Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Mar 1985

Vol. 107 No. 13

Canals Bill, 1985: Report and Final Stages.

Government amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 23 and 24 to insert the following:
"(2) (a) A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall on the vesting day enjoy conditions of service not less beneficial in aggregate than the conditions of service to which he was subject immediately before the vesting day having regard to—
(i) any adjustment to the scale of pay by reference to which such person was remunerated or the conditions relating to the grant of pensions, gratuities and other allowances on retirement or death to which he was subject immediately before the vesting day, and
(ii) any compensation given to such person in respect of becoming an officer or servant as the case may be of the Commissioners.
(b) Where a disagreement arises on or after the vesting day as to the amount of compensation (if any) given to a person to whom subsection (1) applies in respect of becoming an officer or servant as the case may be of the Commissioners, such disagreement shall be referred to the Labour Court which shall determine the amount of the compensation (if any)."

My interpretation of this amendment is that what might be called a horse trading situation is now introduced. That is if an employee gains in his salary from the non-payment of superannuation contributions then it is offset against the loss of privileges such as free passes, free doctors, etc. There are two aspects to this arrangement. Any increase in salary as a result of superannuation arrangements will be fully subject to income tax. I understand that half of the staff are not in the pension fund. Therefore it would seem to me that the people who have been paying into the pension fund over a long number of years might be penalised as a result. One could also interpret from this wording that an employee could be paid a lower salary than he presently enjoys should compensation be paid to him for the loss of conditions. It would appear to me that this amendment is geared towards the benefit of the commissioners and no matter what way you look at it they are not going to lose.

I also disagree with section B which refers to where a disagreement arises "on or after the vesting day". I feel that this should read "on or before the vesting day", as the stable door will be well and truly closed after vesting day. I feel that subsections (1) and (2) should be deleted entirely. As I have said already, they appear to have two meanings and I suggest that the following variation be made in the rest of the amendment (2) (a):

A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall on the vesting day enjoy conditions of service not less beneficial than the conditions of service to which he was subject immediately before vesting day.

and (2) (b)

Where a disagreement arises on or before the vesting day as to the amount of compensation given to a person in respect of becoming an officer or servant as the case may be of the commissioners, such disagreement shall be referred to the Labour Court which shall determine the amount of the compensation to which the person is entitled.

I would like the Minister to consider those suggestions.

This amendment is proposed in response to the case made very forcibly by Senators on both sides of the House during Committee Stage. It contains a guarantee in relation to the conditions of service of the canals staff after they are transferred from CIE to OPW. In response then to the very good case made by the Senators and in order to facilitate the negotiations, which I am very glad to say are going to start on Tuesday next, between OPW and CIE on the one side and staff on the other and to assure the canals staff that they will be protected on their transfer, the Government have now decided to sponsor this amendment to the Bill. It provides for the reckoning of all of the pluses and all of the minuses in the conditions of employment of canals staff in CIE as compared to OPW and for the giving of appropriate compensation. As indicated, if a dispute arises as to whether or not such compensation is warranted in any particular case or as to the actual amount of the compensation which should be given in a particular case, then the Labour Court will have power to settle the dispute by binding both sides to their decisions as to the amount of compensation, if any, to be given. As regards the question the Senator has raised about vesting day, of course the Bill does not operate until vesting day.

Could I take it that the Minister is satisfied that there will be no penalisation?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Sorry, the Senator can only speak once.

I am very glad that the Minister has brought in this amendment because we all pressed for it. We were all worried in case the people who were transferring to OPW would be in a worse position. It looks as if they will not. What is very important is the fact that if they disagree they can go to the Labour Court. They do not have to take what is handed down to them if they feel they are aggrieved. I am glad the Minister has brought in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2;
In page 6, to delete lines 30 to 33 and substitute the following:
"(2) The Commissioners shall consult with the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in relation to any matters which affect or could affect fish, fish life, fish stocks or fishing in the canals."

This amendment is proposed again in response to the criticism and concern expressed by Senators on the previous Stages of the Bill and it is a comprehensive safeguarding provision. Indeed, it is an example of the constructive debates that take place here in the Upper House. Arising out of the excellent cases made by the Senators it was felt that this amendment should be moved. The Government have now carefully considered all that was said here by the Senators and in response have tabled this amendment which if agreed will oblige the Commissioners of Public Works to consult with the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in relation to any matters which affect or could affect fish, fish life, fish stocks or fishing in the canals. This is a very comprehensive safeguard for the fisheries aspect of the canals. The detailed consultation arrangements will be set up by the liaison committee which is being established and it is included in the Bill in very clear-cut form. In the circumstances the Government do not consider that there is need for any further amendment to the Bill in relation to the fisheries aspect.

I would like, first of all, to thank the Minister of State for being responsible for encouraging the Government to come forward with an amendment in this area. As he well knows, the subject matter was really about the very considerable interest in coarse fishing in the canal system and the need to bear that in mind in relation to fish and fish stock and in the development programme for the canals and ensure that it is allowed to develop along lines which those who are expert in this area would know about.

The only aspect on which I would like clarification is the liaison committee which the Minister said is being established. There is talk about a committee of some kind between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Commissioners of Public Works and he mentioned it on Committee Stage. That liaison committee will presumably alert the commissioners in relation to the statutory position as contained in this amendment as to areas which would impinge on fish, fish management or the development of the canals as far as fishing is concerned. One of my earlier objections was that I did not believe that the professional civil servants, who are the commissioners, would know when matters concerning fish management or the development of the canals as far as fish interests are concerned would arise and for that reason I wanted something more all-embracing on this area. I think the Minister has probably come up with an amendment that would suit the case but I would like him to clarify whether he is satisfied that the commissioners will be alerted on an ongoing basis as to concerns that arise with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and presumably with interests that make them known to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, and those who are engaged in fishing and those who are engaged in the enjoyment of the canals in this respect.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 12 noon on Tuesday, 2 April 1985.
Top
Share