I beg to move the first amendment, which is purely a drafting amendment, improving the grammar:—
In page 6, section 13 (2), line 15, to delete the words "and giving" and substitute therefor the words "to give."
ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE. - CORONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1926—FOURTH STAGE.
I am not objecting to the taking up of this Bill. With the exception of the section to which I have submitted an amendment, there is nothing very contentious in the measure. I would like to suggest, however, that all Bills, seeing they may contain contentious matter, ought to be circulated in sufficient time to allow Deputies to study them. This Bill was not handed to me until this afternoon, just as I came into the Dáil. I hope that such a proceeding will not be taken as a precedent in future.
Does the Deputy say that the Bill was given to him just as he came into the Dáil?
Yes, the copy of the Bill, as amended in Committee, was handed to me as I came into the Dáil.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move the following amendment: "In page 7 to delete Section 18." I must preface my remarks with an apology to the House for moving the amendment at this stage. I did not anticipate that I would have to do so. The Bill was introduced in the Seanad and I was under the impression that everything would have been all right.
That ancient House!
Yes, that ancient House. However, everything was not all right. I would ask Deputies to focus attention on the implications and provisions in Section 18:
(1) Within twelve months from the date of the passing of this Act every council having power to appoint a coroner shall, subject to the approval of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, revise the salaries payable to the coroner or coroners appointed by such council: provided that the salary payable to a coroner holding office at the date of the passing of this Act shall in no case be diminished.
I think there are in Section 18 principles which we cannot very well admit, either at the moment or even at any time. The proposal here is that the salaries of coroners should be revised. There is a proviso, but the principle is that the salaries are to be revised. There are really two provisos, and the revision must be subject to the approval of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, but in no case can the salaries be reduced. In other words, bureaucracy can take the sovereign people of the country into court and tell them, in effect, "It is heads we win and tails you lose." I do not think that is a desirable principle to introduce in our legislation. Have the people of the country got no rights? In the office of coroner, or any other public position, no man is compelled, coerced or conscripted. The people in those positions take up office of their own free will. Some of us are very well aware of the canvassing and the intrigues in order to get these public jobs.
I did not think there were any.
Oh!
I was thinking of the Deputy's remarks on the Local Authorities Appointments Act.
The Deputy never said a word on the Local Authorities Appointments Act.
His party.
Yes.
The principle contained in this section is that when the coroners have their salaries revised it means they are increased subject to the approval of the Minister. What case has been put up for increasing salaries? I put two questions on to-day's Order Paper in order to elicit information. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health had not the full details, but he told me that the average salary was from £30 to £250 per annum. I asked whether special fees in respect of inquests and travelling expenses were given, and the Minister for Justice had no information, neither had the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
A case ought to be made why these salaries should be raised. I could give cogent reasons why at the present time the country cannot afford to increase any national or local taxation. What is the effect of this going to be in the country where local authorities are confronting tremendous odds, where they are coping with former enactments which safeguard local officers, and where the capacity to pay on the part of the people demands that revision must be made in the light of the present economic situation? I claim that this section runs counter to all that big principle, and that the many are subordinated to the interests of the few. I think that should not be so. The taxpayer must have some consideration, and it is our bounden duty to get some justice for him. When we ask to have the section deleted, we are leaving the salaries as they are. We have no evidence that the coroners made any demand for an increase of salary. Quite irrespective of that, and independent of that, the Bill proposes to make it obligatory upon local bodies to revise the salaries in the sense of an increase. That is not a fair proposition. With prices for farm produce generally down to pre-war, I should like to find a justification for such a section as this. It may be said that this is a small thing— that from an actuarial point of view the burden that it will impose on the people may not be very much—but the principle behind it is so big that we certainly could not let such a proposition go unchallenged. What is to prevent other bodies of local employees, or even civil servants, getting a Bill like this carried through the Seanad in this way to get their position stereotyped, and to make it obligatory upon local authorities or the Government to revise salaries in the sense of increase? I say it is a dangerous principle to admit.
Of course, I am aware, and the Minister is aware, that you can never establish a precedent in wrong-doing, but will you get that readily established down the country? If we pass this Bill as it stands, will not local authorities say that their efforts to effect economies are thwarted by the inclusion of such a section? There is no justification put forward for the increasing of coroners' salaries. Their job is only a part-time one at most, thank God for the peace and good name of the country they are not given jobs every day. Why should we pass a section like this when there are no further duties imposed upon coroners? I have yet to have it established that they do not get fees in respect of every inquest in the shape of travelling expenses. I say that it is not a fair thing, with the people struggling to live as they are, that this provision should be put in. It may be said that we can safely leave the matter in the hands of the Minister for Local Government. But the Dáil is shirking its own responsibility, and it should not put the responsibility on the Minister for Local Government in regard to the fixing of these salaries. It ought to be wide awake to its own representative position, and as such it should not admit the principle contained in this section and should reject it.
Deputy Hogan has, as we are well aware, a vivid imagination, and occasionally he gives rein to it. This evening, under the magic of that imagination, the Clare County Council became the sovereign people, being led into the dock by a bureaucratic junta. A county council—coming down to mere prose and the facts of the situation—is elected on a very much more restricted franchise than the franchise on which the Dáil is elected, and why a county council should be the sovereign people in contra-distinction to a bureaucratic junta, which is a Government elected by the Dáil, which in turn is elected on an adult suffrage basis, I really do not know, and probably Deputy Hogan would take too long to explain it. But his objection to the section is that this bureaucratic junta is dictating to the sovereign people, in the shape of the Clare County Council, an increase in the salary of a particular officer. In fact it is not. Quite apart from nicknames, the fact is not that any increase is being dictated. The duty is imposed on them of reviewing, reconsidering, bringing expressly before them, the question of the coroner's salary. Then, if a coroner is aggrieved, by the neglect or refusal of a council to revise his salary, pursuant to sub-section (1) he may appeal to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who shall thereupon, after consultation with the Minister for Justice, fix the salary at such rate as he thinks proper—not necessarily a higher rate, not necessarily a different rate, but at such a rate as he thinks proper. The sole effect of the section is to provide a protection for a particular officer against the type of mind which says that because farm produce is down to the pre-war figure—incidentally this is an additional lie——
What are cattle at present?
I am speaking of farm produce generally. It is untrue to say it is down to the 1914 figure.
It is below it.
It is from 30 to 40 per cent. above it. The type of mind that throws out the phrase that farm produce is down to the 1914 figure and we will not allow anyone to live except ourselves——
It is down to the figure of 1914 for farmers.
Even though farm produce were down to the 1914 basis, a man is entitled to be paid for work done.
Hear, hear, even farmers.
I am glad the Deputy is enthusiastic. The Minister for Local Government is in a position of responsibility to the Dáil. It is absurd to talk in mere perfervid rhetoric about bureaucratic juntas. He is, in fact, in a much more responsible position than the Clare County Council, or any county council, and under this section any order he makes fixing a salary is open to the fullest criticism. I should think that even the Deputy would recognise that he is not going to intervene to use the powers conferred by that particular section unless the case is very strong indeed——
Why throw the onus on him?
Unless the particular county council is so utterly unreasonable, so utterly out of accord with the average standard prevailing up and down through the other counties of the State—that there is a compelling case for him to intervene to do equity. I cannot agree with the Deputy's amendment proposing to delete the section. He says, "Why throw the onus on him?" Because, unfortunately, cases have come under his notice, as I think they have come under the notice of all of us, where the local bodies through the country, rushing in a panicky way, without much sense of perspective, from one extreme to the other, have endeavoured to strike rates for officers at one time or another that were very far from being an adequate remuneration for their services, and a section of this kind in the Bill is required in the light of those facts. It is not by injustice, it is rather by a general, careful stewardship that economies will be effected and should be effected. But it is no substitute for that general, careful, prudent stewardship to turn round panic-stricken and try to take it all out of the skin of some unfortunate official and to say: "Because we have been reckless, because we have been improvident, because we have been extravagant, you shall work for half pay."
I do not think, however fluent the language of the Minister, that he has explained away the position or the application of the terms contained in the clause. It says: "Every council having power to appoint a coroner shall, subject to the approval of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, revise the salaries." What is the meaning of the word "revision"? If revision can only mean change in one direction, then the word is not used in its proper application. I do not know what is in the mind of the Minister for Justice when he seeks to right an imaginary wrong. If it is the real wrong, I know nothing about it. I am not aware of any case where the man is paid half salary for work done. I think I can see in all this the finger of someone representing one or other of the professions. I think we are beginning to realise that the professions have their thumb upon the throat of the taxpayer. Especially have they raised the standard during the years of the war, when money was flowing all over the country. That position is not only now being stabilised, but a provision is sought to be made for revision with a view to an increase.
The Minister for Justice sneered at the prices of agricultural produce now, and the prices in 1914. He made a haphazard statement that prices are 30 or 40 per cent. higher now than they were then. But he omitted—and whether it was a studied omission or not I am not in a position to say—to mention the cost of national upkeep since 1914, and the percentage by which it was raised, and, also, he omitted to mention by what percentage the taxes were increased. He has not told us by what per cent. the cost of labour and machinery and the upkeep of the farm have increased. He has omitted all the other things that weigh equally in the balance with what he described as 30 or 40 or 50 per cent. increase in prices. He omitted to say that all this extra cost that we did not have in 1914 has turned the scale, and has put the farmer in a position in which he is 50 per cent. worse off than he was in 1914.
In 1914 the farmers knew where they were. I speak from experience. They knew what their profits and their taxes were to be, and the country never was in a position of greater security than it was in 1914. The boom years of the war did not give us security. They gave us wealth, but they did not give us security, and we are reaping the whirlwind. I say that this section of the professional classes are trying to set up a standard that we cannot afford. The principle is wrong, and it may be too late when the Minister comes to realise the position that has been brought about by it.
I wish also to support this amendment moved by Deputy Hogan. I think he has put the case fairly before the House. This revision, or so-called revision, set up by the Minister is a one-sided affair. If this revision is to be made it will certainly be a revision that will not be detrimental to the person holding the office of coroner at present. They are given quite a free hand. Every coroner in the country to-day could appeal to the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Local Government with safety on the question of salary, because the salary could not be in any way reduced under this provision, and if it was not increased it must at least be left as it is. Coroners would take their chance and go to the Minister in the hope that they would get an increase.
Does the state of the country warrant such increases to-day? Are the people called upon to pay to have no word whatever in fixing the salaries of these gentlemen? That is left to the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Local Government, the people dare not raise a finger, and even if these salaries are extravagant they cannot decrease them. They must either increase the salary or leave it as it is. This is the most unfair section which could be put into a Bill, and I certainly will support the amendment moved by Deputy Hogan for its deletion.
I think Deputy Hogan is to be commended on having drawn the attention of the Dáil to this section. The Minister made a case in opposition to the amendment that there is no obligation here to raise salaries. I imagine he is reading the word "revise" in perhaps its original meaning as being "to look at it again." It is quite obvious that in this section it means that there is to be a change in the salary and that that change must be upwards. There is also a contradiction in the section. The section in the third part of it seems to suggest the possibility that the salary should remain where it is, but the first part says there shall be revision and that the salary shall not be diminished. In effect that practically says there must be a change, and a change upwards. I would like somebody defending the section to tell us what the range of salary for coroners is and whether it is merely a honorarium or a retaining fee or how it is at present fixed. Someone in charge of the Bill should be able to give information upon this question.
Supposing this section is deleted, what harm is done to the Bill? There is nothing to prevent the coroner approaching the county council and nothing to prevent the county council submitting a case to the Minister for Local Government. If the section is deleted all that is removed from the Bill is the compulsion that the salary shall be revised upwards subject to appeal to the Minister. I think the deletion of this section is not going to do any harm to anybody and might do a good deal of good.
It does undoubtedly involve principle that we should be asked to approve of automatic changes in salary without having any information as to what the salaries are for, how they are fixed and upon what scale they are based. It is an unfortunate suggestion that we should be asked to vote this automatic increase without having any knowledge of the facts in regard to coroners' salaries, and inasmuch as there can be no harm done to any coroner by deleting this and in the absence of any justification for its retention I shall vote for its deletion.
You have to understand what the Bill sets out to do. It is, in fact, a codification of the law bearing on the coroner's position. It establishes the office and proceeds to lay down the statutory conditions governing it. In this section it provides that, within a year from the passing of the Act, the salary of the coroner shall, as I interpret it, come under review. If I find on investigation that I am wrong in believing that the language of this section involves anything more than an examination of the salary of the coroner, I am prepared to bring forward the necessary amendment.
You will be too late, as this is the Report Stage.
I did not realise that. At that rate, I am prepared to leave this Bill over for investigation as to whether the effect of the section is to impose, and necessarily to impose, an increase. If it is, I would not stand for it myself, but I take it that the effect of the language of the section is simply to necessitate a review and an examination of the salaries paid to the coroners in the various counties, and to put it within the power of any officer dissatisfied with the result of such examination to appeal to the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Justice. But let us suppose for a moment that the effect of the language is as I state. You are establishing this office and you are wiping out all prior legislation bearing on it; you are, in fact, setting up an office now in the Free State, and in the course of your Bill doing that it is laid down that there should be within a year an examination of the salary paid to the coroner with a view to seeing whether, in fact, it is an adequate return for the duties imposed by this Bill.
To see if it is too high.
Deputies know that there is in the course of the Bill a tightening-up and a clearer definition of the duties of the office.
Is there an increase in the duties of the coroner?
I have no doubt that the result of the Bill will be a necessary increase in the duties of the coroner, and in the light of that it is said that within a year, when the effect of the Bill, and so on, is fully demonstrated, there should be an examination of the salary paid to this officer clearly with a view to seeing whether he is in receipt of adequate remuneration for work done, and then he is given an appeal in the event of his being dissatisfied with the result of such examination. I will meet Deputies to this extent, and only to this extent, that if I find the effect of the language is to impose an increase, and not merely to necessitate an examination, I will see that the language is altered; but if I am right, and if the only effect of the section is to make it necessary for the county councils through the country within the year to bring under consideration the salary of this officer, and to provide him with an appeal from the result of such consideration, then I would not alter the Bill at all. If, as Deputy Johnson and Deputy Hogan seem to think, this section says there must be an increase before there is any examination of the result of the Act, whether in fact it does mean an increased volume of work for the officer or not, then I would not stand over that. What I propose now to the Dáil is to leave this Bill, which cannot be considered in any sense an urgent Bill, over until Tuesday next with a view to a more careful examination of the section, and of making quite sure what the language involves. If Deputy Hogan is right in his interpretation of the section, then I would circulate an amendment simply imposing the necessity for an examination, so that the item shall, so to speak, come before the county councils within a year. They will decide then in the light of the work which the coroner is actually doing what they consider adequate remuneration. If he is dissatisfied with that, he has first an appeal, not to the Minister for Local Government alone, or to myself alone, but to the Minister for Local Government in consultation with the Minister for Justice. As I say, there would need to be a strong case for the officer before any Minister who must stand criticism in the Dáil, and before the public would intervene to use the powers conferred by this section. But Deputies should not shut their minds to the possibility that there might be a strong case, and a very strong case, for the officer, and that there have been, not too frequently, indeed, but there have been quite sufficiently frequently, cases to warrant the introduction of this section—cases where local bodies proposed to flagrantly underpay officials simply in a kind of blind——
Give us the instances.
The Deputy knows that I have not got the files of provincial newspapers beside me.
I do not think you will find cases of the kind in the provincial papers for the last fifty years.
I think if I referred the Deputy to the Minister for Local Government he would admit that there have been such cases: cases where local bodies simply in a blind and haphazard reaction from a fairly serious financial position turned around and proposed to ridiculously underpay officials.
Why did the officials accept the underpay?
These are imaginary cases.
I suppose the officials accepted it bowing to the sovereign people. I now move that we do not proceed with this Bill until Tuesday next.
Ordered: "That the Report Stage of the Bill be adjourned to Tuesday, 14th December."