On section 2, there is a recommendation to be considered.
SECTION 2.
State Financial Transactions (Special Provisions) Bill, 1984 [Certified Money Bill] : Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move recommendation No. 1:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 28, after "Whenever" to insert ", before the 12th day of December, 1985,".
This is an attempt to deal with the problem of making the legislation of a limited duration but doing so hopefully in such a way that it would not affect anything which might be done in the present circumstances. The purpose of the recommendation is not to have the Bill cease to have effect on 12 December, 1985, but to have the Minister capable of making new orders from that date, but, of course, not affecting existing orders. In the event of the strike continuing beyond 12 December 1985 the ministerial orders made prior to that date which would have continuing effect would remain effective, but the Minister would not be empowered to make additional orders as and from that date without seeking additional legislative approval.
The way in which I sought to introduce that was to introduce after the word "whenever" an additional clause "before the 12th day of December, 1985," and that would then mean that whenever before 12 December 1985 the Minister was satisfied, and so on. So the Minister in considering the present situation, can be quite happy, he will have the opportunity of considering all the relevant difficulties that could arise. He will have 12 months to consider them in the present situation, 12 months to arrive at the decision which is contained in subsection (1) of section 2 and he would have 12 months to, shall we say set in train the procedure to be followed in the event of this strike lasting for more than 12 months. At the end of the 12 month period if the Minister felt that it was necessary to have a permanent piece of legislation on the Statute Book to cater for an emergency, well then he would be entitled or enabled — of course he would be empowered — to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas and have a permanent piece of legislation enacted.
The Minister in reply to Second Stage said there might not be much difference between the permanent legislation and the temporary piece of legislation. That might well be so but there would be one very significant difference in so far as the Members of this House are concerned. We would have had the time and the opportunity to consider the matter and to persuade ourselves that it was right and proper that the proposed legislation was the minimum that was necessary for the preservation of the public order and public good. We would have had the benefit of such expertise as we had available to advise us and that the various imponderable and the various different possible interpretations of the various sections of this Bill could be discussed in a public way over a period of time.
Ministers find it very difficult to understand why Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas do not automatically accept what they say. We are not at the birth of the Bill, we do not get the explanatory memoranda — I am not suggesting we should — we are not involved in the cut and thrust of the Bill as the Minister and his officials decide what should or should not go into the Bill. I have no doubt the Minister got a number of drafts of this Bill and he made contributions before submitting it to his Cabinet colleagues. His Cabinet colleagues took their opportunity to look at it and made further recommendations. That is a continuing process which is educating any Minister with regard to any legislative provision before the House.
We do not have the benefit of that. We arrive in Dublin on Tuesday morning and we are presented with a Bill which we did not even know would come up. I am not complaining about that as that is the way things are. We are presented with a Bill in an area which we might have a nodding acquaintance with. We have not the benefit of the expert advice the Minister has. It takes time, not because we are any less intelligent than the Minister, to get on a voluntary basis the advice the Minister gets on a professional basis. That is why I am against emergency legislation becoming a permanent part of the enactment.
It is not that I do not think the Minister has done a good job. Ministers, 99 per cent of the time, do an excellent job and they come up with good legislation. The more you examine it the more you come to the same conclusion as the Minister came to because you are going through the same problem as he and his officials went through. It is our duty to go through that process. We do not have the facilities to concertina the time. For that reason it is very important that legislation which is introduced to deal with an emergency situation should be of limited duration.
We must get an opportunity to educate ourselves. The way I propose to do that is to introduce what I hope is an effective recommendation, between the words "whenever" and the "Minister" in line 28 of section 2 (1) to insert "before the 12 day of December 1985" so that the Minister will be limited in the period of time in which he can decide that these special circumstances of a temporary nature have arisen but he will not be limited up to or even beyond the 12th day of December 1985 in respect of any orders which he might have made in respect of a determination which took place before the 12th day of December 1985. He would not be limited. It would be possible for him to make an order next week, put it before the Houses of the Oireachtas and have it approved. It would be possible if the strike went on after 12 December 1985 but it would not be possible for the Minister to make a fresh determination that there are special circumstances. The orders he had made would continue to have effect until he reached the further determination that the circumstances have changed and he can revoke them.
That is the purpose of my recommendation. It is very limited. It is done in a spirit of being helpful to the Minister on the one hand but also putting forward the point of view that Members of this House are entitled to a period of time to examine technical legislation of this nature. It is very important that Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, whether they support the Government or the Opposition, insist on this action. We are there as the sounding boards of the public, we are there to give our points of view but that must be an informed point of view. We cannot be expected to have that informed point of view instantaneously. For that reason I move the recommendation which has been circulated.
I would like to raise a point about the scant treatment that certain Bills get in this House. I accept the urgency of this particular Bill. I am disappointed that there was not an explanatory memorandum. I agree entirely with Senator O'Leary's remarks, especially in the case of a technical Bill. It is impossible to assimilate the Bill in the time available to us. We cannot come up with an informed point of view. We certainly cannot give it adequate treatment. A few weeks ago we had the Protection of Employees (Employer Insolvency) Bill. We got one day to deal with all Stages of that Bill also because of the urgency of providing the benefits under that Bill to people in insolvent companies. I want to make the point that that Bill was in the Dáil for several months and there was no good reason for its delay in reaching the Seanad. I want to conclude by asking the Minister that in the case of Bills under his jurisdiction, while accepting the urgency of today's Bill, he will do everything possible to exercise his influence so that this House can conduct its business properly and can contribute properly to deliberations on legislation.
I agree with the last sentiment expressed by Senator Hillery. I am perfectly convinced of the need to have proper scrutiny and supervision of Bills in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was certainly my impression yesterday in Dáil Éireann and today in Seanad Éireann that this Bill got anything but scant treatment from Members on all sides of the two Houses. The issues in the Bill have been very quickly identified and very closely examined by both Houses. However, that is probably a gratuituous provocation on my part of Senator Hillery. I do not wish to be contentious in that way.
Senator O'Leary said his recommendation would take away from the Minister for Finance the power to make a fresh determination after the date which he has mentioned. I honestly cannot see what addition that is to the situation. The only reason the Minister for Finance would not wish to make a fresh determination would be that the problem continued up until that date and any orders made would remain in force until the Minister judged under the provisions of the Bill that the situation had changed. If on the other hand the situation had changed and in the meantime the Minister, acting under the provisions of section 2(1)(b) decided to cancel the order if another situation then arose, whether it was before or after 12 December 1985, I would have to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas with a new order which the Houses could annual within 21 sitting days so that there would be scrutiny of any further measures taken. Equally, there would be scrutiny of the reasons why the Minister did it, the circumstances that led to it and exactly the same kind of discussion would take place as we are having now with the same concern being expressed.
This Bill provides the mechanism for dealing with an emergency situation but it requires the scrutiny of the Houses on every occasion when the Minister thinks those circumstances arise. As I said earlier, I will consider the possibility of treating this matter in a different way by adding appropriate measures into existing legislation if I can find an appropriate place but it will still come up against the requirement that we will have to have emergency measures that have to be given effect at a particular time. The mechanism we have here is the proper one.
Senator O'Leary said that he is against emergency legislation being part of a permanent corporative legislation. If we write provisions into an Act that is already there — that is what we are doing — the logical conclusions from that is that there is no way out of having a permanent provision in the light of the emergency measures to be taken.
The Minister probably did not understand what I said. I probably did not explain it properly. The purpose of introducing the date, 12 December 1985, is to allow the Minister to make whatever determinations are necessary with regard to the present system. Viewing it realistically, the dispute will be over by 12 December 1985 so the Minister is giving himself plenty of time. Whatever determination or whatever action he considers to be necessary with regard to the present dispute he can make that before 12 December 1985 in the way provided in the Bill. What we do would render this legislation null and void beyond 12 December, 1985 except in so far as circumstances which arose before 12 December 1985 are concerned. In other words it would allow the Bill to be repealed without the Minister saying he is repealing the Act. The danger about repealing the Act and putting in a section repealing it is that you could have a continuing emergency situation operating after the date which you put in and the date of the repeal. If you just repeal all the Act you would have a lacuna. The idea of doing it this way was to allow such emergency situations as exist on 12 December 1985 to continue but not allow the Minister to make any fresh determinations and to force him to come back and to put permanent pieces of legislation on after due consideration.
I have no objection to a permanent piece of legislation to deal with emergencies. I object to a permanent piece of legislation to deal with emergencies being passed in an emergency way. I understand that a permanent piece of legislation to deal with emergencies is necessary. But I do not think such legislation should be passed in the atmosphere or in the time frame which a particular emergency allows. It should be passed when there is no emergency. Then, let us come in and let us consider the question and examine how the Minister should deal with the emergency.
The reason that 12 December is in is, on the one hand, to have a date beyond which the Bill would not be operative. The Bill would cease to be operative on 12 December 1985 with the exception of determinations which the Minister had made of emergency situations which arose before 12 December 1985. They would continue to be dealt with by the various orders that had been made by the Minister. In that way the legislation is limited, but giving the Minister a complete hand in dealing with the present problem even if it lasts beyond 12 December 1985.
Senator O'Leary has illustrated his concern very clearly by saying that what he is against is the notion that emergency legislation should be dealt with in an emergency. I conclude from that that the question of dates or orders or indeed permanent legislation is not what the Senator finds objectionable. There is not a great difference between the Senator and myself on this matter. It is accepted that we need a measure to deal with possible emergencies. The limits of ministerial ingenuity are such that very often you will find that it is not until a difficulty arises that you can conceive of the possibility that that difficulty might be there.
Senator O'Leary was excessively modest, and perhaps the limits of ingenuity of Members of Seanad Éireann are wider and more generous than of those who are Ministers. It is in the nature of an emergency situation that very often you do not foresee it before it comes. If we have a permanent piece of legislation it will have to make the same kind of provisions, broadly speaking, as we have in this. If we were to follow a line which either made it impossible to make new determinations under the provisions of this Bill or which, under another thesis, caused this Bill to wither away after a certain point and another difficulty arose, we would have to come back to this House and have the same kind of debate.
I said that I would, very shortly — I hope when this strike is over — consider again the insertion into appropriate existing legislation measures that would allow us to deal with this kind of situation. I cannot imagine at this point that they will be any different from this and I cannot imagine that they will contain anything other than the kind of procedure in relation to orders provided for in this Bill.
I fully recognise that the Minister or his advisers cannot be expected to have legislation on the Statute Book to cater for every emergency situation. I also accept that emergencies arise that nobody thought of before and which give rise to demands for legislation of this kind. I understand that. I am seeking to establish that when that situation arises the emergency legislation which is introduced deals with the particular problem. If in addition to dealing with the particular problem it is felt necessary to make permanent arrangements for the lacuna in the law which has been shown up, that should be done as part of a different exercise. It should not be done as an integral part of the emergency legislation. It should be done as part of the permanent legislation.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I share the hope of the Minister that this strike will be over before 31 March. The Minister drew our attention to section 2 (1) (a) limiting the circumstances in which this Bill will apply. I am not clear about this. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Bill will not apply from the day the strike is over? The provisions of the Bill should be terminated as soon as possible.
I refer Senator Hillery to section 2 (1) (b) which states:
Whenever at a time when the provisions, or any of the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section are in force the Minister ceases to be satisfied as aforesaid, he shall, as soon as may be thereafter, make an order appointing a day (being a day not later than seven days after the day on which the order is made) on and from which the provisions of those subsections are then in force shall cease to be in force and the said provisions shall cease to be in force as on and from the day so appointed.
Once the circumstances set out in section 2 (1) (a) cease to exist the Minister, then ceasing to be satisfied that the measures are required, makes an order to cancel the measures in force.
In plain language, does that mean that when the strike ends the application of the Bill will also cease?
In plain language that means when the strike is over the Minister says to himself "circumstances do not exist any more so we are going to terminate the provisions we used to deal with the emergency."
The Minister in response to the question I raised about the effective management of the reserves and ensuring the best possible return on them, indicated that the Governor and other senior staff of the Central Bank are now carrying out that function. Is the Minister satisfied that this group, hardworking as they obviously are, are large enough and competent enough, in terms of expertise, to ensure that the best possible return is being achieved in relation to the national reserve, in other words the same type of return that we would have expected from the people who handled this function before the strike?
I am reminded of a discussion that I had with a colleague of mine only yesterday about a situation that arose in a particular strike when a friend of his objected to certain measures being taken. He said, "If you were sitting at home one night and the electricity was cut off by a strike would you sit there in the dark or would you light a candle?" It appears that in the kind of difficulty that we have now, the situation that we have before us, we make the best use we can of the resources that we have at our disposal. I have not discussed the matter with the Governor and I do not know if he would say that exactly the same job is being done in all of these areas that would be done if the other staff were not on strike. I am totally convinced that the best job possible is being done in the circumstances but I cannot answer the hypothetical question as to what kind of job might have been done if there were a strike but all the people who manage the reserves were not on strike and were back in their places. All I can do is to assure the House that the best job possible is being done in the circumstances. To some extent, the Senator may be exaggerating a little in regard to the complexity of the job that has to be done.
Has the Minister any anxiety about the possible losses? I am really talking about the management of the fund and the huge sums we are talking about in terms of the return of those reserves. I cited the example that if we take the national reserves as standing at £1,800 million at this point then my case was that if the strike lasted for four months and through inadequate staffing and expertise a drop of 1 per cent less was received on those reserves that could amount to a sum of the order of £6 million. We are talking about very large sums of money. That gets us back to the competence and expertise of the people who are handling the reserves and securing a return on them.
I would like to bring to the Minister's attention something which I mentioned on Second Stage, particularly in view of the Minister's undertaking at the end of this period of difficulty to examine the permanent features of this legislation. I would like him to think what this sentence actually means. Section 2(1) (a) states:
Whenever the Minister is satisfied that owing to special circumstances of a temporary nature, it is not possible to carry out any other financial transaction on behalf of the State he may...
We understand what the rest of the sentence means. It could leave future Ministers for Finance a very convenient way of getting rid of their statutory obligations. I ask him not to shake his head and indicate he disagrees with me. I am not asking him to agree or disagree with me. I am asking him to think about it in the review of the legislation. I am happy that it is a very wide provision, I cannot say definitely what it means but it is a wide provision. I would like the Minister to be satisfied that it does not include the circumstances which I outlined on Second Stage.
In spite of the Senator's invitations to me to listen to him and not either to agree or disagree with him, I must tell him that I disagree with him, particularly as in the remainder of the section we have references to the involvement in the whole affair of the Comptroller and Auditor General who, whatever may be the temptations that come in front of the Minister for Finance at any particular time the Comptroller and Auditor General has a very different function and he must be satisfied in this regard.
To Senator Hillery I say I would be anxious that our reserves be properly managed. There is a little more to it than the considerations Senator Hillery mentioned. I can assure the Senator that I am not in a state of constant nervous agitation about the reserves. I am quite confident that given the resources that are now available to deal with that problem, we are getting the best possible result.
If the Minister looks at subsection (2)(a) of the section he will see it is the duty of the Minister to consult with the Comptroller and Auditor General, not to take his advice. It is like consulting with the Council of State.
If we follow through the Minister's analogy that you light a candle when you do not have electricity, I hope that the senior team in the Bank of Ireland, are not like a candle but rather that they are as good as the electricity supply so that we are, in fact getting the best possible return from these national assets.
I welcome the Minister's promise to consider the question of investigating the possibility of exempt staff from the ASTMS to handle the payment of interest on compassionate grounds. I would like to ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that he will pursue that line of inquiry with the utmost urgency. After all, the payment of dividends, especially coming up to Christmas, is of crucial importance to these vulnerable categories that I mentioned, elderly pensioners and so on.
I take the Minister's point about computerisation and the difficulty of people coming in from outside to handle the computer in that regard. There is reference in the Minister's speech to some of these being manually operated still through the registers as a fall back, but only as a fall back. I would like the Minister to pursue the possibility of payment of the dividends on a manual basis through the registers. I would be exceptionally keen that, as a matter of the greatest urgency, the possibility of exempt staff be pursued and that the union be asked on compassionate grounds to meet the requirements of the situation.
I made the point earlier on that that is a matter I will consider. I cannot give the House — Senator Hillery will understand it — the specific undertaking as to what exactly I will do, when and where. It is obviously a question that I will consider very carefully.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.