I do not think the Minister has dealt with the question of retrospection, whether, in fact, the scheme envisaged will cover the people who have been in employment for some period prior to the introduction of the Bill. They might not be for the full period back to 1958 but I am sure there are members of the staff who are there for some years and they should be covered by any scheme brought in now. I know Deputy James Tully raised the additional point that their service with other similar State organisations should rank for inclusion as well. That is a thing which, perhaps, the Minister might comment on. I am not making the point but certainly I feel they should be covered for the full period of their employment in An Bord Gráin. Again, I would ask the Minister if a more wholesome description than "servants" could be found? "Officers and servants" is an ugly description which I do not like. I know it is a description which has been used always but it is something which, if we can, we should change. We should have "other employees" or something of that sort instead.
Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Committee and Final Stages.
In so far as the manner in which this would be applied is concerned this is, as rightly termed here, by and large, an enabling bit of legislation and the procedure which is laid down is that the board would in their best knowledge be recommending a scheme of a certain kind. I would have to have a look at this consideration and maybe have a word with them about it, or maybe not, and also have a talk, based on that, with the Minister for Finance for his assent to my recommendations in all probability. What comes up in so far as the details of the scheme are concerned I could not foreshadow at this particular time and, therefore, I cannot say those things will be included. All I can positively say is that there is nothing in this enactment here which prevents them being included if this should be what is ultimately desired and agreed. In other words, so far as the legislation is concerned, we do not exclude any of those things and, therefore, I take it they could possibly all be taken in but I cannot say definitely that they can.
Would the Minister say if a proposal for retrospection comes up that he will give it his favourable consideration?
The Deputy knows how soft-hearted I am.
I have not noticed it up to the present.
The Deputy will take notice of how far my sympathy will go in the matter. I have to take account of my colleague, the Minister for finance, in this. I would not be in a position at this stage to hazard how the qualifications would tally with what is provided. It will get sympathetic consideration but that does not contain a promise that it may get through.
There is a further point which the Minister did not deal with. It is a question I raised about power to annul and no power to amend. Perhaps, the Minister might comment on that?
I meant to say something on that earlier. It does not give me power to amend. On the other hand, if someone came forward and action was taken here and it was annulled, I think the procedure would obviously start again to come up with amendment for him through the ordinary channels and this would be laid before the Houses. At that stage I would hope this would have been suitably amended. I think that would be very likely to happen.
As I said in the course of my speech on Second Stage, I have still a certain amount of doubt about this section with regard to the need for the Minister taking power to make all the decisions in relation to remuneration, conditions of employment and all that sort of thing. I can see the Minister's point that there is a case to be made for a certain amount of standardisation as between one board and another and for that reason I am inclined to withdraw the objection I have to this. The Minister says that he will find ways and means of overcoming the delays which take place. They certainly do not make for good staff relations. The history of the staff relations in boards which were cited for us here where this power is vested in the Minister already has not been the best, as we all know. It has not made a case for the Minister taking this power to himself in this particular Bill.
I might add a little to that. When dealing with the overall point about the uniformity, we have to look at it another way as well. The whole purpose of this board and the jobs that may be assigned to it were created by legislation in this House at the insistence of the Department, of which I am now Minister. Any assignments additional to its present function which it may be requested to undertake will again be made by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries of the day. The jobs generally that it may and will be asked to take on are jobs peculiarly in relation to the business of agriculture and this board could be regarded as a commercial extension of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to do certain things particularly in the trading sense.
It is very logical, indeed, in this sense, that the remuneration, the conditions of employment, the superannuation, expenses and emoluments should very much be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Department whose creation this board is and for whom this board in the first instance works as a sort of extra arm. There is also the point which may have been slightly confused in that I said at the end of my introductory speech that no cost would fall on the Exchequer as a result of the Bill. This does not mean, in fact, that costs indirectly may not be incurred by the State in various ways. Indeed, this is absolutely inherent in the whole existence of this board.
Take, for instance, the question of oats. To allay the fears of the Deputy that there might be something in what the Deputy heard about the oats being taken up by the board, and sold with the aid of subsidy to the detriment of other traders, let me first say that no sales have so far taken place. No question of subsidy need arise unless, in the disposal of these oats, a loss is made in which event a subsidy will have to be made up to the board. It is on the cards that we may make a loss: this is our first year. This in itself, would belie what would appear to have been said by me that this Bill would not cost the Exchequer anything. Strictly tied to itself, it would not cost us anything because it should be a contributory pension scheme, as envisaged here. The whole exercise of the board, in which these people are employed, may cost us money. We are expecting that we may have to subsidise the oats scheme element of their business this year. These are the reasons why I say, in a particular way, we should have this control. There is good reason to try for uniformity of allowances and to stop the leap-frogging which we are all aware has been a very notably outstanding and damaging feature of some of our State boards which did and do enjoy and, perhaps, abuse the very sort of freedom that has been given them but is not being given in this legislation.
When the Minister said the Bill would not involve any cost to the Exchequer, I think he meant what he said in so far as the pensions will not involve the Exchequer, in any case. It is mentioned somewhere in the Bill that it will be paid out of the fund—a fund set up under the 1958 Act and that has come into existence probably through levies. I do not know whether at any stage there was an Exchequer contribution.
Duties, more likely.