I was in possession when the debate adjourned. I expressed disquiet in relation to the provisions of section 35 (1). It appears to me to be very carelessly worded. I also have strong objections to section 35 (2). If this section is passed then a person shall not obtain any information where he is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing the disclosure of such information would be a contravention of subsection (1). The 30,000 people employed by these two companies will be affected by this provision because, should they discover a situation existed which called for remedial action, they will not be able to disclose that information even to a member of the Garda Síochána. That will have serious repercussions for the staff. Should a member of the Department be interviewed by any of the media the person carrying out that interview will be liable to prosecution. Such a section has appeared in no other legislation since the foundation of the State. It is totally wrong. It is against the interests of the staff and it is against the democratic right of access to information. In future no constituent will be able to contact a public representative to raise a matter of possible serious import because the public representative will be liable to prosecution. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw this section forthwith. If it is enacted it will make life absolutely impossible for the staff, for public representatives, for members of the media and for the general public. It is outrageous and I am totally opposed to it.
Postal and Telecommunications Services Bill, 1982: Committee Stage (Resumed).
I understand the Minister indicated he would look again at this section. Would he accept our amendment or some other amendment designed to confine it to information of a confidential nature?
Could the time for this debate be extended? I have approached the Government Chief Whip and he indicated a day would be allowed for the Report Stage. In the time apportioned we cannot adequately cope with the 110 amendments which remain to be dealt with.
I regret I can do nothing about it.
We have made progress, but there have been very lengthy speeches on less important sections. The points made by Deputies have some validity. I propose that I withdraw the amendment and come back on Report Stage with a revised amendment.
I thank the Minister.
Amendments No. 60 and 61 are related.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 21, subsection (1), to delete line 43, and substitute the following:—
"Chief Executive of the Interim Board for Posts (An Bord Poist) established by the Minister before the passing of this Act shall, if so employed immediately before the establishment of the Interim Postal Board under section 47, be the Chief Executive of that Board and shall, if so employed by that Board immediately".
The purpose of section 36 is to enable the chief executives of the present non-statutory interim boards set up in 1979 to be appointed as the first chief executives of the State-sponsored companies provided that there would be no break in their service as chief executives. In other words, if they are chief executive on the day before vesting day they automatically become chief executives in the new companies.
I welcome this provision. I am very anxious about it because both executives have had wide experience and have studied the whole situation in detail for the last few years. Both Mr. Tom Garvey and Mr. Byrne are admirable choices to head these boards. We have extremely talented men there who have the ability and capacity to make a success of both companies. I support this provision fully and I ask for it to be accepted.
While I acknowledge the contribution these two gentlemen have made in the formation of the boards and drawing up guidelines and so forth for the firms, we had a lengthy discussion earlier regarding the declaration of interests and I hope that both of these people will comply with the wishes expressed then and the undertakings given that there would be no conflict of interest in the people who are to head the various boards.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 21, subsection (2), to delete line 48, and substitute the following:—
"Executive of the Interim Board for Telecommunications (An Bord Telecom) established by the Minister before the passing of this Act shall, if so employed immediately before the establishment of the Interim Telecommunications Board under section 47, be the Chief Executive of that Board and shall, if so employed by that Board immediately".
Amendments Nos. 62 to 67, inclusive, are related.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 24, before subsection (1), to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"(1) (a) The postal company shall accept into its employment on the vesting day every person who immediately before the vesting day is a member of the staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and is designated by the Minister for employment by that company.
(b) The telecommunications company shall accept into its employment on the vesting day every person who immediately before the vesting day is a member of that staff and is designated by the Minister for employment by that company.".
Section 42 deals with the pay and conditions of service of staff in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs who become employees of An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann. The purpose of the amendment is to require each of the two proposed State-sponsored companies to accept into its employment all persons who immediately before the vesting day were members of the staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and who are designated by the Minister for employment by the company. The amendment is proposed in defference to a point made by staff unions and associations in the course of the ongoing consultations about the reorganisation, that is, that there was no explicit obligation on the companies to employ staff who would be affected by the transfer of ministerial functions to them.
I give notice that this is a very central amendment to the security of tenure of the staff. I have gone into this in great detail and we have come up with wording which I think cannot be bettered. However, I have been approached again on quite a number of occasions, especially by Deputy O'Sullivan and, while I want the section and the amendments here accepted, I reserve the right to move an amendment on Report Stage if we can find any better format.
We are taking amendments 62 to 67 together.
That is correct.
My view of this section 42 is that it is completely inadequate in relation to protection of the existing staff of the Post Office in relation to their conditions, pay and superannuation. For that reason we have put down a number of amendments. The Minister's amendment to subsection (1) would give the staff pay parity at the vesting day, whereas the amendments we are putting down seek to ensure that the pay of staff of the two companies would maintain parity with the civil service. It must be remembered that these people are giving up employment in the civil service. They are being transferred from the civil service to two semi-State companies and it is unreasonable to expect that they would give up conditions and take less favourable conditions or conditions which may deteriorate over a period of time whether it be months or years. For that reason I am very anxious that the Minister accept the amendments we have put down, No. 64 in relation to pay and No. 67 in relation to the question of whether a person can be suspended and the conditions the staff are entitled to and can retain. The Minister has a number of amendments down but I feel that his amendments do not go far enough in protecting the interests of the staff.
This is the central theme of the Bill and that is why I was very anxious to move through the sections just passed which I would have liked an opportunity to debate in more detail, but for the benefit of the House I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss this section 42. My colleague, Deputy Wilson, on Second Stage gave specific undertakings which are being honoured now in relation to the wording contained here to preserve as far as possible the status of civil servants which the employees have at the moment. The questions I pose to the Minister are as follows: (1) Will the staff at present employed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, 30,000 in all, be eligible in the intervening period to obtain transfers to other Departments within the State? (2) After vesting day will the staff of both Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post be eligible to sit for the confined examinations in the civil service? That will be the proof of whether they have retained civil service status which was guaranteed to them by both Government parties prior to the election in 1981. For party political advantage they gave undertakings which they cannot honour. Let us have no hypocrisy about this. They can put whatever wording they like into the Bill but there can be no question that once the boards are vested the staffs will be semi-State employees and they will have all the rights and privileges of semi-State employees. My colleague, the former Minister, Deputy Wilson, gave an undertaking that they would have no loss of benefit whatsoever by such a transfer, but to go along with the statement made by the General Secretary of Fine Gael on 8 June 1981, such moves will not involve loss of civil service status.
On a point of order, the statement to whom?
The statement again was made to Mr. Andrew Coleman. It is in the record——
Representing which union? I would like to bring the attention of the House to the fact that this union is not in effect recognised by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
The deputy is saying that a letter to anybody is not of any relevance because the person was not a member of a union?
A recognised trade union. The Deputy is playing games. He should get the record straight.
Is the Deputy saying that a secretary of a political party can give an undertaking to somebody and because that person is not a member of a union he can tell lies? Is the Deputy saying that it is all right to tell lies to anybody as long as one does not tell lies to a member of a trade union?
The Deputy should get the record straight.
The Deputy should get his record straight because his record is wrong. The Deputy is on a hook now and he cannot get off it. He and his party misled the workers in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
The Deputy should return to the Bill.
The Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party misled the 30,000 people employed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Senator Flor O'Mahoney, a member of the Labour Party, in the course of a letter, confirmed that any reorganisation must take into account the present status of workers within the civil service and that that status would not be undermined. That undertaking was given to Mr. Coleman by Senator Flor O'Mahoney.
As far as I can recall that matter was dealt with last night. It is not necessary to put it on the record of the House again.
If necessary I will put it 40 times on the record of the House because it is important that I should do so. I hope the workers within the service will recognise that they were misled by both parties now in Government. They have tried to put the pressure on Fianna Fáil but we have been consistent in our approach. We gave solemn undertakings and they are contained in the Bill.
On a point of order, this is a long Bill and there are some very important sections to be dealt with——
That is not a point of order; that is being disorderly.
The House is aware that the Committee Stage must conclude by 5 o'clock. Deputy Leyden is aware of that.
I object to being interrupted by Deputy Shatter who comes in here an odd time.
The Deputy is making petty political points instead of dealing with the Bill before us.
Deputy Leyden to continue without interruption.
I agreed to some important sections earlier so that we would have time to debate this section.
So that the Deputy could make a long speech.
I was anxious to make it clear to the workers involved what the situation will be. Either they will be in the civil service or they will not — the Government parties cannot have it both ways. We were endeavouring in the Bill to ensure that there will not be any loss of the benefits to an employee on transfer, that they would have the same benefits and privileges as they enjoyed as civil servants under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. There are two crunch questions: can they transfer within the service after vesting day and are they eligible for sitting for the confined examinations which are open to civil servants? The latter is a great privilege for civil servants because it gives them an opportunity of getting promotion. Those provisions should be inserted in the legislation.
Fianna Fáil have been consistent in their approach. I understand that Mr. Coleman is president of the POOA, a union of some sort, although Deputy O'Sullivan says it is not a union.
It is not recognised by the Department. The Deputy is trying to mislead the workers.
Is it right that the electorate should be misled by the Labour Party? Is it right that the Labour Party should write to people, using their headed notepaper, pretending they would be granted civil service status when they do not intend to do so? This matter must be cleared up once and for all. The people involved will either have civil service status or be employees of a State-sponsored body. We have been honest about this and we told the unions that when the employees would transfer to a semi-State organisationt they would be considered to be employees of that organisation. We tried to preserve to the greatest extent possible the rights and privileges of those people such as the pension schemes. The Minister should respond to the questions I have put to him.
There is an air of unreality about the debate when Deputy Leyden contributes. Yesterday he referred to the legislation under discussion as their Bill. The Bill which Deputy Leyden described as his party's proposes to take civil service status from 28,000 employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. He made that admission yesterday. The Deputy cannot have the best of both worlds.
The Deputy voted against it.
Yes.
Will the Deputy vote against it today?
On Second Stage I put a point to the then Minister, Deputy Wilson, about this problem and he said he would consider an amendment to the section.
I know exactly what I said.
I know what the Deputy said; I read the record before I stood up. However, we never saw the Fianna Fáil amendment but there should be no doubt about the fact that this is the Bill which was introduced by Fianna Fáil and they proposed to take from the 28,000 people employed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs civil service status. Deputy Leyden described that as, "our Bill". Everything else that follows I suggest should be disregarded.
I do not think so. The Deputy was in a position to put his money where his mouth is and he did not do it.
Three Fianna Fáil Ministers and a Minister of State, Deputy Leyden, at the annual dinner of the Post Office Workers Union in Limerick last year, at which I was present, said there would be security of tenure for employees in the Post Office.
Yes.
I never saw that in print and that is what prompted me to say that the postal workers wanted the written word but it has not appeared yet. Deputies Faulkner, Wilson, Reynolds and Leyden, in turn, when in charge of that Department assured Post Office workers that they did not have anything to fear regarding security of tenure but not one word appeared in print to confirm that.
I acknowledge that the Minister has given an undertaking to consider the matter between now and Report Stage. Hopefully, he will come up with the correct form of words to allay the fears of those who feel threatened as a result of this Fianna Fáil provision. I will continue to press on behalf of the employees. I am not on the hook and my colleagues in the POWU will bear that out. I have no doubt that the Minister will respond in a positive way. I have more faith in Deputy Jim Mitchell as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs than I had in Deputy Leyden.
The Labour Party played politics with this legislation on Second Stage. I am convinced of that and I am not making that statement to exacerbate feelings. I resent and repudiate the suggestion that I, as Minister, or my party were less conscious of the rights of workers than any other party in the House. That is a modest claim. In subsection (1) we provided that no member of the staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs transferred to either of the two boards on the vesting day would receive a lesser scale of pay or be subject to less favourable conditions of service than those applicable immediately before the transfer. In subsection (2) we provided that existing scales of pay and conditions of service would be applied to the transferred staff by the companies until such time as they are varied following consultation with recognised staff associations and trade unions. There are members of unions who will be transferred under this setting up of semi-State companies expecting better conditions when working under the new board.
As far as subsection (3) is concerned, established staff transferred will be brought under the benefit of three Acts, the Holiday (Employees) Act, 1973, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. That is the measure of the concern that we showed in Government for the workers. I do not want to make a meal of this but I do not want people to be tricking around with words and pitching for favours with the trade unions, one trying to get ahead of the other and in some way casting me as Minister or the Fianna Fáil Party in the role of workers' enemy. I reject it. I repudiate it and I believe I have put on the record of the House the clear words of the Bill.
The Minister and I are the only people who have put down amendments to this section so it is interesting to listen to all the words being cast around about this particular section. The fact is that the section as proposed in the Fianna Fáil Bill and as reintroduced by the Coalition Government, offers to those who transfer to the new companies conditions equal to those on vesting day, or immediately before vesting day. There is nothing to prevent those conditions deteriorating. We hope they will improve and that the parity in the new companies will not be with some other employment or industry. I believe the employees of Posts and Telegraphs are entitled, in view of the fact that they have certain conditions in the civil service, to parity with the civil service and they are entitled to retain that parity in pay, conditions and security of employment. The amendments which Deputy Mac Giolla and I have put down to seek to provide that that parity will be provided.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but parity means equality. Would the Deputy, for example, object, if the category acting under semi-State bodies went ahead of the existing civil servants?
I have said that I hope it will go ahead.
If you put parity into the Bill——
Parity is not in the Bill. There is a need to assure the staff that they will not be at a loss. They could quite happily remain in the civil service with the conditions they have and with the assurance of their pension rights, pay, holidays, security of tenure and the various other conditions. In this Bill we are asking them to transfer from that security into an area where there is no guarantee whatever that the people from private industry who have been put in charge will make a go of it. I am fairly certain they will, but the fact is that in the Bill we must ensure that the people we are asking to move to those new companies retain at least the conditions they have and that the conditions they have will move in line with the conditions they would have had if they remained in the civil service. That is the purpose of the amendments we have put down. I hope to hear a debate on that aspect of the problem and not all of this playing to the gallery.
I am afraid there is a lot of playing to the gallery and it is not from here.
I believe, when all is said and done, that there is broad agreement on all sides of the House on giving to the workers the same degree of security as they have at the moment. It is a very fundamental point. We cannot retain them as civil servants because the whole principle on which the reorganisation is based is to take those two businesses out of a civil service atmosphere into a commercial atmosphere. That fundamental principle would be destroyed if the employees were to retain civil service status and they had to observe the traditional civil service regulations, conditions and so forth. In order to allow for a movement out of the civil service but to retain the same security, pay, conditions, etc. I am moving no fewer than three amendments to the section. I want to pay particular tribute to Deputy O'Sullivan in relation to this section.
There is a beautiful diplomatic game going on.
The Minister is aware that the general secretary of the POWU is in the gallery and he is trying to secure Deputy O'Sullivan's nomination for the next general election and his re-election to Dáil Éireann.
That is not on the Bill. Will the Deputy please allow the Minister to continue?
It is a well-known fact that Deputy O'Sullivan has had many meetings with me on this Bill. Even up to today and during the course of Question Time today——
He has had very little success.
He has had a great deal of success. Most of the amendments can be credited to him. There are three amendments to this section. Amendment No. 66 states:
In page 24, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:—
"(3) A member of the staff so transferred to either company shall not, while in the service of the company, be subject to conditions in regard to tenure of office which taken as a whole are less favourable to him than those for the time being prevailing in the civil service, not being conditions imposed by or under statute.
If a dispute arises between either company and any such member as to conditions prevailing in the civil service the matter shall be determined by the Minister for the Public Service after consultation with the Minister.".
We are providing that the security of tenure shall not be less favourable and that there is an appeal to the Minister and the Minister for the Public Service. We are putting down two other amendments to section 42. In amendment No. 63 we are deleting "Subject to subsection (2)" and we are substituting:
"Save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade union or staff association concerned,".
I have already moved amendment No. 62 which provides that the postal company and the telecommunications company shall accept into their employment on the vesting day the people designated to them. I believe we have gone as far as we could to meet the very reasonable point made by the unions. We are including amendments which make provision for conditions not less favourable.
This section has been the subject of more discussion than almost any other section and perhaps any other group of sections. It is clearly a matter of concern to the unions and to the workers in the Post Office. As I said yesterday, very often it is not the facts that matter but the perception of the facts. It is the perception of a threat to their security that is the problem here. There is no threat. In my view the unions under-estimate their power.
I agree.
In modern days, management have to do much of what they do by agreement with the trade unions. That is an established fact. The retention of civil service status, which is being sought here, would veto the main intent of the Bill, to reorganise the two businesses that we are now taking out of a civil service context and putting into a commercial context for the purpose of giving them a better environment in which to expand and in which to be more successful. There are no other State companies that have such a guarantee but yet any reorganisation of manpower or any changes have to be the subject of agreement between the unions. There are always agreed negotiating procedures.
I want to say emphatically, and to communicate this to every employee of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that any fears they may still entertain are totally groundless and are rendered groundless by the three amendments I am moving on this section. Indeed, I might add that their lot will be considerably improved by the whole series of amendments I have moved so far and will move later on in this Bill. That is a very important message to have communicated.
I have said that I believe we are not going to be able to improve on those words. But because this question is so important I have been asked to keep open the possibility of a further amendment on the Report Stage. I shall do that and give notice that between now and Report Stage I may find some better form of words; I do not think I can but I shall keep it open. In the meantime I commend these amendments to the House.
The Minister did not reply to the two specific questions put to him. Will they be eligible for transfer within the civil service before vesting date and after vesting date and will they be eligible to sit for confined examinations within the civil service? Will the Minister make any statement in relation to the agreement or undertaking given by his party in relation to loss of civil service status? The Minister has confirmed now that he cannot honour that commitment.
To take the first point first, the situation up to vesting day in relation to transfers within the Department remains unchanged. Of course that does not mean that any application for transfer will be granted because there may not be vacancies. But that is the situation now and as it would be if the two businesses continued to operate as a Department of State. There is no change in that up to vesting day.
In relation to the post vesting day situation, there is nothing in this Bill which would prohibit that. That is a matter for negotiation and discussion. In relation to the third point — a fair point raised by Deputy Leyden about a commitment — a commitment was given by a general secretary in a letter; that is clear from what he said. But I have had to take into account whether that should be a binding commitment and in the process destroy the very re-organisation, as I see it, or whether we should break that commitment such as it is and do what we believe to be the right thing, the right thing for the public, for the employees and in order to ensure the brightest possible future for the postal and telecommunications services. I believe we have done the right thing.
In relation to examinations, will the Minister allow staff who are transferred to be eligible for confined examinations?
There is nothing in this Bill which prohibits an arrangement to that effect. That would be a matter for negotiation and discussion.
Could it possibly be included as part of the conditions for transfer which would be welcomed by the staff concerned?
I could not give that commitment. I would have to discuss that with the unions and with other Ministers, as the Deputy will appreciate.
Would the Minister clarify this for me? Does he envisage that in the two new boards there will be employees of two types, (1) the employee who has been transferred, and will that which the Minister envisages here refer to him, because we are all hopeful that in what will be two expanding organisations there will be much recruitment? Does the Minister's amendment refer only to somebody who is moved in, or will it apply also to those who will be recruited de novum after vesting day?
That is a good point Deputy Tunney has raised. This section deals only with pre-vesting day staff, staff who were recruited as civil servants. Post vesting day recruitment will be on terms and conditions to be decided by the companies no doubt in agreement and consultation with the trade unions. There could well be two categories, that those employed after vesting day will be employed under terms and conditions decided by the companies.
That is a very important point. We must be concerned with all civil servants, with all workers. The Minister will appreciate that in any organisation there will be then this comparability. There will be then two people working side by side, the person who was there pre-vesting working alongside the person who came in post vesting. Surely the Minister realises that any trade union worth its salt will move automatically and will be under pressure to have identical terms for all who are employees of the same organisation.
I do not want to anticipate whatever arrangements the companies may make. Indeed, it would be impossible to do so. But it is clear that this section deals with those employees who were employed by the Government pre-vesting day. They would have been employed at the time under terms and conditions applicable to civil servants. Anybody who is employed post vesting day will know at the outset that they are not being employed under the terms and conditions applicable to civil servants. Therefore, there is a big difference. I have no doubt but that the companies in their wisdom will take into account the point Deputy Tunney has made about comparability and relativity which is such a big factor not only in industrial relations but in human life generally.
Thank you.
I just want to say that basically the statutory guarantees are here, something unique. As the Minister said, we are all in general agreement that the employees should get the best possible deal. But there is an interesting little side play going on with the Minister giving a leg-up to Deputy O'Sullivan to get him out of his embarrasment. That is a horsey metaphor and I will change it if he wishes — the Minister burning a little incense in front of Deputy O'Sullivan to get him ahead in the deification of Deputy De Rossa. It is a little game being played between the two of them. But the fact is that the statutory guarantee has been there from the beginning. If the Minister is strengthening it out a little by his amendments, well and good. The illogicalities have already been emphasised by our spokesman, Deputy Leyden
We are here talking — and rightly so — about the rights and privileges of approximately 30,000 people. The whole purpose of the Bill, of what we are doing here, is to provide a good and efficient service on two fronts for 3,500,000 to 4,000,000 people and others affected outside the country. We must not lose sight of that as well. We have adequately covered the statutory guarantees, rightly covered them, and the little side games should be dispensed with now because I do not believe that two days were sufficient in which to discuss this very important Bill.
I sought three.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 24, subsection (1), line 1, to delete "Subject to subsection (2)," and substitute "Save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade union or staff association concerned,".
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 24, subsection (1), line 7, after "vesting day." to insert "Whenever, and at any time after the vesting day, the scales of pay and conditions of service of staff so transferred are varied by the company, following agreement with the recognised trade unions and staff associations, any such variation shall ensure that in the case of each individual member of staff, the scale of pay and conditions of service shall be no less beneficial than the scale of pay and conditions of service to which that individual officer would have been entitled if that member of staff had continued in the employment of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.".
Is that being pressed?
Yes.
I am putting the question: "That the amendment be made".
Will those Deputies who are demanding a division please rise in their places.
Deputies Mac Giolla, De Rossa and Gregory-Independent rose.
As fewer than ten Deputies have risen, in accordance with Standing Orders I declare the amendment lost. The Deputies' names will be recorded as dissenting.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 24, subsection (2), line 9, to delete "following consultation" and substitute "in the manner prescribed in subsection (1) following consultation and agreement".
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 24, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:—
"(3) A member of the staff so transferred to either company shall not, while in the service of the company, be subject to conditions in regard to tenure of office which taken as a whole are less favourable to him than those for the time being prevailing in the civil service, not being conditions imposed by or under statute.
If a dispute arises between either company and any such member as to conditions prevailing in the civil service the matter shall be determined by the Minister for the Public Service after consultation with the Minister.".
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 24, lines 16 to 20, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) In the case of an employee who immediately prior to the vesting day was an established civil servant, the services of that employee may only be terminated by the Corporation concerned with the prior approval of the Government, and in the case of an employee who immediately prior to the vesting day was a civil servant other than an established civil servant the services of that employee may only be terminated by the Corporation concerned with the prior approval of the Minister. An employee under this subsection may be suspended by the Corporation concerned on the same grounds and conditions only as those to which he was subject in his employment as a civil servant immediately before the vesting day.".
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
On the question, a division has been challenged. Will Deputies claiming the division please rise in their places?
Deputies De Rossa, Gregory-Independent and Mac Giolla rose.
As fewer than ten Deputies have risen, in accordance with Standing Orders I declare the motion carried. The Deputies' names will be recorded as dissenting.
SECTION 43.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 24, lines 29 to 35, to delete subsections (3) and (4) and substitute the following:—
"(3) In the case of an every such scheme may be amended or revoked by a subsequent scheme submitted and approved of under this section.
(4) Every scheme under this section shall provide for not less favourable conditions in respect of persons who, immediately before the vesting day, were members of the staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs than those to which they were entitled immediately before the vesting day.".
We have only a few minutes left and I regret very much that we are not able to discuss the other amendments, all of which are aimed at improving generally the position of the two companies. Section 43 deals with the superannuation of employees and its purpose is to give better guarantees in relation to pensions.
I am disappointed that we have not had more time to discuss the remaining sections of the Bill. We would need at least two or three more days to do so properly. We have only dealt with section 43 and there are 105 sections and the Schedules. Unfortunately the time is limited. This is a very unsatisfactory situation. It is regrettable that we do not have the opportunity to go through each section but I hope when we come to the Report Stage next Thursday the Minister will accept many of our amendments, particularly those dealing with the sale of television licences.
I would like to see this Bill becoming law as quickly as possible to give the executives, management and staff an opportunity to get to work and to make a success of this venture. I wish them every success.
There are stipulations in Standing Orders with regard to what can be raised on Report Stage.
I am advised that motions that have not been moved can be raised.
I hope you will be as liberal as possible in your interpretation.
I would like to say——
I am sorry, Deputy, but you cannot make a speech.
I heard Deputy Leyden and the Minister say they regretted they did not have more time to discuss this Bill. They are the people who arranged two days for this Committee Stage. They can arrange to extend it for a further two weeks if they wish.
There was a time when that speech could be made.
As it is now 5 p.m. I must, in accordance with the resolution of the Dáil of 14 June 1983, put the following question:
That the amendments set down by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs for Committee Stage, and not disposed of, are hereby made to the Bill, the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to and, as amended, is reported to the House.
On the question, a division has been challenged. Will Deputies claiming the division please rise in their places?
Deputies Mac Giolla, De Rossa and Gregory-Independent rose.
As fewer than ten Deputies have risen in their places, in accordance with Standing Orders the motion is carried. The Deputies' names will be recorded as dissenting. The Bill is passed in Committee and reported to the House. When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Thursday.
Will the remaining amendments stand for Report Stage without having to be re-entered?
Those who wish to put down amendments will have to put them down.
According to Standing Orders nothing will be excluded?
Any amendments which are in order and submitted to the office will be accepted.