Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Nov 1942

Vol. 88 No. 14

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1942—Committee.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. F. Lynch

I move the first amendment, standing in my name:—

In line 13 after the word "effect" to insert the following words: "and shall be deemed never to have applied or to have had effect".

The effect of this amendment would be to give retrospective effect to the provisions of Section 4, bringing it back to the year 1939. The object of the amendment is to secure that the town of Killarney, for instance, and other towns similarly situated should be recouped for their losses over the period during which they had been paying an excess rate to their county councils while receiving only a much smaller rate from the Electricity Supply Board. The position in Killarney is this: the poor law valuation of the premises of the old Kerry Electric Supply Company in Killarney was £378 when it was taken over by the Electricity Supply Board. Under the provisions of the former Electricity Supply Act, the Electricity Supply Board paid rates only on £118 of this property, leaving a difference of £260 on which they paid no rates. In the period since 1938 the Killarney Urban Council has paid to the Kerry County Council the rates on £378, while they collected from the Electricity Supply Board the rates on only £118. They were, therefore, in the ludicrous position that they were losing £131 a year, due to the fact that the Electricity Supply Board premises were rateable at all. It would have paid Killarney better during the past four or five years if the Electricity Supply Board had no rate attached to them, because they had to pay to the Kerry County Council more than twice as much as they were receiving in rates from the Electricity Supply Board.

In the year 1941, for instance, they lost £281, and over the number of years since this provision took effect as far as Killarney is concerned—since 1938— Killarney lost in poor rate £868 16s. 8d., and in town rate £522, a total of £1,390. That was due to the fact that the present provision provided for by Section 4 was not in force over that period. It has now been recognised by the Minister that that provision in the Electricity Supply Acts prior to this was inequitable, but I think he might go a step further and get the E.S.B. to refund the rates that they should have paid over that period in the town of Killarney. This is a very serious matter for the town, because 1d. rate in Killarney raises only £30, or a little bit over it, and they have been losing about £280 a year for the last five or six years; that is the equivalent of a rate of something like 9d. in the £. It would take a rate of something over 9d. in the £ to produce £280, the amount which Killarney has been losing. I would ask the Minister to give favourable consideration to the proposal to make this provision retrospective at any rate to the year 1939. In order to meet the whole position in Killarney it should go back to 1938, but if the Minister would agree to go back to 1939 or even to 1940 it would help to a considerable extent. I do appreciate that he has made that provision now for the future, and I need not say that the Killarney people are very glad to see that provision in the Bill. Naturally, they would be still more pleased if he would go the whole way, and see that they are recouped for the amount they have been paying in excess of what they have received.

Mr. J. Flynn

I desire to support the claim made by Deputy Lynch on behalf of the Killarney Urban Council, and I should like to point out to the Minister that unless this claim is met it will mean a great loss to the people of Killarney, who have passed through a very lean period owing to the decline in the tourist traffic since the war commenced. As Deputy Lynch has pointed out, the revenue from the rates has been very adversely affected and that fact, I think, should reinforce the claim to have this provision made retrospective. It is very rarely we approach the Government with a request such as we are now putting forward and I think, in justice to our people, and to the people of Killarney in particular, the Minister might see his way to accept the amendment and so enable the urban council to recoup the money which they have lost through the system that has been in operation since this undertaking was acquired. I would strongly urge the Minister to accede to the demand that has been put forward by Deputy Lynch.

Minister for industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

The two Deputies who have spoken are, of course, concerned only with the position that exists in the town of Killarney and the effect of this amendment of the law in relation to the rates position there. It is a fact, however, that the provisions of the 1930 Act affected the income of local authorities elsewhere, although I will admit that in no case, of which I am aware, was there such an increase in the valuation of premises as occurred in the case of Killarney and very few cases where that increase in the valuation of the premises involved the local authority in a loss to the extent to which Killarney Urban Council was involved. Nevertheless, I think we must not forget that the amendment which it is now proposed to make in the 1930 Act will affect the position in other districts as well as Killarney, and the adoption of the suggestion in the name of Deputy Lynch would also have effect outside the town of Killarney. I think, therefore, while appreciating the force of the case made by Deputies Lynch and Flynn, that the argument at the moment appears to be in favour of rectifying the position for the future and not attempting to go back over the past even though it must be admitted that the situation which arose in Killarney from the effect of the operation of the Act of 1930 was anomalous and unfair to the citizens of that town.

Furthermore, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why it is proposed that this amendment of the 1930 Act should be made retrospective to 1939. I presume, if there is a case at all for doing it, it should be just as strong in favour of having the amendment made retrospective to the date on which the Killarney undertaking was acquired by the board, which was in 1937 rather than 1939. While I admit the force of that position in relation to Killarney, I could not say, and it would be almost impossible to find out without a very elaborate examination, what the circumstances in a number of other areas would be and what the effect of the proposal of Deputy Lynch might be in these other districts. I will admit that in these other districts it may not involve a very substantial amount of money because there was no case where the increase in valuation was so great but some complications might arise, and on that account I would prefer if Deputies would agree to accept the Bill as it stands and be satisfied with having the position rectified for the future without this proposal to give retrospective effect to the provision.

I must confess, however, that I cannot argue very strongly in favour of that course because it is obvious that there is considerable force in the case made on behalf of the Killarney Urban Council. The ratepayers there might consider that they are entitled to the windfall which this would mean for them. The adoption of the retrospective proposal would mean a windfall for the ratepayers of Killarney inasmuch as it would put them in a very comfortable position in the near future. On the principle that what is past is past, that the rates which were levied on these premises in Killarney have been collected, and that the injustice which had been imposed on the ratepayers is recognised and is now being rectified, I suggest it would be wiser to leave the section as it stands.

Mr. J. Flynn

I would suggest that the Minister might approach the Electricity Supply Board with a view to their making an ex-gratia grant out of which the Killarney Urban Council could be recouped for the loss which they have incurred in this respect.

Mr. F. Lynch

I think that a survey could be made by the Electricity Supply Board with a view to determining the amount involved in these cases. I am not going to press the amendment to a division, but as the Minister has stated there is really no justification for allowing the matter to stand as it is. I realise that my amendment would apply to other areas as well as Killarney, but would the Minister not consider introducing an amendment on the Report Stage to confine the proposal to Killarney only?

Mr. Dillon

At the peril of his life!

Mr. F. Lynch

There is no case in which the amount is so high as in the case of Killarney.

Mr. Lemass

There is no other case where the amount of money would be so substantial as in the case of Killarney. I suppose the argument might be made on behalf of other urban authorities outside Killarney that if there is force behind the case of the Killarney Urban Council there is just the same force behind similar claims made by these other authorities, even though the amount might be only a few pounds or a comparatively small amount in comparison with the amount involved in Killarney. It would be an inconsiderable sum in relation to the revenue of the Electricity Supply Board, but quite a considerable amount in relation to the finances of the Killarney Urban Council. On the whole, I think the balance of argument —and I must not try to force through here a provision which is against the balance of argument and the merits of the case—is in favour of making this amendment of the law retrospective. I think, however, if we accept the proposal at all, we might as well go the whole way and make it retrospective to the date on which the undertaking was acquired by the Electricity Supply Board. I do not think we could justify the arbitrary selection of a particular date, and say that the proposal should take effect as from that date only, because it would be illogical.

If the Deputy would let the matter stand it would give me an opportunity of examining what consequential provisions are necessary, because some consequential provisions might be required fully to safeguard the position. It might be no harm to give the Minister for Local Government an opportunity of seeing how the accession of this considerable lump sum to the Killarney Urban Council should best be controlled in the interests of the ratepayers of Killarney. I cannot say that he will have any particular views on the matter, but I should like to give him an opportunity of considering it. If the Deputy would allow the matter to stand until the Report Stage I shall produce an amendment, the effect of which will be to make the adjustment of the position retrospective to the date of the acquisition of the undertaking.

Mr. F. Lynch

I am very much obliged to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McGilligan

There are a few points I would like to raise on this section. The section is intended to apply in the main to certain people employed in the Pigeon House and who, at a certain time, were put out of the service of the board and afterwards became employees of the board again. They had qualified for a pension under an earlier Act and were in receipt of that pension, but when they were taken back the pension service pay was deducted from their wages. In other words, if a man got £3 11s. and 11/- for pension, he did not get £3 11s. wages although that might have been the rate of wages, but got £3 and 11/- pension. The point is being met now to the extent that these men who have extra years of service in the second "life" of their service with the board will have those years counted towards final pension, but they suffered in certain other ways. Some of the people, on being taken over from the corporation service, were in receipt of what is called "service money". The corporation had a system under which they gave men an increment of 1/- for every two years that the men remained in their service on the permanent service staff. When they had ten years' service, they got an extra increase of the princely sum of 5/- a week. When those men with "service money" were taken over the 5/- was not taken into account and their wages dropped by that amount. I suggest that this might be a time in which some recognition of that fact could be made by having it counted at least towards the final pension.

In the Bill as it stands, one of the conditions precedent to a person becoming entitled to that pension is that, on the date of the passing of the Act, as sub-paragraph (d) says, they have been in the continuous employment of the board for not less than five years. I do not know why that period was put in. I understand there are a dozen men involved in this. I am speaking of Pigeon House men only. This "five years' continuous service" after the date of the passing of this Bill would cut out three of the men, and why that should be done I do not know. There does not seem to be any necessity for a limit.

The final point is one on which I have not been able to make the calculation myself, but the case has been made to me that, if these people were to have their service, so to speak, deemed to be service under an earlier Act, they would become entitled to a higher pension on final retirement than they will get under the junction of the first pension with what they get under this. I do not know why they should be deprived of the little extra bit of pension. It seems to be a little injustice to those men. They were put out at a particular time when the policy of some members of the board was that it was one way to destroy a man's pension rights. The station closed down in a particular way, and amending legislation was necessary. The injustice is clearly shown in the case of these men, as, within some two or three years after they were put out, they were taken back. Some of them did not come back immediately, as they got other occupations which they regarded as good ones, but eventually the whole twelve returned to the service of the board. That goes to show there was no great reason why they should have been put out. If they had stayed on and qualified for a pension without a break, I am told the pension they would secure would be greater than that secured by the addition of these two amounts.

There is another point which does not appear on the face of this measure. As I read this with the pension scheme in the recent Act I understand that the qualification with regard to 65 years of age will be read in with this measure. It means that some of these men who may qualify will qualify for the full pension after a limited number of years. Take one man's case: he will qualify in another 20 years, but he cannot secure any part of his pension unless he serves for another 15 or 17 years. Anyone who knows the Pigeon House work, or even knows the difficulty in getting down to the Pigeon House, must be aware of the weather conditions these men have to face, and the type of work they have to do. They would not be considered such good lives, from the point of view of work, as men in other occupations.

However, if any one of these people fails to carry on to 65—unless it is what the earlier measure calls failure on account of "ill health"— he will forfeit the pension altogether. It has been put to me that representations should be made to the Minister on the point that as these men are not getting the full amount which they would get if the service were regarded as continuous, this point should be taken in conjunction with the second point that they cannot claim anything until they are 65. The Minister could alleviate the situation by making them qualify for the full pension just as it stands under this Bill, but adding that if any of them have 15 or 20 years to serve after the date on which they would be entitled to get the full pension, then something extra would accrue to them to bring their pension up more nearly to what they would be entitled to under the original measure. On the point of the five years' limitation, I do not know why it is included. The second point is the service money, which the Minister should look into, to see if those people who were in receipt of service money will have that reckoned eventually for pension purposes, even though they may not, in fact, be enjoying it. I cannot ask the Minister to see that they get it now, as it is pay and not pension. The third point relates to those people who would qualify for the full rate at an early enough stage, but who have to work 20 years until they reach the 65 pension period. I suggest that they be allowed some increment of pension for every five years after which they qualify for the full pension, until they reach the age of 65.

Mr. Lemass

I will deal with the three points made by Deputy McGilligan together. So far as the five year qualifying clause is concerned in the section, the Deputy should remember that in this section we are dealing not merely with the former employees of the Pigeon House generating station who were re-employed, but also with former employees of the Dublin United Tramways Company's generating station. Their situation differed from that of the Pigeon House men in so far as they had no pension rights, while the Pigeon House employees had rights secured to them by law and accruing to them in the event of the circumstances arising which did in fact arise—namely, their service in the station being discontinued when it was taken over by the board. The tramway station was taken over much later. It occurred to me while listening to the Deputy that, while we are doing what I regard as reasonable justice to the former employees of the Dublin United Tramways Company's station, in the doing of that we may be acting a little unfairly in the case of these three Pigeon House workers to which the Deputy has referred.

I would be glad if he would leave that case over, as I may be able to amend the section in such a manner as to meet the case of those three workers without, at the same time, extending the privilege to other workers formerly employed by the Dublin United Tramways Company who would not have the same claim to it.

I do not think we can deal with this question of the 5/- which the Pigeon House workers might have got if the circumstances had remained unchanged. The determination of the rate of wages to be paid to employees is, of course, a matter solely for the board, and when the employees reach the end of their period of service and it becomes a matter of assessing their pension rights, clearly those pensions must be determined upon the basis of their actual earnings and not upon some hypothetical figure representing what they might have earned in entirely different circumstances. I do not think justice requires that we should provide more than is being provided for here. The employees in the Pigeon House station are being put in the position that they will get, at the end of their period of service, pensions on the same basis as other employees of the Electricity Supply Board, if they so elect, and I do not think that we should be required to do more than that. It would, in fact, be unwise to attempt it, because it would have reactions upon the main pension scheme of the board which would be in many respects undesirable.

Sections 5, 6 and 7, and the Title, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment. Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 11th November.