Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Aug 1961

Vol. 54 No. 17

Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) (Amendment) Bill, 1961—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to enable each District Milk Board established under the Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) Act, 1936 to provide a superannuation scheme for its chairman and staff. Two such Boards have been established — the Dublin District Milk Board in 1936, and the Cork District Milk Board in 1937. They regulate the supply and distribution of milk for human consumption in their respective areas. In addition, they advise the Minister for Agriculture in regard to minimum producer prices for milk, promote schemes designed to secure increased liquid consumption of milk and operate artificial insemination services.

Each Board comprises a chairman nominated by the Minister and a number of ordinary members who are elected by milk producers, wholesalers and retailers. The ordinary members receive no remuneration for their services which are given on a part-time basis, but are paid allowances for expenses incurred in attending Board meetings. The Chairman's remuneration is fixed by the Minister for Agriculture, after consultation with the Minister for Finance. At present the same person is chairman of the Dublin and Cork Boards. Each Board employs such staff as are necessary for the performance of its functions. The terms and conditions of employment of the staffs are determined by the Minister for Agriculture. At present there are 79 persons on the staff of the Dublin Board and 11 on that of the Cork Board.

Expenditure incurred by a Board is met entirely from its own income which is derived from a statutory levy on milk sold in its area, and from the operation of its artificial insemination service. Each Board keeps a fund into which all money received by it is paid and out of which its expenditure is met. The Dublin Board has in fact already 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 which of course would also apply to the staff of the Cork Board. In approving of the proposal in principle, I had regard to the fact that numerous other statutory bodies such as An Bord Bainne, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Bord na Móna, Electricity Supply Board, Bord Fáilte Éireann, An Foras Talúntais, etc., have been given authority by statute to operate superannuation schemes for their staffs, and I did not see any reason why the Milk Board staffs should be treated any less favourably in this respect. So far as can be foreseen, the District Milk Boards will remain a permanent feature of the liquid milk trade in this country.

The introduction of superannuation schemes for the employees of Milk Boards will also necessitate the introduction of a scheme for the chairman, providing his services are on a whole-time basis. As already mentioned the Chairman is the only Board member who is remunerated for his services.

This Bill follows generally the pattern of previous legislation relating to the operation of superannuation schemes by statutory bodies. It has been necessary, however, to make special provision to cover the case of a person who, as at present, is chairman of more than one board, in view of the fact that his service in relation to either board alone might be regarded as part-time, although his joint service is wholetime. Recent social welfare legislation providing for contributory old age pensions will be taken into account when schemes under the Bill are being considered. The Bill will not involve any cost to the Exchequer, as the cost of the superannuation schemes will be met entirely out of the Boards' own funds into which any staff contributions will be paid. I trust this Bill will commend itself to the House.

This is a Bill which, as the Minister has indicated, follows the pattern of Bills relating to the establishment of semi-State bodies. It is, of course, a matter of satisfaction that these bodies, which do not come so much into the public eye, are not being forgotten in the matter of their superannuation. Accordingly, I am glad this Bill is being introduced because it will bring a sense of security to the employees of these Milk Boards throughout the country.

The matter which intrigues me in this Bill is the provision made for the superannuation of part-time employees. That must be something new in legislation of this kind. I am glad to see that a bold effort has been made in this regard. Though it is a matter entirely for the Department of Agriculture and the Milk Boards, one would imagine, the Minister for Finance is liberally spattered throughout the Bill. The presence of the Minister for Finance in the Bill will not conduce to better superannuation schemes for the employees. That much can be taken as certain.

I do not understand why, if the superannuation allowances are to be taken from the funds of the Board and staff contributions, the Minister for Finance must enter into it. I do not see where his function is, except the general desire of the Minister for Finance to have a finger in every pie, even where he is not wanted.

I do not understand the provision in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section 2 with regard to the payment of a chairman who renders part-time service to more than one Board. At one stage, it appears that there may be a chairman of more than two boards. In other places in the section, it appears that it is not contemplated that a man will be the chairman of more than two boards. What surprises and intrigues me about this is that if in relation to the allowance which is to be paid to a part-time chairman by two Boards, they are able to agree as to the proportions in which they are to be paid, they may agree among themselves and there is an end to it; but if they cannot agree, they have to refer the matter to the Minister, who then must consult with the Minister for Finance and have his concurrence. I should like the Minister to indicate the circumstances which require the concurrence of the Minister for Finance in such a case.

There is one further point I should like to make on Section 3. The House will recall that on a Friday morning, we sought here for some hours to amend the Central Bank Bill dealing with superannuation, and Senator O'Donovan and I had a lengthy debate with the Minister for Finance upon the necessity of having a clause in the Bill providing for the citation and construction of the Central Bank Bill and the main Central Bank Acts. We could not convince the Minister for Finance of the necessity or desirability of such a necessary amendment, but I am glad to see that in this Bill it is provided in subsections (2) and (3), and particularly in subsection (3) of Section 3 that this Bill and the Milk (Regulation of Supply and Prices) Acts, 1936 to 1952, shall be construed together. That is proper legislation which puts beyond any question the linking up of this Bill and the Acts which it amends, unlike what was done on the Central Bank Bill in relation to superannuation about which we had such a lengthy debate with the Minister for Finance.

This Bill provides that a Milk Board may provide superannuation for its staff, and as such it is welcome. There are, however, some questions I should like to ask and I hope the Minister can satisfy me on them. The first arises under Section 2, subsection (1) which provides that the superannuation scheme shall cover employees whom the Board determines shall be pensionable. Could the Minister tell us what employees will be covered by the scheme? Will it be all the employees of the Board or simply a section of them?

Other questions arise with regard to the preparation of the scheme itself. I should like to have certain assurances about it. Could I take it that the superannuation scheme will in the course of preparation be the subject of consultation with the trade unions representing the staff? In other words will the Board make an effort to agree with the trade unions about the superannuation scheme before making its submission to the Minister? Secondly, when the Minister gets the proposals of the Board, will he provide for consultation again with the trade unions, if such is necessary?

We find a similar type of provision made in various legislation dealing with public transport where it is specifically provided by the Oireachtas that the Board of C.I.E. will hear the representatives of the staff affected and if no agreement is reached, the Minister is, I think, obliged to hear the trade unions before finally making up his mind on the question at issue.

I am sure the Minister can give me these assurances. It would certainly be desirable that the Board should as far as possible agree on the scheme with the trade union, and if there are some outstanding matters arising out of these discussions, it is certainly desirable that the Minister should hear both sides before making up his mind and sending the proposals to his colleague, the Minister for Finance.

The next question on which I should like some clarification is when it is envisaged these schemes will be prepared. I do not know what progress has been made. I know that the trade union concerned were some time ago expressing anxiety about the question and I do not know whether in the meantime progress has been made and a scheme has been the subject of negotiation between the Board and the trade union. Perhaps the Minister would say what are the expectations in regard to implementing a scheme which the Board is empowered to make under this Bill.

I welcome this Bill, too. These Boards have been in operation for a considerable period now and I suppose that, like every other section of the people, they want a superannuation scheme. I was surprised to find so many employees working for the Dublin and Cork Milk Boards, and I should like to know how they were recruited. As a matter of fact, the two Boards have the same Chairman, who is a great personal friend of mine and has given a lot of service to the country back through the years, but I was agreeably surprised to find that there are a number of others, reaching 79 in Dublin and 11 in Cork, and I should like to know how these men are recruited. Could I get this information?

I am afraid not on this Bill. This Bill is solely concerned with the question of superannuation, and methods of recruitment do not arise.

I am surprised to hear that, because I never saw any advertisements recruiting any staff for the Dublin or Cork Milk Boards. However, I suppose there are other ways of getting the information.

The main feature of this Bill, the operative feature, is that it is permissive legislation. It is proposed to be permissive legislation giving power to the Boards to bring forward their proposals by way of proposed schemes through the Minister and ultimately with the concurrence and agreement of the Minister for Finance.

The question as to why the Minister for Finance should come into this matter has been raised. The fact that it is permissive legislation must surely imply that somebody at some stage is envisaged as having to give his consent. Over and above that, there is the other aspect that many boards and semi-State bodies who have power at the moment to make these types of schemes are channelled through the Minister and the Department of Finance. The main purpose there would be to channel them through the one agency, as it were, so that uniformity, or near-uniformity, depending on the circumstances of a scheme, would actually be brought into existence rather than the position if each board and each semi-State body were a complete law unto itself and there were no means whereby any sort of uniform approach could be made to the whole matter. By and large, I think that is the overall reason why the Minister for Finance is supposed to act in this capacity in this Bill, if and when a scheme is put forward to him.

Senator Murphy has asked about the groups to whom many of these schemes may apply. The groups would be permanent, and whole-time workers. That would be a matter in which somebody—possibly the Minister for Finance—should be in a position to satisfy himself that they are in fact of these particular categories, if it is proposed to bring them under a scheme.

The question of consultation with the union is a matter beyond the ambit of the Minister for Agriculture. I have no doubt whatever that since these schemes will be designed and devised to meet the wishes and to improve the lot of the workers, the views of their unions and the views of the workers themselves will be ascertained in order that the best possible solution of the problem or the best possible scheme may in fact come into existence.

While there is no power of compulsion—nor is it desirable that there should be—the views of the workers through their unions and representatives will, no doubt, be ascertained and very likely sought if the end for which these schemes are designed is to come to pass.

The question of the progress of any such scheme under this measure is a matter over which the Department or the Minister has no direct authority, nor any guiding rights, as it were. The belief, I think, is that the Department of Agriculture are aware that the boards are desirous that something in this way should be done— hence the reason for the measure— and, without any commitment on the part of the Department, that the schemes will come into being as soon as may be after the passage of this Bill through this House.

"As soon as may be". What does that mean?

The Senator can tell me about that one next week. The recruitment of employees is not a matter appropriate for discussion on this measure, but, for the information of Senator J.L. O'Sullivan, recruitment is a matter for the Boards concerned. How they recruit them, where they recruit them and when they have recruited them is not a matter which the Department of Agriculture have knowledge of or, officially, are entitled or expected to have knowledge of.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill considered in Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

One would imagine the Minister can indicate if there is any intention that, instead of every board preparing a separate scheme, several boards together might prepare one scheme which would operate jointly with them. It seems to be a waste of energy to have different boards, with small numbers, preparing different schemes. In relation to superannuation, it seems to me that the greatest credit risk is to lower the premiums that have to be paid both by the employers and by the persons to be benefited. I wonder whether there is any power in subsection (2) (a) for different boards to prepare the one scheme for all their employees?

There are just two boards. There is no way whereby the two boards can draw up a scheme which will have any legal binding on the two separate boards thereafter. It is the belief, and I think it will so work out—with the assistance, if necessary, of the controlling interest of the Minister for Finance—that the schemes will be put forward as separate schemes, though they may be identical, from each of the two boards or any further boards that may develop thereafter. In other words, we can have similar schemes applying to the separate boards but not put up as a joint scheme by one of the two boards. We will attain the same end.

One would come to the conclusion from the Bill that there are at least three boards. Paragraph (b) refers to the board which pays the greatest amount to a part-time chairman. That would suggest to a simple-minded person that there were at least three part-time chairmen of the board. However, we might be pardoned for having a knowledge of English.

There could be—that is the point—but there are not.

One would imagine the Bill would relate in some way to the facts as they exist. If possible, there should be included in the Bill "which pays the greater or the greatest amount, as the case may be". In a measure where "the Minister for Finance" is spattered all over the place, we might just as well do things properly. The point which vitally concerns the part-time chairman concerned—and it applies equally to the staff, perhaps—is that there is no reference to what the position will be in relation to the payment of contributions by the part-time chairman. It appears that the two Boards are to bear in mind between themselves what proportion of the superannuation allowance each of them will pay to the part-time chairman. There does not seem to be any provision in paragraph (b) as to what proportion of the superannuation contribution the part-time chairman would pay in respect of his employment under the different boards.

On the question of the joint responsibility of the two Boards who may be asked to contribute towards the superannuation of one and the same person as chairman or retired chairman, it is not really determined yet that there will be a contribution but if there should be, and if there is a contribution in regard to this superannuation, then we take it that those contributions will be related to the levels of remuneration being paid by the respective employers as at the date of retirement or possibly with reference to some years before retirement.

I do not think the Minister quite got my point. Where there is a part-time chairman, it is at the end of the period when he is to be paid his allowance that the two Boards decide the proportion they will pay him. There does not seem to be any provision here as to the contribution they will make in advance in respect of the employer's contributions to the fund.

Again, I think we shall be depending upon the actual terms of the scheme, whatever it may be, that is put forward to determine within the terms of that scheme the method whereby the contributions from each of the two Boards will be allowed. That will come within the actual terms of the scheme as submitted. Without it, it would not be an effective scheme.

The cost should follow and be determined by the contribution made in respect of the employee during the period of employment.

By each of the two Boards? That is what I say.

If that is so, this provision should not be in it at all.

That is one view.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share