for the higher grade requirements of horse feeding, although I understand that new oats—oats from the harvest just past—is usually not looked upon with any favour by those people so it may not be used for that purpose as yet. Presumably the quality oats content would be suitable. I should imagine that oatmeal milling would be the likely end to which the quality content has been put and the other would have gone into animal feeding stuffs of various kinds.

Mr. Clinton

Can the Minister say if there is any truth in the rumour that these oats are being resold with the aid of a subsidy against people who have assembled oats without a subsidy?

Mr. Blaney

The point here is that this scheme relates to the western counties and maybe—although it is not so to my knowledge—there is some basis for what the Deputy says, perhaps not in the same way as he put it. I should not like to be flat-footed about it.

Mr. Clinton

I do not know if it is right.

Mr. Blaney

I have not heard it so I should not like to comment absolutely on it. These are taken up under this scheme from the western counties and it is possible that there may be some disparities emerging as between what is taken up by the ordinary trade in the ordinary traditional way in the rest of the country, and the oats taken up in this way from the western counties. I do not know that that is so. It is possible that there may be some little grinding going on in that regard of which I am not aware.

So far as the need for this Bill is concerned, I think the House fully accepts it is something we should do. Perhaps another reason why it was not done earlier would also be the fact that there was in the earlier stages naturally a lesser job to be done or assigned to the Board. Therefore, there were fewer staff. There was a very small staff initially. It is only in the past five or six years that the staff has grown to the permanent number we now have and confirmed as the number of permanent staff needed, occasionally supplemented by temporary staff of various kinds.

All in all the scheme is necessary. It is desirable that it should be channelled back through the Minister concerned with the board itself, namely, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and, in turn, that there should be the consent of the Minister for Finance in order that there would be uniformity in practice in regard to superannuation and allowances to the staffs in all of our State boards and to get away from the danger which has made itself evident of staffs competing with each other, as it were. That is something that should be avoided. This is a step in that direction so far as this board is concerned, to bring it into line, to conform with this new outlook of having uniformity where possible.

The only other thing I should like to say to those who make the point that, perhaps, this type of procedure could have damaging repercussions in that if the claim has to be considered by the board, then further to be recommended to the Minister who, in turn, must get the consent of the Minister for Finance, this could create a prolonged and, perhaps, aggravating procedure, is that this should not happen, but undoubtedly the point made is one that is well taken. I can only assure the House that in so far as we can, we will try to avoid time-lags that would give rise to difficulty in regard to claims and settlements due to this three level operation which has to take place. We can try to avoid that where possible and try to make it work as smoothly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next Stage?

Mr. Blaney

Could we have it now?

Mr. Clinton

I would be agreeable but it is hardly fair to the Labour Party the members of which, as we all know, are attending a funeral.

Mr. Blaney

The trouble is, that there are quite a number of things this afternoon and it is for that very purpose that we would love to have them on. We are more or less kicking for touch at the moment. We should utilise the time available on this matter. The two measures by the Minister for Labour were put back in order that this could be taken now and so that they could be present later on. I feel they must be happy about it as otherwise they would not have allowed this measure be put on.

Mr. Clinton

Certainly, we can proceed with all Stages.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.