I beg to move Section 1, which is purely a definition Section.
LAND LAW (COMMISSION) BILL, 1923. - COMMITTEE STAGE.
In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "the Congested Districts Board" means the Congested Districts Board for Ireland;
The expression "the transfer date" means the date on which the administration of public services relating to land purchase was transferred as respects Saorstát Eireann to the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann;
The expression "the Land Law Acts" means the Land Law Act as defined by the Irish Land Act, 1909, together with Part V. of that Act;
The expression "the Land Purchase Acts" means the Land Purchase Acts as defined by the Irish Land Act, 1909, together with Parts I., II., and IV. of that Act;
The expression "the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts" shall have the same meaning as in the Irish Land Act, 1909, but shall include Part III. of that Act.
Question put "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 2.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part III. of the Second Schedule to the Irish Free State (Consequental Provisions) Act, 1922, whereby the office of Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission ceased to exist as from the transfer date, the Irish Land Commission shall be deemed to have had since the transfer date continuous corporate existence in Saorstát Eireann and shall, from and after the passing of this Act. consist of a Judicial Commissioner and such number of other Commissioners as the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann shall consider requisite.
(2) The Irish Land Commission shall, notwithstanding the provisions aforesaid, have and be deemed to have had continuously since the transfer date all the jurisdictions, powers, duties and obligations which immediately before the transfer date were vested in or imposed on the Irish Land Commission and were exercisable or to be performed in Saorstát Eireann.
(3) All the property of every nature and kind which was vested in the Irish Land Commission immediately before the transfer date, and was either situate in Saorstát Eireann or was vested in the Irish Land Commission for the purpose of functions to be performed in Saorstát Eireann, shall, notwithstanding the provisions aforesaid, be and be deemed to have been continuously since the transfer date vested in the Irish Land Commission for the like estates, interests and purposes and subject to the like trusts for and subject to which such property was respectively vested in the Irish Land Commission immediately before the transfer date.
I beg to move Section 2.
I am wondering whether on this Section the Minister would be in a position to tell us what is the exact position of the Land Commission now. Are there any Commissioners, and how many is it intended to appoint as Commissioners.
I think I explained the position of the Land Commission on the First Reading of the Bill. As a result of the operation of the Transfer of Functions Order the office of Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission is abolished and the present position of the Land Commission, as I understand it, is that the corporation is in existence but that there are no Commissioners except a Judicial Commissioner. The Judicial Commissioner is functioning under Sub-section 5 of Section 28 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1881, referred to in Section 3 of this Bill. In that Section, that is to say, Sub-section 5 of Section 28 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1881, the head of the Judiciary has jurisdiction to assign any Judge of the High Court to act as a Judicial Commissioner in the event of the office being temporary vacant. That assignment has been made, and at the present moment the Judicial Commissioner is acting under the assignment made under this Section. We are now under the necessity, as I stated on the First Reading, of reconstituting the Land Commission. I am not in a position to say at the moment how many Commissioners shall be appointed, but there will probably be three. As I explained, the new Commissioners will be not only Land Commissioners but Estates Commissioners. They will exercise the functions of Land Commissioners and Estates Commissioners. The Estates Commissioners were always Land Commissioners but they exercised different functions. As Land Commissioners they exercise different functions. As Land Commissioners they exercised one set of functions and as Estate Commissioners they exercise another. There is no necessity for that state of affairs any longer. They will be called Land Commissioners now, and they will exercise the functions in connection with the Land Purchase Acts and all land law as they did formerly, of course with the one name.
In connection with the reconstitution of the Land Commission, I think this section would be the proper place to raise an inquiry that I wish to bring before the Minister's attention. I would preface it by stating that I am not moving an amendment, partly because the matter was brought before my attention somewhat too late for that purpose, and even then I did not press for an amendment, for I am not sure that it is a question that ought to be dealt with by specific drafting of the Bill, or whether it should not more properly lie under the Executive action of the Ministry. The question refers to a certain section of the Land Commission staff. On the Second Reading we had the matter raised in the Dáil with regard to the Congested Districts Board staff as being taken over and that when taken over they should receive the full status of Civil Servants. There are amendments on the Orders of the day that will come before us later on, dealing with that matter. The question that I am now dealing with refers to a certain section of officials in the Land Commission known as surveyors and draughtsmen who have no pension rights. I believe the practice is that when such surveyors are promoted to the position of inspectors that they receive pension rights, as they are then reckoned as belonging to the Civil Service establishment, but prior to that promotion they have not that status, and, therefore do not carry the pension rights attaching to the status. The matter has been raised by them very frequently, as I am informed, and pledges were given that a certain number of them should come on to the permanent establishment, and that they should be without the necessity of being promoted inspectors, for which a large number might not care, though the services that they render might be excellent enough to deserve it, but that they should still have their place on the established Civil Service, and be entitled to pension rights. I will not go into the category of dates in which this matter was brought up, before the British Treasury when these servants were strictly under that Treasury. The facts are briefly, as set out here for me, that this matter was raised before the British Treasury, and that the British Treasury did admit that a certain number of them should be given the rank of Civil Servants and receive pension rights.
Would not this question come up on the amendments?
It will not arise on these amendments, because they are deliberately confined to the Congested Districts Board.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair at this stage.
On a point of Order, I would like to say if this is regarded as in order as a preliminary discussion, it will become equally in order to discuss the position of clerks in the Congested Districts Board who are similarly placed. I should like, therefore, to have that ruling, for if this is the proper time at which to raise the Surveyor question then I would like to avail of it to be heard on the other question.
Perhaps Deputy Figgis will favour me with an explanation of the point he is raising?
The point is we are dealing with Section 2 of the Bill, by which the powers of the Land Commission are reaffirmed and the Land Commission reconstituted. A certain number of the staff that had hitherto belonged to the Land Commission have not hitherto been entitled to pension rights. They claim that under previous conditions under the British Treasury they had such rights accorded to them. Obviously the matter if it is to arise at all arises under this Bill, and I thought that the proper section of the Bill under which to raise it is Section 2. The point now raised by Deputy Professor Magennis is, if the question of these persons arises under Section 2, then the question of the other staffs respecting which amendments are down should arise under that section also. The only point I put before you on that Bill is that the Congested Districts Board's staff are dealt with under a different section.
Is it the contention that this Section destroys rights previously existing?
No, that is not my contention.
I understood the Deputy to say that certain employees of the Land Commission had rights.
No, they had not the rights, but these rights were partially promised to them under the previous administration of the country, and I wonder whether these promises are likely to be fulfilled. I prefaced my statement by saying that is hardly a matter that can arise on an amendment but it is a matter upon which I quite recently asked for assurance from the Minister when we were dealing with the re-constitution of the Land Commission or the services there.
That is the say, this is a point which concerns purely and simply the staffs of the Land Commission now being transferred. It is not contended that there is any alteration in the rights and privileges of the staff?
Then, what is the point?
I want to know what the status of those persons will be when the Land Commission is reconstituted under the general execution of the Commissioners when created.
I think what the Deputy wants to know is whether they will be promoted; that is what it comes to.
I am not quite clear what the Deputy does want. His point is that some officers seek for the amelioration of their position when transferred.
At transfer on the re-constitution of the Commission.
I think the Deputy is referring to Surveyors in the Land Commission who are temporary officials, and what he wants to know is will they be promoted. He makes the point that they have been for a long time temporary and that it is not fair to them that they should be on a different status to, let us say, inspectors. That is what the point comes to.
The Minister has stated the position with great justice. I am going to give an analysis of the persons with whom I am dealing. There are 28 of them and it is said that they are in temporary employment. Seven of them are there for the past 25 years, one is there between 20 and 22 years, four between 15 and 20 years and four between 10 and 15 years; they can hardly be described as temporary.
I will read the Section: "Immediately upon the passing of this Act the Congested Districts Board shall stand dissolved, and thereupon every officer and person then in the employment of the Congested Districts Board shall be transferred to the employment of the Irish Land Commission, and shall, for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, be deemed to have been paid from moneys provided by Parliament or the Oireachtas throughout their service under the Congested Districts Board within the meaning of Section 17 of the Superannuation Act, 1859."
That is to say we are re-constituting the Land Commission and we do not interfere in any way with the status of any one. The Deputy wants to know whether certain temporary officials in the Land Commission will be made permanent. That is a matter for administration.
It could not be provided for by legislation?
It is purely an administrative matter. There are temporary officials in every Department—in the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Works, and in every other Department. Some of these officials have passed their examination, others have not. They have all to be treated on their merits, and I can go so far as to say that they will get a fair show in the future. I will not say what they got in the past—but they will get a fair show. We could not deal with the matter in the Bill.
Will not the salaries payable to the Land Commission staff come up on the Estimates?
Certainly.
And would not that be the proper time to raise the question of the staff unless it were possible by amendment of the Bill to improve the status of the Staff?
I will raise it on the Estimates. What I was endeavouring to do was this. Though I did not think it could come up on an amendment yet when the Section was under discussion I desired to get from the Minister an assurance with regard to those persons to be transferred.
There is no transfer. I want to make that clear. We are re-constituting the Land Commission and the officials are in the same position as always.
There is continuance.
There is continuance; it will be open to the political head as well as to the Minister for Finance to promote people who are worthy of promotion. This is the general administrative principle from which we cannot depart in the Land Commission any more than in any other department.
I think that the Estimates is the proper place to raise the details.
Question: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Until the establishment of Courts pursuant to Article 64 of the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann, Sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, shall apply to the office of Judicial Commissioner under this Act, and from and after the establishment of such Courts a Judge of the High Court shall be assigned, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law, to discharge the office of Judicial Commissioner under this Act.
I beg to move Section 3.
Section 3 put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) The Commissioners (other than the Judicial Commissioner) of the Irish Land Commission shall be appointed by the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann.
(2) Every jurisdiction, power and duty which immediately before the transfer date was by law vested in or imposed on the Estates Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission shall upon the appointment of Commissioners under this section become and be vested in or imposed on the Commissioners so appointed, and every mention of or reference to the Estates Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission or any one or more of such Estates Commissioners contained in any Act, rule, regulation or order shall be construed and take effect as a mention of or reference to Commissioners appointed under this section or to a like number of such Commissioners.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorise the appointment of Estates Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission.
(4) So much of Sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, as provides that each Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission shall hold his office by the same tenure as if he was a County Court Judge in Ireland shall not apply to Commissioners appointed under this section.
I move Section 4.
I beg to move an amendment: "In Sub-section (2) to insert after the words `Land Commission' the words `and was exercisable or to be performed in Saorstát Eireann.' "
This is a purely drafting amendment, and the object being to ensure the operations of the Act only applies to the officials in the department of Saorstát Eireann.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That Clause 4 as amended stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Immediately upon the passing of this Act the Congested Districts Board shall stand dissolved, and thereupon every officer and person in the employment of the Congested Districts Board shall be transferred to the employment of the Irish Land Commission, and shall, for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, be deemed to have been paid from moneys provided by Parliament or the Oireachtas throughout their service under the Congested Districts Board within the meaning of Section 17 of the Superannuation Act, 1859.
I beg to move Section 5.
I beg to move the following amendment to this Section: To add to it on the last line the following words:—"and such officers and persons as are pensionable, pursuant to the provisions of Section 52 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, shall be deemed to have been serving throughout their service under the Congested Districts Board in the permanent Civil Service of the State."
This amendment may sound as if it was something in the nature of continuing the discussion that was originated a few minutes ago by Deputy Figgis, but the circumstances and the nature of the amendment are wholly different. The C.D.B. by this Bill is dissolved. It was in possession of very considerable staffs. Until the Bill dissolving the C.D.B. was passed, the Board were the masters of the persons whose interests I am now endeavouring to save. These individuals are being transferred to the Land Commission, and as soon as the Bill becomes an Act they will in future be the servants of the Land Commission. The Section that the Minister has put into the Bill carries, I think, all rights to pension to which these clerks, when transferred, are entitled, because it says they "shall be deemed to have been paid from moneys provided by Parliament or the Oireachtas throughout their service under the C.D.B. within the meaning of Section 17 of the Superannuation Act, 1859." That means that their years of service in the C.D.B. will be treated as if they were years of service rendered for moneys voted by Parliament. That is a curious expression to put into a Superannuation Act, but I think it safeguards their rights to pension. The Superannuation Act gave other rights which, in my humble judgment, have been overlooked inadvertently by the Minister in the drafting of this Bill. A Civil Servant who dies, if he has been a Civil Servant for five years, has acquired the right that certain gratuities shall be paid to his dependents, and in the Gratuities Section of the Superannuation Act, the person entitled to these gratuities is defined, not by the source from which his emoluments were derived, whether voted by Parliament or not, but he is described as a male Civil Servant who has served for five years, and the same Statute by reference defines a male civil servant as a person who has served in an established capacity in the permanent Civil Service of the State. What I fear is, that the intention of the Minister, about which I have no doubt, may be defeated by the necessary performance of their duty by officers of other Ministries. If one of these people has the misfortune to die to-morrow, or even within a year or two after he has been taken over by the Land Commission, and the Minister submits to the Ministry of Finance an estimate providing for gratuities for dependants of that deceased C.D.B. clerk, it is the duty of the Treasury, and the duty I suppose of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to check every estimate that is submitted to them and to see that no payments are made which are not justified by Act of Parliament. They come to the Minister and say, "Where is your Act of Parliament which justifies your gratuity?" and he says, "Section 5 of the Land Law Commission Bill.""No," says the Minister for Finance, "Section 5 only justifies the payment of pensions to people who are deemed to have been Civil Servants, and who are deemed to have been paid out of moneys voted by Parliament, but they were not in fact, and no Act of Parliament deems them to have been persons serving in an established capacity in the permanent Civil Service of the State. Therefore, you can produce no Act of Parliament which justified the payment of gratuities that you have put down in your estimate." I am quite satisfied that the Minister will tell us that when he was taking these people over from the C.D.B. that he had no intention of depriving their dependants of the gratuity right, while he was giving the men themselves pensions. The difference between the Minister and myself about the Act of Parliament is, that in my humble judgment the Act of Parliament does not confer the right to these gratuities. If he tells us that, after taking all the advice that he could get from responsible advisers, he is completely satisfied that these rights are protected, and that he will resist this amendment, then I shall have to suffer the defeat that no doubt his voting power will inflict upon me; but I do, with all humble diffidence, submit to him that if he cannot point out that my amendment must hurt the Treasury, then I do respectfully suggest to him that he might accept it, because if he does, it will do the Treasury no harm, and it will give the safeguards which I still think the Act does not give.
There is no doubt it would be gilding refined gold, and attempting to add another colour to the rainbow for me to follow in support of Deputy Fitzgibbon's argument, but I would like to inform the Dáil as to how this amendment becomes necessary. The C.D.B. was founded by the Land Act of 1889, to which allusion is made in the definition clause, making it a corporate body, and giving the Board power to establish their staff on a pensionable basis. It is precisely on all fours as regards the constitution of its staff, and the remuneration of its officers, with the Intermediate Board Act. Now, it happened that Section 52 of the Act, which refers to pensions, says:—"The C.D.B. may, with the approval of the Treasury, make a scheme providing for the granting of pensions or gratuities according to scale, and subject to the conditions, so far as applicable, prescribed by the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1892, or any Act amending the same, to such officers or persons employed by them, not being otherwise pensionable, as may be from time to time approved by the Treasury, and the Board may pay to any such officers or persons out of the funds at their disposal such pensions and gratuities under the scheme as the Treasury may sanction in each case."
That was provided for in Section 52 of the Act of 1909, and it was not until 1920, 11 years afterwards, that the Board proceeded to put a pension scheme into operation. Then the Board discovered this difficulty. The words of the Section which I quoted to you are: "That the Board may pay such pensions or gratuities to such officers or persons employed by them." You will observe the limitation, the restriction in connection with the word "gratuities"—"shall pay such gratuities to such officers or persons employed by them." Consequently the right to a gratuity to be paid to the dependants of a deceased officer of the Congested Districts Board was not conferred and the Board were restricted by this legal limitation. What is desired is that in the transfer of these officers to the Land Commission they should be put upon a proper basis of Civil Servants so that the Superannuation Act, making it possible to pay gratuities to dependants of them on their decease, would be legal. The Intermediate Board did this for their officials in 1913, so that there is a precedent for it. It might be argued plausibly that Section 5 really carried out in regard to these officers the amendment required to put them on the same footing as the Intermediate Board officers were put in 1913. But the words here in Section 5 are: "shall be transferred to the employment and shall for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts be deemed to have been paid from moneys provided by Parliament throughout their service." That is to say, they are not to be deemed to have been paid out of the funds of the Board, but out of moneys provided by Parliament. The point at issue then is, will the legal effect of the terminology of the Act be that those officers who are deemed to have been paid from moneys provided by Parliament are consequentially given the status of Civil Servants? Deputy FitzGibbon argues, and I think convincingly, that it does not, because under the Superannuation Act of 1809, Section 7, grautities to dependants, as he quoted, are gratuities to dependants of male Civil Servants who have served five years, and Civil Servants for the purposes of that privilege are Civil Servants as defined in the prior Superannuation Act of 1887, and those are the Superannuation Acts referred to in this particular Clause—"the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919." Therefore, it is only by a species of logical deduction that we are to set these men on the status of Civil Servants so as to enjoy the advantages of the Superannuation Act. If there is no difference between us as regards intention and there is a loophole for legal difference; if an argument might be made that would persuade a Judge that, deemed to be paid out of a Parliamentary grant, as contrasted with actually having been paid out of the funds of a Board, merely provides a certain status that falls short of the full status of the Civil Service which carries the right to dependants' gratuity, then I think since there is no difference between the Minister and us as regards what he seeks to compass, it would be better to alter the terminology employed so as to make it beyond all doubt that in the transfer of the Congested Districts officers to the Land Commission they are being made what they ought to have been made at the very latest in 1913.
Deputy FitzGibbon fears that I will disagree with him and then vote him down. My position is that I will disagree with him and accept an amendment rather like this. I hold that that Section as it stands gives everything that I desire, and that Deputies Magennis and FitzGibbon desire. We all agree that under this Section these men will be placed in the Land Commission in a position in which they will get pensions, and there is some disagreement as to whether they are entitled to the gratuity. It is pointed out that they are not entitled to the gratuity unless they are permanent civil servants. We intend to establish them, to give a certificate of establishment to each of these pensionable officers on transferring them to the Land Commission, and that will effect the purpose. As Deputy Magennis has pointed out, if there is no difference between us, if we really mean to compass the same thing, there is no occasion to have any dispute, and I am quite prepared to accept an amendment to the following effect: To add at the end of Section 5 "and the pensionable service under the Congested Districts Board of such officers and persons as are pensionable pursuant to the provisions of any scheme made under Section 52 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, shall, for the purposes of Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1909, be deemed to have been service in the permanent Civil Service of the State." That, I think, meets the point of Deputy FitzGibbon.
Section 2 is the gratuity section?
Yes.
It sounds all right.
Is Deputy FitzGibbon withdrawing the amendment in favour of this?
I see that the Minister has the amendment prepared and that it is typewritten and probably it was prepared under legal advice. I am prepared to withdraw the original amendment in favour of this one. I will have an opportunity of reading it, and if I do not like it I can bring in an alteration on the Report Stage. It sounds all right.
Original amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
To prevent misunderstanding, I do not know that it has gone to the draughtsman's office, but I take it the spirit of the thing is accepted.
It seems to me to cover the point.
There is just one thing, we are following on British lines very closely and adopting all the verbiage and verbosity of British legal enactments. Why not state things in a simple, brief way, that the ordinary man would understand, instead of the intricate way so beloved of the draughtsmen?
Perhaps Deputy Magennis would suggest an alteration to meet the point.
The position now is, I take it, that Deputy FitzGibbon is withdrawing his amendment and that this amendment is going forward in his name. You cannot have a Minister proposing a Section and then an amendment to that Section.
I have intimated that I am willing to accept an amendment in that form. It is for Deputy FitzGibbon to decide.
I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and move the one read by the Minister. It is better to accept this special amendment now, as it will be printed in the Bill where we will have it before us.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move: To add a new Sub-section as follows:—
Upon the transfer to the employment of the Irish Land Commission of Officers of the Congested Districts Board the Minister for Agriculture, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, may make regulations providing for the appointment to the Executive class of the Civil Service of the State of pensionable officers who obtain such certificate of efficiency as may be required by the regulations, and for the appointment to the clerical class of the Civil Service of the State of all other pensionable clerical officers and non-pensionable clerical officers, and such regulations may provide that for the purposes of determining the salary and seniority of officers transferred and appointed as aforesaid their permanent service in the Civil Service of the State as provided by Sub-section (1) shall be taken into account, and their salaries adjusted according to such service, and that any increments which would have accrued in such service shall be paid retrospectively.
I feel that some apology is expected from me for bringing this single class before the Dáil so often, but the staff of the Congested Districts Board have been, I think, badly treated by the Board which is now being dissolved. I have no doubt they will receive sympathetic treatment from the Minister, but I should like, if possible, to secure for them some statutory protection rather than reliance upon mere sympathy. The object of this second amendment is shortly to put them in the position that they would have occupied if their former masters had carried out their promises in the bargain they made with their staff. This Board was formed in 1909, and it was stated that it was being organised on a Civil Service basis. The clerks who went in there passed the same examination that they had to pass to enter any other branch of the Civil Service and I do not suppose you at any rate will count it to their discredit, an additional subject, Irish, which was not demanded from the ordinary Civil Service clerks. Therefore, as to their qualifications, there can be no doubt. They were promised that they would be put on a Civil Service basis. It was stated that they were upon a Civil Service basis, and they were in all respects, as regards qualifications, service and everything else, except the rights as to pensions and promotion. The Minister has now, by the amendment, given them, I think, all those pensionable and gratuity rights, so far as I can judge, to which they would have been entitled. They have, however, for all these years, some since 1909, served in the Congested Districts Board, and some of them actually relinquished posts in the Civil Service to go to that Board, because they believed it would be on a Civil Service basis and because they believed their promotion might be better there. They served under the Board and find at the end that they have not moved up as they would have done if the Board had carried out its promises to place them on a Civil Service basis. The object of this amendment is to put them in the position they would have been in if the Board, which is now being dissolved, had carried out its obligations to them.
I have no doubt that if the Board had been brought under the control of the Minister those obligations would have been carried out long ago. I have no doubt that he would be anxious to do all that he could for them. But whether he is in a position to do so or not I have my doubts, and the object of this amendment is to make it lawful for him to do what his predecessors ought to have done but did not. The Dáil will observe it is permissible and that there is no compulsion about it. It empowers the Minister to make regulations, empowers the Minister to pay to the servants of the Congested Districts Board the rate of emolument they would have if the Congested Districts Board had carried out their obligations. I have done my best in this amendment to protect the Exchequer of the State against unfair payments and am merely asking to make provision for giving to those people the status they would have and the rights and emoluments they would have had if the Congested Districts Board had carried out its promises to them. It may be said where is the money? The answer to that is this: the Land Commission is taking over from the Congested Districts Board a sum of £100,000, or as I think, it is now £150,000. That money is earmarked without doubt for the purposes of the Congested Districts Board. But surely the first duty of that Board, if they still continued to exist, would be to pay their own obligations out of that fund to the servants by whose energy that fund was created. Therefore it seems to me there is no undue call upon outside finance to carry out the bargain made by the Congested Districts Board. They were getting their gratuity out of the funds at the disposal of the Board. I suggest to you that the first duty of the Board was to pay their own debts to their own servants out of the funds at their own disposal. Now that the Minister is taking over the funds of the Board I do suggest that he takes them over burdened with the obligations they possessed in the hands of the Board, of paying their own debts. That I suggest can be done out of the moneys taken over, and if so there is no unreasonable draft upon the general Exchequer of the State. They do not come upon the general taxpayer. They come, if the amendment is accepted, out of the fund that was earned by the energy of the servants of this Board. I respectfully submit this amendment to the Dáil's consideration.
The Minister for Finance smiled sardonically when the Deputy referred to some money that was being transferred with the Congested Districts Board's functions and officers. He should take the moneys subject to the equities. That surplus is a surplus because the promises and undertakings of the Congested Districts Board to their officers were never honoured. It seems cruel and harsh to begin an attack upon a body whose death is decreed and the transfer of whose assets is being arranged for. But I have here a document which shows that this Board, like the National Board in the language used incidentally with regard to a statement of mine by the Minister for Education, is now in a state of death-bed repentance. Here is the document by way of a death-bed repentance which was sent by the Congested Districts Board for Ireland to the Minister for Agriculture on the 10th May, 1923. It says, "it is a great relief to receive your assurance that the passing of the contemplated Bill will not in any way prejudice the position of the Board's existing staff, or of their officials who have been superannuated. But as regards their existing staff the Board desire to repeat their previous statement as to the relatively unfavourable scales of remuneration sanctioned many years ago for their officials when compared with the salaries approved upon reconstruction of all other analogous departments in Dublin."
Remember the Board itself being the guilty agent in the matter. The statement goes on:—"Proposals for improvment in this respect would have been submitted at the time when the status and salaries of the officials of other departments were being considered, but for the fact that the Board's officials were paid out of the Board's income, and not out of voted money"—a legal point made and passed by the Board itself when these officials were asking to be recognised as Civil Servants.
"It was obvious such an increase in salaries as might reasonably be anticipated would entail diminishing the funds applicable to the relief of congestion." The point was made by these gentlemen during the war, that because there was a war they could not entertain the claims for proper consideration put forward by the office, and yet they had one and a half millions of money invested at the time, over and above their annual income.
I continue to read this death-bed wail, and believe that the Ministry should have a better sense of justice and equity than has animated the writers. "It was obvious such an increase in salaries as might reasonably be anticipated would entail diminishing the funds applicable to the relief of congestion." They did not unduly diminish the funds, for the surplus to which Deputy FitzGibbon referred, of nearly one hundred and fifty thousand pounds, is to the good, being handed over.
I quote further:—"And the Board, therefore, felt unable to encroach on the amount, little enough, available for their projects. Now, however, as their staff will be transferred to reconstituted departments, the Board suggests, for the consideration of yourself and the Ministry of Finance, whether an introduction of the proposed Bills does not afford a suitable opportunity to legislate for the regulation of the status and salaries of the Board's staffs, or, at all events, for the insertion of a clause that the transferred officials shall, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Finance, be entitled to such status and salaries as have been sanctioned for the departments to which they may respectively be transferred. The Board feels very strongly that obligations to their meritorious staff compel them to urge upon the Government the justice of placing their officials in line with those of other departments, whose position has already been dealt with and approved."
Now, from the brief which I have, I should like to inform you of what exactly is proposed in the amendment. In 1911 there was a reorganisation of the clerical staff of the C.D. Board, and the result of that was, that a scheme of salaries was arranged similar to those provided for Second Class Clerks in the Civil Service. That does not mean that those officials were deemed to be Second Class Civil Servants. They were merely remunerated at a scale similar to that provided for Second Division Clerks. Now, here were the salaries: third grade goes to a maximum of £130; second grade rises from £130 to £200. At these two points, as you are aware, in the Civil Service there are placed what are called efficiency barriers; in other words, promotion is not automatic. It is conditional upon a report from the head of the Department declaring that the character and the efficiency of the man who is rising to this maximum are satisfactory. Upon that report, he moves into the higher grade, and rises then until he reaches the next efficiency barrier. That is the arrangement in the Civil Service. These unhappy officials of the C.D.B. thought that though they were not Civil Servants technically because they were paid out of the funds of the Board and not out of a grant voted by Parliament, yet they were, so far as salaries and promotions were concerned, to be dealt with upon the same lines. Mr. Micks, by the way, in his evidence before the Civil Service Commission of 1913, declared they had established scales of pay which brought their establishment on a Second Division basis. Mr. Micks declared that his Board had brought the establishment on a Second Division basis, but when the time arose for promotion, in the mode arranged for in the Civil Service, it was declared that no vacancy existed in the Second Grade, and because there was no vacancy there could be no move up. This seems like a point of metaphysics. There was no vacuum. It was a congested district; in fact, as the Minister for Agriculture suggests, in the C.D. Board it would be a congested district if the move up were made. The contention of the officials concerned was that they should have the scheme applied to them which operates in the Civil Service, and curiously enough two officials were promoted to the Second Grade after a great deal of contention.
To relieve congestion.
That was done, notwithstanding all the protestations of the Board. They created a sense of grievance in the others who were barred. "In June, 1918, the Board definitely limited the number of clerks for each Grade, the effect of which was to take away the prospects of promotion held out earlier." A more important thing, much more important, in which the Congested Districts Board did not follow upon the lines parallel to those of the Civil Service, was with respect to the staff reorganisation on Whitley lines. Now, according to staff reorganisation on Whitley lines, a certain number of graded clerks would have been made Executive officers. We had the point raised, you will recollect, with regard to the estimates for public education. There were two divisions there in the office of Primary or National education, of lower Executive clerks and upper Executive clerks, and I think it was Deputy Johnson who raised the question as to how many women were in the lower Executive division.
Higher.
Even in the lower the Board refused to apply the staff reorganisation on Whitley lines. The result is that none of these officers was moved up into an Executive position, and that puts them in a very bad position when they come over to be part of the new reconstituted Land Commission for then they are men who passed an examination, which, as Deputy FitzGibbon pointed out, is precisely that which the others, who will become their colleagues, have passed with the addition of Irish. They have much more years of service than some of these men, yet, because of this non-application of the Whitley reorganisation they will be in a very much inferior position. They remain the only pensionable class in the Civil Service who receive no benefit whatever out of the Whitley reconstruction scheme. Now practically these are the losses which they have suffered — the annual increment of salary within the limits of £150 and £300; substantial cash payment which was made to the Civil Servants generally under the Whitley Report; special increments of salary which followed the application of the Whitley Report, and which have been in operation since January, 1920. Briefly then, the purport of the amendment is, that these Congested Districts Board officials shall not go into the newly constituted Land Commission and remain Cinderellas. They have been long enough in this outer darkness of oppression — Civil Servants not Civil Servants. I think that this will appeal, even to the Minister for Finance, that as there is a fund out of which these long overdue increments can be paid they ought to be paid out of it. I may regard this as loot on the part of the Board made out of the blood and service of these men whom they penalised. As regards the grading you will hardly have satisfactory service from these men — I am not speaking with any intention of a threat and I hope I am not using an unhappy form of words, but I am using the ordinary kind of speculation and the ordinary kind of prophecy that humanity is entitled to make. You will not have a happy family made up of two sets of Civil Servants, one with a decided grievance, the other with none, and both called upon to discharge the same work in the service of the State. Therefore it seems to me it makes for good administration to consider well the grievances of these men and to remedy them.
After the very eloquent appeal made by Deputy FitzGibbon and Deputy Magennis, I think the heart of the Minister, if it ever has been hard, is considerably softened. Deputy Magennis read a document from the old Board which, although under the British regime, was, strange to say, composed wholly of Irishmen. That document, which I have had the pleasure of reading, is one of these documents typical of the the old regime, overflowing with sympathy and regret that they did not do what they should have done. I am not going to read it again, but there are many things in it which, if carried out by the Minister, would make him do quite the opposite to that which they appeal for in the last paragraph. The document has been sent to the Minister, and I understand that representations have been made to him with regard to these grievances by representatives of the very small number of men affected. Yesterday, apparently, a document was issued by the Secretary to the Board warning members of the staff regarding the question of canvassing T.D.'s and others. I do not know whether there is very much in that, but it would appear from that that they were afraid the Staff would state their case in a way that would secure it being remedied. I am not assuming that the Minister is unsympathetic to the amendment moved by Deputy FitzGibbon. It has been stated, I believe, that this is a legacy that is being handed over by the British administration. No doubt we have had many legacies handed over by the British administration which we would like to get rid of and forget, but I think that this one, at any rate, is one which the Minister would not like to take over without, at least, giving it very serious consideration as to the consequences of not remedying what appears to be a serious injustice. Deputy Magennis has harped upon the danger of taking over a staff which is no doubt very much discontented. I happened to know, not recently but for a long time, that many members of the Congested Districts Board staff were men associated with the Gaelic movement, and many of them suffered during the period of the Anglo-Irish war. I am not stating that to influence the mind of the Minister in coming to a decision on the point, but I think it has some bearing on the question, especially as these men feel that they are suffering under a grievance. I know some of these men personally and, to be quite frank, I know that they are in debt. One man got married on the assumption that at a certain period of his life, when his responsibility would increase, he would have a certain salary, but he assures me that his wife is threatening a divorce for having married her under false pretences. I am sure the Minister would not like any member of his staff taken over and dealt with by the public courts for such a very serious matter. The members of this old Board who were apparently very anxious to put off the evil day were regretting their treatment of these men, giving as reasons from time to time that the European war was not over and that the men on active service had not returned to duty. It is possible that many of them did not return. Perhaps they thought the whole of them would not come back.
"The Pension scheme was not settled, the time was not opportune"; that is a very vague term. "The Whitley Council was not set up," and last, but not least, "the change in the Government of Ireland." They foresaw that development, and foresaw a time when an Irish Minister, such as the Minister for Agriculture, would deal with them in a more just manner than that in which they were prepared to deal with them. Professor Magennis has referred to the fact that the status of the individuals concerned, and there are only about 80 altogether, was admitted to be that of a Second Division status. I have not the Blue Book before me, and I have not read the Blue Book, but giving evidence before the Royal Commission of 1913, Mr. Micks was questioned with regard to it. I will read a little of the contents. "You have an established scale of pay placing your establishment on a Second Division basis?""Yes.""If your claim to bring your clerks on the establishment were granted it would practically establish a Second Division in your office?""Certainly. Our hope and aim is to have all our staff on the grade and salary of a Second Division." That proves what he was prepared to admit before the Commission but not to carry out in practice. That is, in fact, the real position so far as these men are concerned. One can see there is a distinction between an Extern Minister responsible to this Dáil on the one hand and the Minister for Finance on the other, and one can also see especially when one can see as I do, that there is a tight grip of the hidden hand of the old Ministry that we knew so much about in the old days, behind this. The Minister is responsible to this Dáil directly, and I would ask him if there is any difference between his own view and that of the Minister for Finance, he should submit the matter to a free vote of this Dáil. The Minister has on many occasions, to my knowledge, said hard things, but the worst he says to us here is the very opposite to what he would say to us outside. I mean to say he would say it in a different form. I am sure, from documents in my possession that the carrying out of the obligation can be covered by the amount of £14,900. That amount of £14,900 is asked out of the surplus of £153,000 which is taken over from the C.D.B. by the Minister. I think, taking all the circumstances into consideration, and claiming, as I do, that the contract of service has been broken in this case, the Minister might be agreeable to set such a small amount out of the surplus when taking over the clerical staffs of those Departments. If he has any doubts, and wishes to free himself from the responsibility of committing his department to such a question of this kind, I hope he may submit the matter for the free decision of the members.
I have listened to a portion of this debate with a considerable amount of curiosity. I feel that the staff likely to be installed in the future will probably comprise four classes; you will have the Cinderellas, the two classes through whose services we have arrived at our present position, and those who were passive, if not more so, during that period. I do not envy the position of the Minister who is going to attempt to reconcile that position with the economic interests of this country. I think, with regard to the arguments brought forward by Professor Magennis on behalf of those officials, that it is a technical difference that prevents them from having exactly the same status as Civil Servants.
Now, it is just these technical difficulties that the local bodies at the present time are taking full advantage of, and we have got to take full advantage of that for economical purposes in the same way with regard to this amendment, which really deals with the economics of the position. The Minister for Finance is right in his position when he stands up for economies. Otherwise you will have a military victory turned into an economic defeat. If every official is allowed to have a certain status assigned to him and get the same pensionable rights, I think we would be doing a disastrous thing to the country. The country can very ill afford to bear this burden and leave this legacy behind, and the country will deal with us if we do any thing of the sort.
I cannot accept this amendment, in fact I am not quite sure what it means. The idea of the amendment is to give power to the Minister for Finance, and to the Minister who is responsible for the department, to create pensionable officers of the Congested Districts Board in the clerical and executive classes of the Land Commission. We have power to do that already. The suggestion now is that all the pensionable officers and non-pensionable officers should be graded and established. That is a suggestion that could not and would not be carried out. There are non-established officers in every department, temporary non-established officers in every department, in the Department of Agriculture, in the Land Commission, in Education, in every department, and I can say one thing offhand, that all the temporary clerks of the Congested Districts Board will not be established, just as all the temporary clerks in the Land Commission will not be established. But the Minister for Finance and the Minister who is responsible for the Land Commission have ample powers to establish any clerical or pensionable officer in the Congested Districts Board, and what more is wanted? That is the reason I say I do not understand the amendment. I do not know what more is wanted. I take it that no one would suggest that every temporary clerk in the Congested Districts Board should be established as a civil servant and that you would make a new grievance, namely, that all the temporary clerks in the Land Commission would say "Why would we not also be established?" If you do not want every clerk in the Congested Districts Board established then the position is quite clear. The Ministry of Finance have power to establish any officer that they wish and they will take the merits of each case into account. They will take the length of service, efficiency and every other consideration which the head of the department and the Establishment Branch of the Ministry of Finance take into account when they are thinking of promoting an officer. They have that power already for that purpose. This does not help us one bit except, of course, that it is a very unsound principle to put into an Act of Parliament to try to confine in an Act of Parliament the discretion that is purely executive and administrative. With regard to these men I may say that all the pensionable officers of the Congested Districts Board will be established in the Land Commission and a number of temporary officers in the Congested Districts Board will be promoted when they come over to us, just as there will be promotions in the Land Commission, but they will get as fair a chance as the existing staff of the Land Commission, or of any other Government department, and all the circumstances of the case, their previous service, the efficiency of their service, everything, will be taken into account in the ordinary way to deal with these matters, and more you cannot do.
Might I ask, if it is not an unfair interruption, does that promise go further than that merely they will get into the Land Commission as civil servants of the lowest grade and will then, in the new Land Commission, work their way up?
Certainly.
Is the promise merely that by service and efficiency in the future they will get promotion in the future, and does it exclude the undertaking to them now as from the date of transfer, where they ought to have been placed if they had been dealt with fairly on the whole?
Does it mean that on transfer the Minister has power to set right the things that have been wrong, any injustice that these men have been suffering from, that they will now get retrospective pay and conditions of service which they should have got according to the promise that was made but was not observed?
I take it that the Minister for Finance has power to make them all Higher Executive Officers if he wishes.
The point is that they have been wronged out of certain conditions of service. Will that be made right?
I thought I made it clear that when a Minister for Finance tackles the question he will take into account all the relevant circumstances, their length of service under the Board previously, the actual quality of the service that they gave, and so on, and will take it, if I may go so far as to say, in a sympathetic way.
I mean now or hereafter?
Certainly. I should say that the Minister for Finance would take into account the service that they have had under the Board. Even this Act provides that their previous pensionable service shall be taken into account. It will be open for the establishment to consider all the relevant circumstances, their treatment in the Congested Districts Board, the services they gave in the Congested Districts Board, the length of service, efficiency of service, the class of work they were doing and all the other consideration that are usually taken into account when questions like that are gone into. It will come to this, that their service in the Congested Districts Board will be regarded as their service, let us say, in the Department of Agriculture will be regarded; they will get credit for it, I take it. I cannot accept this amendment under any circumstances. With regard to the circular which Deputy Davin read, complaining that these officers were lobbying in the House, I may say that I am responsible for that circular. I have been looking at them now for three weeks, and they seem to be spending most of their time here in the Dáil button-holding Deputies as they come out in the lobby. That, in my opinion, is a grossly unsound principle to recognise, that officers of the State should come here to the Dáil, day after day, and collar Deputies outside in the lobby, and canvass and generally worry and bother them. There is a right time and a wrong time to do that sort of thing, and certainly they got ample time to do all the propaganda and all the organising they require, and as far as I have anything to do with them I will certainly not stand for any more of that. They seem to spend more time here than at their work.
There is one point I would like to put before the Minister, and it draws his attention directly to a certain wording in the amendment. He has stated quite correctly the obvious truth, that if the Minister for Finance or the Establishment Section of that Department of the Ministry, desire to promote or sanction the promotion of any person taken over that way, it has the liberty and right to do it. Nobody is questioning that at all. The question is rather that the amendment lays down quite clearly that certain rights which should have been earned, were earned and, in fact, were recognised as having been earned by the Board, should now be taken over. The words are that their salary should be adjusted according to such services, just as salaries should be adjusted in the service in which they were, just the same as if that service had been service in the ordinary Civil Service, which it was for all practical purposes recognised to be by every person. It is a matter of plain, simple equity. You might be able in this regard by not giving that recognition to make, as Deputy McGoldrick suggests, a certain economy, but I think that is not the worthiest suggestion to put before the Dáil. I think what we ought to recognise is, if it is an honourable commitment in the change that we are about to make that we should accept it and acquit ourselves of it. That is as I understand the meaning of the words used by Deputy Fitzgibbon.
I am in a difficulty about this amendment. Is it correct to state that this amendment gives no power to the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance that these Ministers, either separately or jointly, do not already possess?
I rather think that the last three lines give powers that they do not already possess, and give a distinct addition to the powers they profess to claim, that they make certain regulations, and in making these regulations they may provide for a repayment of money that they would not otherwise be entitled to give. I confess that I am not myself very experienced in the details of Civil Service regulations, but when I framed the amendment I was of opinion that that was the power which required to be specifically conferred in dealing with public funds.
May I answer the point so far as I am able? It does look as if from what the Minister for Agriculture says, that the first part may make regulations for payment to the Executive class of the Civil Service, which is proposing what they can already do. They can do that to men who are already Civil Servants of the State. The Minister for Agriculture may have overlooked that. The Minister for Finance may settle that by the Whitley Reorganisation Scheme as regards men who are Civil Servants. But these men are not Civil Servants, and our object here is that they shall be Civil Servants once the transfer takes place. Therefore, I dissent from the view of the Minister for Agriculture that it proposes to give them powers which they already have.
As I have already stated we have power to make a higher executive officer of every officer of the Congested Districts Board if we wish. I think that is clear. That applies to every officer, and it is entirely at the discretion of the Ministers. None of them are Civil Servants at the moment. They can be taken over and established, and they will get Civil Service certificates when established. As far as I know there is power to make a higher executive officer of every officer now in the Congested Districts Board, but that is not going to be done. There must be discretion. We have all these powers already.
I may be particularly stupid. All I gather clearly is: there is power to make an executive class officer, provided that and this is a condition precedent that the officer in question is an established Civil Servant. However, what we desire to have is that these men should become established Civil Servants on the transfer. I agree that once that has been done then the rest is unnecessary, because the provision is for it.
If an officer is an unestablished officer, I take it that the Minister for Agriculture in consultation with the Minister for Finance has power to make him an established Civil Servant. Is that right?
Yes.
And having made him an established Civil Servant he can make him anything he likes after that.
They must pass through the Civil Service door.
I would remind the President there is no Civil Service door.
Well, there is going to be one. We cannot give an estimate that we have not got. This list would involve a certain expenditure not provided for, and no proceedings that have taken place here have given any indication of an intention to provide an estimate.
The estimated expenditure is just £23,000, and the suggested adjustment by the Whitley reorganisation would bring it down to £11,000.
The Minister has admitted that, subject to certain conditions, which we all know, that certain men who have certain qualifications will become Executive Officers as from the date of the transfer. The point at issue is, whether or not they are going to be compensated for positions they have lost during the past period. If the conditions of Second Division Clerks were given to them and they got into a certain class at the time they were not entitled to, and because they have not got that, is the Minister empowered or prepared to make provision at the date of transfer? The cost of paying the claims of the graded staff would be approximately: Arrears of Increments (and War Bonus thereon) to 1st January, 1920, £2,500; Arrears of increments arising out of assimilation as from 1st January, 1920, £23,700; overtime earned from 1st January, 1920, which under the terms of the Whitely Report is refundable by Executive Officers, £5,500; allowances given by Board to married clerks for children, £3,700; income tax, £2,100, which makes it appear that there is a sum of £14,900 due to the individuals concerned.
But is it due?
You took over the service of these people from the C.D.B. and also the money of the Board with them. The money that you have taken over was intended to make provision for the Terms of Service which these people have been denied in the way I have explained.
I would like to get this Section finished this evening if possible. I hope it is quite clear we have power to establish any officer who comes over to us and is not established. I take it that dispute is closed. I do not remember the figures Deputy Davin read out, but he mentioned £20,000 and I think £10,000, and so on.
Does the Minister intend to go on beyond 8.30?
No, but I want to make it quite clear that we make no promise that we will be liable for either alleged or real loss suffered in the past.
Bad points made in a hurry are always and ever the worst points, and the worst point that ever was made by the Treasury is that they would want a financial resolution for this. We commenced by passing a financial resolution authorising the expenditure of money, and retrospective payments can only be made with the sanction of the Minister for Finance and there is no need for a further resolution.
The Deputy must have misunderstood me. I said an estimate, not a resolution.
Supplementary estimates can always be brought in.