Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I move:

In subsection (1), line 14, before "gratuities" to insert "widows' and orphans' pensions or allowances".

The subsection would then read as follows:

As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Board shall prepare and submit to the Minister a contributory scheme or contributory schemes for the granting of pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions or allowances, gratuities, and other allowances on retirement to or in respect of such wholetime officers or wholetime servants of the Board as it may think fit.

My purpose in putting this in is to make doubly sure that those drawing up such a superannuation scheme will not be precluded from including widows and orphans by the terms of the Bill now before us.

One of the not very much publicised Committees of this House, which is meeting in a few minutes time this afternoon, is the Statutory Instruments Committee. If such a superannuation scheme is laid before the House as a statutory instrument, it will be part of the duty of that Committee to draw the attention of the House to such statutory instruments, it, according to the duty of that Committee to draw the attention of the House to such statutory instruments, if, according to the terms of reference of that Committee:

It appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by statute under which it is made.

It is the duty of this Committee to draw the attention of the House and of the Minister and his servants to the fact that occasionally powers are invoked which, in fact, are not contained in the empowering Bill.

The Minister dealt very sympathetically with my question. It is quite obvious he favours having the powers that are enshrined in the words I am suggesting, and my hope is that he will agree to accept this amendment if merely because it makes assurance doubly sure. It would mean that we can rely on the terms of the Bill as well as on the assurance of intention given us just now by the Minister.

Mr. Murphy

I do not think it is a question of disagreement of principle. It is a question of whether it is necessary to enable this to be done. My interpretation of the section as it reads at the moment is that it would enable the pension fund to provide death benefit for widows and orphans, but it would not in my view enable the payment of a pension as such. If this were to be agreed, the amendment, as suggested, would have to be made on this section.

Mr. Blaney

Subsection (1) of section 1 contains the words "the granting of pensions". If you read "the granting of pensions to wholetime officers or servants", and then go back and put in the words, "the granting of pensions in respect of such wholetime officers and wholetime servants", obviously if it is only the servants or officers themselves to which this section applies, then the words "or in respect of" would be absolutely superfluous and no purpose would be served by putting them in. I rely on the words "or in respect of" to cover the sort of thing which Senator Sheehy Skeffington has mentioned. If it were only servants and officers themselves who were concerned we would say so straight away, but here we say:

... the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances on retirement to or in respect of such wholetime officers or wholetime servants of the Board.

The words "or in respect of" are there for a purpose, other than directly for the two categories which do not need to be covered by the word "to". That is all we want to know.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I think the Minister has made a case but I should prefer this to be made explicit rather than remain implicit. It is possible that the Minister's interpretation of these words might not be upheld by a court of law or by the Minister's successor. I cannot feel that he would be losing anything by accepting the insertion of the words, "widows' and orphans' pensions or allowances". He would be making sure that this permissive power —a power which he admits quite freely is one that he would like the Government to have—would be given explicitly. It would be far more satisfactory if this were expressed explicitly rather than merely indicated implicitly by the words "or in respect of". I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment, which I feel would not add something to the Bill that would be obnoxious to him, but which would make assurance doubly sure.

Mr. Blaney

I am more satisfied now than I was that those projected sort of cases are, in fact, covered by those words. Let me say this for what it is worth despite that. If it should be brought to light that a scheme for dependants or widows or orphans should be formulated and brought forward by the Board in agreement with their employees and it was then determined by a court that it should be included if it was not already there, so far as I am concerned and so far as I could commit any successor of mine, we would make the change but I do not think it is necessary. Certainly, if it should be necessary to make a change in my time I can assure the House that I would come back and change it. I am quite satisfied with it as it is.

Mr. Murphy

Surely it is prudent to put it in now?

Mr. Blaney

Would the Senator tell me how to put something in which is not necessary and if it is not necessary to take it out again without messing the whole thing?

Mr. Murphy

The Minister does not have to mess it.

Mr. Blaney

I am trying to be reasonable about it. You can either have it or not have it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily——

Mr. Blaney

One leans over backwards for Senator Murphy and what does he do? He trips you from behind and knocks you. Do not lean over backwards with Senator Murphy.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to point out to the Minister that the wording at present refers to those officers "on retirement". All of us are, however, capable of having widows before reaching the retiring age.

Mr. Blaney

Are we?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Yes, even Ministers.

Mr. Blaney

Is that so? Unless you are married you cannot have them.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Ministers are not immortal. They can die before they retire and they can have widows.

Mr. Blaney

Not unless they are married.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

A good point.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

All I say is that it is possible for a civil servant or a Minister to have a widow before he retires. I do not think there is any such thing as a Minister in perpetuity although, perhaps, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries thinks there is. Consequently, unless widows and orphans are specifically mentioned they are not included.

Mr. Blaney

It is not necessary.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I do not believe there are Ministers in perpetuity.

Mr. Blaney

Certainly there are Senators in perpetuity.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

They may die or they may retire.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Even the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would prefer if Senators returned to the Bill.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It is a pity.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

As I said, there is no such thing as Ministers in perpetuity although, perhaps, this Minister thinks there is.

Mr. Blaney

I should love to be in the Senator's shoes at the moment and he in mine and I would give him something to talk about.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should very much like to take the Minister up on that. I accept this offer gladly. I do not know whether this is in order.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair has heard little in the past five minutes that was in order.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am not quite sure how the Minister is going to frame his offer to me, which I regard as very handsome.

I should like to return, however, to the question of the widows and orphans. As they are not specifically mentioned they may be forgotten. I do not think the Minister is desirous of forgetting them, but he is a man who tends to regard any text he puts before us as being a piece of Holy Writ. Some of his colleagues are more flexible in this regard and are prepared to accept amendments from us. I should like to see the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries do the same. I should like to have widows and orphans specifically mentioned in this section.

Mr. O'Kennedy

If you specifically mention them are you not going to exclude them?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The original phrasing includes "pensions, grants and other allowances".

Mr. O'Kennedy

Does the Senator want to specifically mention widows and orphans?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Yes.

Mr. O'Kennedy

What about others outside the categories of widows and orphans?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

This would be covered.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not think it would.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

They are excluded here and the amendment includes them.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not think so.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The present text excludes widows and orphans.

Mr. O'Kennedy

In most pension schemes there is provision for widows and children even though they are not orphans but having this kind of amendment it would be impossible to pay an allowance to a child where the widow was alive.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

My interpretation of "an orphan" is a child one of whose parents is dead. No man can have a widow without dying.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to press it. I think the Minister is on the point of accepting it.

Mr. Blaney

I think the Senator is on the point of expiring. In fact, the other six boards I mentioned now have the same provision accepted by all of us without a murmur. I think we were quite sensible in accepting them. Far be it from me to think that there had been a change since.

Mr. Murphy

This is ridiculous. Since a very important principle was conceded by the Government in regard to introducing widows' and orphans' benefits for their servants, I was suggesting to the Minister that he should take power in this Bill to pay widows and orphans. Surely it is prudent that he might take that power instead of having the excuse afterwards of saying that under the terms of the measure he is not entitled to do so? The Government have made provision in regard to widows' and orphans' pensions for civil servants. I am suggesting that the Minister might take the power to do the same for the people in An Bord Gráin for whom he is now responsible and will be determining their rates of pay.

Mr. Blaney

In so far as Senator Murphy is concerned I am trying to do the appropriate and fitting thing. I am glad he appreciates and approves what the Government have done in so far as the widows' and orphans' provisions are concerned. I just like to get that down twice, not once. Another matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is something which I think is relevant in so far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned and that is subsection (7). Every scheme must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and if you do not like it you do not accept it. If Senator Murphy wants to use the democratic process to get his own way, that is all right but when I suggest to him here that there is democratic process for this he does not agree with me. How can you satisfy such a man? I am doing the best I can. As I say, you lean over backwards to do something and then you are tripped from behind. Seriously, I give an assurance that if and when a scheme comes before this or the other House——

Mr. Murphy

We can annul it.

Mr. Blaney

And by so doing you can highlight the matter which you complain about now if it should be absent.

Mr. Murphy

You could take that as a very good reason for annulling it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Minister's defence of this is quite fantastic because he says that if it transpires that he is wrong about this and widows and orphans cannot be included we can always annul the proposed scheme. But we cannot reframe it. We are not being given the power to insert back into the Bill the possibility of having a widows' pension scheme, so, therefore, I feel that the last intervention by the Minister was singularly unenlightened.

Mr. Blaney

In short reply to the Senator, one cannot have the opportunities and the responsibilities of control of Government unless one is in Government and the Senator is not. It is not possible to have it both ways. I am trying to point out that I am satisfied with what is there and I am endeavouring to make it a little easier for the Senators to accept that there is there what we say is there; in other words, they are not correct in saying what they have been saying. I have given them these various ways out and they could take them but, instead of that, I am being attacked for making all sorts of defences relevant and irrelevant. However, I am really being kind to the Senators. Perhaps, my belief in many cases would be more reliable than the Senators' having regard to the amount of advice which I get from legal advisers and others. I do not intend that in any way as a reflection as between the Senators and myself.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

May I ask the Minister, through the Chair, if he would state one single objection, in view of his knowledge and of the advice he gets, to the insertion of the words I have proposed?

Mr. Blaney

Objection is scarcely the word. It is unnecessary; it is superfluous.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

There is no real objection.

Question put: "That the proposed words be there inserted".

The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 24.

Tá.

Conlan, John F.
Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
Crowley, Patrick.
Davidson, Mary F.
FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
McAuliffe, Timothy.
McDonald, Charles.
McQuillan, Jack.
Malone, Patrick.
Murphy, Dominick F.
O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Prendergast, Micheál A.
Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.

Níl

Ahern, Liam.
Boland, Gerald.
Brennan, John J.
Browne, Seán.
Cole, John C.
Dolan, Séamus.
Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
Egan, Kieran P.
Farrell, Joseph.
Flanagan, Thomas P.
Honan, Dermot P.
Killilea, Mark.
McElgunn, Farrell.
McGlinchey, Bernard.
McGowan, Patrick.
Nash, John Joseph.
ÓDonnabháin, Seán.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
Ryan, Eoin.
Ryan, William.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Teehan, Patrick J.

Tellers: Tá: Senators Murphy and Dr. Sheehy Skeffington; Níl: Senators Browne and Farrell.

Amendment declared lost.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cole

I would raise the point again of whether this pension can be retrospective to the time these people joined the Board. I should imagine that under the Bill the scheme would run from the date the Minister mentions in this measure unless we have a special clause making it retrospective to some period before the passing of the Bill. The Bill will only bring it back to the present.

Mr. Blaney

There are two issues involved here. One is whether the Senator is talking about it having retrospective effect for somebody already dead, and the other is whether it should be retrospective to those now serving in regard to their service for qualification purposes.

Mr. Cole

Both apply.

Mr. Blaney

This contributory scheme would boil down to that we are setting the legislative framework within which by contribution of the employees they negotiate with some trust or insurance company or other such body what type of scheme they wish, and whether they are prepared to pay whatever the amount is. This is all a matter capable of being settled by them rather than by us. I do not think that we can make it retrospective or non-retrospective by merely adding or deleting any words in this measure. It has to do with what they themselves bargain for and are prepared to pay for as regards purchasing any benefits they want. If that has to take into account service already given this will again be a question of hard bargaining as to how much it will cost them to take cognisance of the various years of service. This is a bargaining matter, a negotiating matter, between the employees and whomsoever will be providing this service which they will be paying for.

Mr. Cole

Take a member of the staff for ten years or since the inception of the Board, who now for the first time is allowed to contribute towards his pension. Perhaps ten years of his earning life has been lost towards his pension. A scheme could be produced whereby a lump sum, being his contribution for ten years previously served, would be admitted by the Minister for Finance. The Board would have to pay its contribution as well as the member who might be willing to pay his contribution. I think there have been similar schemes providing for a contribution towards meeting an original unpaid ten years or whatever it might have been by the Exchequer or the Board. I cannot recollect what it was, but I think retrospective payment was made for such a scheme in the past. I have come across a scheme somewhere where a contribution was paid by the Board or the parent body, whatever it was, towards the years which they would have contributed had there been such a scheme in existence at the time. If they want to start a scheme now dating from the commencement of their employment in the Board they would find it very difficult to say to the Board: "We want you to pay your contribution for the last ten years or whatever it was". Some help should be given to allow them to date their pension from the beginning of their employment with the Board.

Mr. Murphy

This is not a new problem. It is quite normal when setting up pension funds for employees that there is an arrangement to purchase backdating of previous service. I think the Minister, in replying to the Second Reading debate about insurance, said that this was being done through an insurance company. There is no difficulty about this. I recently negotiated a pension fund for 300 bakers in Northern Ireland and it was readily agreed that the service of an employee was limited prior to the inception of the Employment Act. The Minister asked how long this has been in existence. Again there is no real problem; it is a question of the employer recognising he had an obligation in the matter and that it was not the employee's fault that the pension fund had not been set up earlier. I hope the Minister will be generous in dealing with the problems which arise.

Mr. Blaney

We are really concerned here with what is possible within the context of legislation. I am quite satisfied with the types and variety of arrangements that may be arrived at as between a board, its employees and their negotiators with a trust or insurance company, as the case may be, from whom you can get the best possible deal. These things can be done subject to employees and the Board making their propositions jointly and negotiating at that stage something which will subsequently come up to me. Unless and until it does, there is nothing I have to say on this matter here. All other matters are capable of being covered if it is so decided to negotiate in that way and if the negotiating right is worth giving. Senator Cole will be satisfied as long as it is capable of being done and that is all we are concerned with here today. We are concerned as to whether it is capable of being done within the legislative framework and my answer to Senator Cole is that it is fully capable of being accomplished within the framework of this Bill. How it is done, how it is worked out, will show itself in the normal way with the normal passage of time.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Murphy

This is the section on which I took issue with the Minister on Second Stage. It is difficult to summarise the Minister's reply without a copy of his reply but it seems to me he was making two points. He was linking this, which is admittedly a small organisation with a staff of 13, with other small organisations he has set up for the purpose of carrying out his functions as Minister and doing something that the Minister has decided and agreed to do already. As the Minister explained, it is the function of An Bord Gráin to carry out an agreement made between the Minister and the farming organisations, and this is his policy. The Minister referred to smaller organisations where the same sort of thing operates but he chided me for making an issue of the five or six other organisations, some of them obscure, which he mentioned. That is a reasonable answer to the case where you have rather small organisations carrying out in effect, ministerial policy, but then the Minister launched fully into orbit. He referred to organisations which had established their own rates of pay and reached fantastic heights. I do not know whether he used quite that expression but he was implying that because of the freedom they were given under the legislation they had an exorbitant rate of pay.

Towards the end of his speech the Minister seemed to back pedal very quickly and say that he was concerned not to interfere with organisations claiming good rates of pay, that his real concern was to see that these bodies treated their employees fairly; in accordance with Fianna Fáil policy, they want to see employees fairly treated. The Minister did not mention these boards but he implied that exorbitant pay increases had been agreed. How is the Minister going to control that situation? I do not think CIE was one of the bodies he was referring to, but was he referring to the ESB? Is he saying that is now Government policy for the Government to take control of the negotiations of rates of pay of workers in the ESB and CIE as and when they get an opportunity to amend legislation? I think that is a fair question. It seems to me a very dangerous thing to be embarking on. Has there been any consultation with Congress? I am not aware that unions in the public sector have been alerted that it is the Government's policy to intervene and directly fix the rates of pay and remuneration in the semi-State undertakings. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps there has been a distinction in the Minister's mind between what he refers to as State bodies and what I am referring to as semi-State bodies, such as the ESB, CIE, An Bord Gráin, Bord na Móna and the B & I. Are they included in what he is saying is the Government's policy? I think we are entitled to an answer and if the Minister's answer is "Yes", then I am opposing this section.

Mr. Blaney

If the Senator had difficulty in interpreting what I said in an earlier reply, I am completely stumped by what he is trying to ask me. Perhaps he would elucidate further?

Mr. Murphy

The Minister in his Second Reading speech said that the terms of remuneration and allowances for expenses to staff which is now a matter for the Board was to be determined by him with the consent of the Minister for Finance and that this would facilitate public development of a uniform pay policy in State Boards. The Minister went on to say that he was taking the opportunity of this amending legislation of doing this in respect of An Bord Gráin and that it would be their intention to do the same according as the opportunity arose in relation to other State bodies. This may not be the exact wording but it is my interpretation of what the Minister said.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the section agreed to?

Mr. Murphy

I am opposing it.

Question put: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

The Committee divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 14.

Tá

Ahern, Liam.
Boland, Gerald.
Brennan, John J.
Browne, Seán.
Cole, John C.
Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
Dolan, Séamus.
Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
Egan, Kieran P.
Farrell, Joseph.
Fitzsimons, Patrick.
Flanagan, Thomas P.
Honan, Dermot P.
McElgunn, Farrell.
McGlinchey, Bernard.
McGowan, Patrick.
Martin, James J.
Nash, John Joseph.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
Ó Maoláin, Tomás
O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
Ryan, Eoin.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, William.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Teehan, Patrick J.

Níl

Conlan, John F.
Crowley, Patrick.
Davidson, Mary F.
Fitzgerald, John.
McAuliffe, Timothy.
McDonald, Charles.
Malone, Patrick.
Murphy, Dominick F.
Ó Conalláin, Dónall.
O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Prendergast, Micheál A.
Rooney, Éamon.
Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl, Senators J. Fitzgerald and Murphy.

Question declared carried.

Section 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 5 Mar 1969