I have an amendment which, with the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to have circulated now.
Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill, 1977: Committee and Final Stages.
We are having the amendment circulated.
It was indicated already to the Opposition, and I trust it will not give rise to any difficulties.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Is there an officer in NET at the moment called a chief executive?
There is. He is called managing director, but it means the same thing as chief executive.
This seems to have the seed of confusion in it. Why would it not be possible to declare in this Bill or some other way what this chief executive is to be called? Suppose there is a managing director, and suppose somebody else is appointed chief executive, which of them is the chief officer? This seems a slightly sloppy way of doing business, unless there are respectable precedents for it.
The articles of association of the company provide for ministerial control of the remuneration of what is described as the managing director in the articles. This would not cover the position where the chief executive might be a manager or a general manager. In order to provide for the eventuality it is considered best to include a section which would apply to the chief officer of the company irrespective of his title and whether or not he was a board member. This is also in line with recent legislation of this kind.
What I am trying to discover is this: supposing for the sake of argument the company which now has a managing director were to find it convenient for some purpose to appoint someone called a chief executive, how would we decide which of those was the chief officer for the purpose of this section:
They could not do that under the articles of association apparently. The articles call the chief executive the managing director, and the section is there to provide, for example, that if they amend the articles and call him a manager or a general manager, whoever is de facto the chief executive would be the one covered by this section.
Is there anything in the articles which contains the expression "chief officer" and equates it with the managing director they now have? If not I accept that the de facto chief officer is now called managing director. Suppose they were to appoint somebody else, side by side with the managing director, called a chief executive, so far as this section is concerned we would be in a position where we could not tell who was the chief officer. I do not wish to make a fuss about it if the Minister would look at this and try to do something with it in the Seanad. Will the Minister consider that point?
I do not believe that the problem referred to by the Deputy could ever arise in practice. There is in every company some person who is clearly designated and seen to be the principal executive officer of that company whatever name they call him by. It varies from company to company. Some call him chief officer, some chief executive, and in manufacturing and trading companies such as this the usual practice is, I understand, to call him managing director. The reason for that is that if he goes abroad on company business, as he may frequently have to do, his position within the company is liable to be misunderstood by people in other countries unless he is described as managing director. The name that he is called by is irrelevant; as long as he is the principal executive officer of the company this section applies to him. It is put in this way because it is possible, for example, that they could change the articles of association so that instead of calling him managing director they could call him something else.
I see that. The point I am trying to make is that this seems to be a fairly cumbersome piece of drafting, because here is a company which the Minister tells me has a de facto chief officer, although he is not called that in the articles. He is called the managing director. That is fair enough, but here is a section which refers to this expression “chief officer” and then gratuitously throws in a parenthesis referring to a chief executive who apparently does not exist in this company at the moment. It almost invites one to suppose that he may exist there in the future. What then are we going to say about the managing director? The section would be better if that parenthesis were left out.
I agree that the Deputy is right. I do not know why this was put in in parentheses; it only confuses the situation. Apparently the Department of the Public Service, who are a law onto themselves, like the phrase "chief executive".
As long as our doing this will not leave the incidental expenses referred to in section 3 and a few more incidental expenses going to the legal profession, I will let it go; but the Department should have another look at it.
I will suggest to the Department that what is in parenthese there is unhelpful and that in future they might as well leave it out.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, before section 5, to insert the following section :
5. —Any alteration in the terms, in operation at the passing of this Act, governing the grant of pensions, gratuities, allowances or other payments on resignation, retirement or death, to or in respect of a member of the parmanent staff of the Company, including its chief officer, or any other arrangement to provide for benefits additional to the terms referred to above, shall not take effect unless the alteration or arrangement has the approval of the Minister, given with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service.
I am proposing this amendment which would entail the deletion of the existing section and its replacement by a much simpler one. Because the company already has a pension scheme, in the preparation of which my Department and the Department of Finance were involved in accordance with its memorandum of association, which provides for ministerial control of superannuation schemes of a company, it is now felt that for purposes of overall supervision and co-ordination of superannuation of public sector employment, ministerial control over any future change of the superannuation terms of the staff of NET would be adequate. Ministerial control of the superannuation terms of staff is provided by statute in the case of most public concerns. A similar section to this section is apparently being provided in the Agricultural Credit Bill, 1977, which is before the House at the moment.
A section similiar to the Minister's new section?
Yes, similar to the amended section.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Minister referred to the possibility of surplus gas from the Kinsale Head project not being used here. I concur with the Minister's view that if it were economically viable and if one could find the right technology one should go for a chemical plant to handle surplus gas in the area. In the original construction of this plant and of other analogous plants we should have used the expertise of the ESB. There were interrelationships between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Transport and Power and between NET and the ESB, in the past. It is a pity that we have not availed of the very considerable technology which the ESB had whereby they built massive power stations throughout the country even, to take Tarbert alone, in the constituency adjoining the Minister's. The ESB could help considerably in the construction of a chemical plant.
As regards the sending of surplus gas to the greater Dublin area, I would have strong reservations. Admittedly the previous Government subsidised town gas and this was extended to other areas by the present Government; but I have an objection to siphoning off gas to what in effect is a private company in the greater Dublin area. This needs considerable careful analysis by the Minister. There is already a commitment in relation to Cork where, probably because of proximity and because of a decision already taken, it can be implemented. But even when sending gas to Limerick, for example, I would prefer to see this kept within the State-sponsored setting.
I see great merit in the Bill as it has developed and I am glad that we are enacting all Stages today. If the ESB can go abroad to places like Saudi Arabia and build massive construction projects of a very sophisticated nature for other countries, there is no reason why they should not expand here in this matter. It has been said that perhaps the Sugar Company could do this, but I do not think they are big enough to become involved in the chemical extraction plant side. I do not think they have the construction techniques or expertise in that area and I do not think there is any other State-sponsored body capable of doing it. Expansion in that direction should be a diversification of the role of the ESB.