Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Nov 1932

Vol. 44 No. 8

Vote No. 41—Local Government and Public Health.

Mr. MacEntee

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £109,001 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1933, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí maraon le Deontais agus Costaisí eile a bhaineann le Tógáil Tithe Deontaisí d'Udaráis Aitiúla agus Ildeontaisí i gCabhair, agus costaisí áirithe bhaineann le hOspidéil.

That a sum not exceeding £109,001 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities and sundry Grants-in-Aid, and certain charges connected with Hospitals.

General Mulcahy

There is just one matter of rather cardinal importance that I should like to mention on this Estimate. Last week I asked the Minister, in regard to certain road tenders, whether he had instructed any local authority to accept a tender that was not the lowest tender, and he replied to the effect that in one particular case in the City of Dublin he had instructed the city authorities to accept a tender for a piece of roadwork—£15,495 as against a tender for £12,833, that is an increase of about £2,660, and he stated:

Do shocruíos, i gcás connartha i gCathair Bhaile Atha Cliath chun bóthar asphalt do chur síos, gur cheart glacadh leis an dara tairisgint ba shaoire. B'é fáth go ndearna amhlaidh ná go bhfuaireas comhairle eolgaisigh gur dheallruigh an tairisgint ba shaoire gur mó a theas-tuigh o lucht a déanta tithe gnótha eile do dhúnadh amach ná mar a theastuigh uatha gnáth-shochar do dhéanamh as an obair.

That is, he said, that the reason for refusing the lowest tender was that he was advised on rather good authority that the lowest tender appeared to show that the person making the tender wished more to crowd out other persons tendering than to do the work at a reasonable cost.

I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps trying to do the best that he can, but I do submit that the matter has been dealt with without any thorough examination at all, and so much dis-turbance of mind has been caused, both to the local authority and to the persons who are looking at the way in which the Government is doing its business, that I think some kind of statement from the Minister is desirable in order to ease people's minds.

The position in regard to this matter is that a pretty large contract for asphalting concrete, that is, ordinary steam-rolled asphalt, for about 72,000 yards, was being given. The cost of this concrete has been reduced very, very considerably in recent years. Six or seven years ago it was 15/- a square yard. In Dublin in 1928 it was 7/-; in 1931 it had gone down to 5/-, and this year the lowest tender was for 3/5 a square yard. Now the tender that was accepted was for 4/1 per square yard, and again I say that the Minister's explanation was that he considered that the company that quoted 3/5 per square yard was not tendering in a reasonable way to make a reasonable profit but was attempting to crowd out other companies. Now I suggest that the matter has not been fully examined. I have pointed out very great reductions in costs in the last few years on this particular class of work. I would also point out, and I have instances in which similar work during the current year or during the last twelve months carried out in Britain was carried out at a cost in three instances to my knowledge at 2/11 per square yard; in three instances at 3/11 per square yard, and in two instances at 3/3 per square yard, showing that the tender of 3/5 can certainly not be regarded, from a critical examination, as being a more or less price-cutting tender. The acceptance of the higher tender in the city of Dublin has meant this. Taking the smaller tender of £12,833, normally about 70 per cent. of the total cost goes to labour, that is including the quarrying of stones as well as the laying of the road and making the necessary preparations, so that out of £12,833, which the lowest estimate was for, £9,000 would have gone roughly for labour. Now it is quite conceivable that any good company, such as the company that actually got the contract is, would be very much more out than £9,000 in respect of the labour side of the carrying out of that work, although whereas in one case there would be £3,800 odd left to pay for materials, to pay for overhead charges generally, and to give suitable return to capital on the basis of the costs for labour for £9,000, which I think the Minister would find on examination to be a reasonable figure, even to the firm that is actually carrying out the work, it leaves them £6,495 to cover materials, to cover overhead costs, and to cover return to capital.

I suggest to the Minister in this case what labour will get out of this contract is exactly what it would get out of the £12,000 contract and what really has happened is £2,600 of public money has gone to the new company partly as a return to capital. I do not know what the capital involved in the present company that has got the contract is, but I really would suggest that it amounts to a presentation to the company of public money to the extent of nearly half the capital of that company on this one work. It has, I submit, left the city of Dublin in the position that it could have got one-fifth more work done and labour could have got an additional £2,000 into its pockets as wages if the lower tender were accepted, and I submit to the Minister the case requires very, very critical examination, and the House, local authorities and the public generally would welcome a statement on the matter that it was going to be thoroughly examined. I would almost suggest that the new price controller, as a kind of a trial run as to what he is worth, might be brought in and given the job of examining what exactly the position is with regard to these three contracts.

Sir James Craig

A Chinn Comhairle, in years past I have been a very severe critic of many things and one of the contentions I upheld for many years was that there should be a Minister of Public Health. I had to give way on that, and subsequently I was willing to accept a Parliamentary Secretary of Public Health. I could not get anything done until the present Government came into office, and I am glad to say that the present Government fulfilled one of my hopes in appointing a Parliamentary Secretary of Public Health, who himself was a doctor, and I wish to congratulate the Government in doing that.

There are two or three points I wish to make. We have been promised for a long time a Bill dealing with clean milk. Now it is a very necessary thing that that Bill should be got through this House. I need not go into the matter now. I need not explain further but I will say this, I have figures, not in my pocket, but figures in my possession which will show the necessity for very drastic changes to be made in the production of milk. I will say no more about that.

The other point I would like to make is this, we want something done with regard to the regulations of traffic. Buses are still allowed to start wherever they like and run down anybody they please and nothing is being done at the present time to make the road safe. I, myself, was nearly killed the day before yesterday by a man who ran straight into me, straight on the road where I was crossing, and there is nothing being done to prevent the murderous conditions prevailing on the road from public traffic. I appeal to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to move in these two matters, i.e., the matter of traffic and in the matter of a Clean Milk Bill.

Mr. Corry

Last week on the vote for education I raised a matter and I was informed it was connected with the Department of Local Government. It is in connection with two ex-teachers of Cork Union. Those two teachers under the Amalgamation of Unions lost their positions—you could not exactly call it losing their positions—but they were immediately transferred as two principal teachers of two national schools and in that capacity they are still serving. It is some ten years ago since the change was made. Now those two teachers come along and claim pensions from the Cork County Council. Pensions have been granted under sealed order of the Ministry, but the point I wish to make in connection with the matter here is, in one case one of these teachers is getting over £80 a year pension whilst at the same time continuing in his capacity as principal teacher of a national school, and drawing his salary for that. The other is getting something like £70 a year pension and is continuing his job as principal teacher in a national school. I think that it is simply scandalous that individuals should be drawing pensions and salaries at the same time. I would not mind if it was a matter of a man losing his position. I could then understand giving him a pension, but I cannot understand men who were merely transferred under what I might say the same Department—from one school to another in Cork—as a matter of fact it was promotion. In the second place, we in the Cork County Council, do not like pleading the Statute of Limitations but I would say in these cases certainly, the Statute of Limitations could be pleaded. It is ten years since they made the change over and during those whole ten years we have got no application from them until now for pensions.

I argue further that it is unfair at this stage that the present ratepayers of Cork should be asked to pay back money to the amount of £800 odd in one case and £700 odd in the other as pensions to those men, seeing that the ratepayers of the present were not the ratepayers of eight or ten years ago, when these men, if they felt they were entitled to the pensions, could have made a claim. I consider it is a matter on which there should be some explanation from the Minister. If these men are entitled to pensions, large pensions such as they are supposed to be entitled to, I hold that they should not have other positions at the same time in the public service. I consider it unfair to the ratepayers that men who are drawing large salaries should also be in receipt of pensions.

Mr. W. Broderick

This is a matter of very severe local irritation and I regard it in the nature of an accidental happening. The very spirit of the amalgamation scheme was simply to see that when a man lost anything through such a scheme he was compensated for that loss. The gentlemen referred to from the opposite benches have got their compensation by being absorbed in the very same activities as they pursued under the board of assistance in Cork. They were school teachers under the National Board and were paid for for the time being by the local authorities. They were transferred into other schools, being paid by the National Board, and the local authority holds that it would be only equitable, on pensions becoming due to these people, if they were not made liable for the amount of time spent in their schools. When they were transferred out of the service into better positions than they had and at higher salaries, the very spirit of the amalgamation scheme was outraged to the extent that those men, instead of sustaining any loss in respect of any pension to which they were entitled, got increased salaries and better positions.

To prove that those men shared the same point of view themselves I may say that for five years they never even thought of looking for compensation for loss of office, because there was in effect no loss of office. They were transferred to other positions at higher salaries. After five years some application was made to the local authority. The local authority did not treat it very seriously, and then it came to the Minister. The Ministry, I am quite satisfied recognised that there was a technical point that the amalgamation scheme provided for loss of office under a local authority. It is here I claim the accidental happening came in. Provision was not made in the amalgamation scheme to eliminate the danger that men in positions such as these could avail themselves of better positions and receive, at the same time, superannuation from their former positions. That is where I claim the power of the Minister for Local Government comes in. Has he not power in himself to rectify a gross injustice, because it is undoubtedly an injustice to the local authorities to compel them to pay in one case a pension of £92 to a man who has taken office under the National Board of Education subsequent to his being employed in Cork under the local authorities, entitling him to a payment at the expense of the local ratepayers of a sum of approximately £1,340?

I do not think it is any answer to an outrage of this kind to say that the law does not make provision for selection between the local authority and the National Board. The money is paid out either from the national exchequer or from the local authority, either from the taxpayers' or the ratepayers' pockets. I do not think anyone or any side of the House will deny that it is a gross injustice to the ratepayers to be called upon to pay compensation for loss of office, when in effect there is no loss of office, and to pay that compensation at the ratepayers' expense. I leave it to the Minister if I have not made my case perfectly clear. I shall go further, and I leave it to the sense of justice of the Minister to say if it is not a misinterpretation of the terms of the amalgamation scheme to award compensation for loss of office to these men, and if it is not an outrage on the spirit of the scheme that men transferred to better positions should be compensated by pension for loss of office. I should like to know what these men's pensions will be when they come to be fixed by the National Board. Will these men be entitled to a pension under the National Board and a pension from the local authority, entitled to two pensions from the same set of activities?

Mr. O'Kelly

The matter raised by Deputy Mulcahy with reference to the giving of certain contracts to a certain firm by the Dublin municipality is, undoubtedly, an important one. It is one that received long and serious consideration by officials of the Department first and then by myself. It was only when the matter had been very fully examined that it was decided to recommend the municipality to give the contract to the firm which had not the lowest tender. I quite agree that there are dangers in such a course and that the system is not one that should be adopted without the deepest consideration. I know that the question is likely to arise again. I had intimated to me in the last few days that some question of the same nature was likely to come to the Department from Cork City so that the matter will have to be gone into again. In respect of this last particular contract, it was only when I was advised on the best authority I could get and the best information available to me, Departmentally and otherwise, that the lowest tender represented a firm that had been for a number of years endeavouring, by sending in tenders that were not valid tenders, to crush out Irish companies—companies owned by Irishmen and run with Irish capital—it was only when that information was conveyed to me and when I was assured that that was correct that I consented to recommend the municipality to accept another tender.

General Mulcahy

Has the Minister definitely established the fact that they had been sending in tenders that were not valid?

Mr. O'Kelly

So I am informed. I was satisfied on the information given to me that that was so. I was also satisfied that there had been a considerable amount of competition amongst purely Irish contractors, and that the competition amongst purely Irish contractors was such that it kept down the prices in Ireland and had kept them at a lower level in the Free State than in England for the same class of work. However, I agree with the Deputy that it is a matter that requires constant care and supervision and whenever the same subject arises again, as I believe it will arise, all I can say is that no tender that is not the lowest tender will be accepted without very strict examination.

I am glad that Deputy Sir James Craig raised the question of clean milk. I know that the matter was being considered by the late Government and that considerable progress had been made in the matter of the preparation of a Bill. Since we took over and since Deputy Dr. Ward came into the Department he has given a considerable amount of time to the subject of clean milk. In the last couple of weeks we received a deputation from the Clean Milk Society of Dublin. We assured them, as we would like to assure the House, that the matter was receiving attention and we hope at an early date to put proposals for legislation before the House.

Sir James Craig

When?

Mr. O'Kelly

I cannot at all say when that will be but the matter is receiving attention and as soon as we possibly can, we shall put proposals for legislation before the House. The other point was one raised by Deputies Corry and William Broderick, about two teachers in Cork who had been employed by the local authority of the county and who, because of the amalgamation scheme had been given other places when dispossessed of their then posts, and, also, had to be superannuated. When the matter came before me, shortly after we took up office, I was struck with the fact that these pensions had not been applied for. I raised that point with the officials, and understood that there was some doubt, at the time, as to whether they were entitled to the pension. The matter was properly and adequately inquired into and it was found that they were entitled to superannuation allowance, and, under the law as it stood, we had to sanction them.

Under the old position in Cork Union they were employees of the local authority, now they are employees partly of the State and partly of the manager. They are employees of the manager subject to the State. The salaries are paid by the State, but the school manager nominates them and they were given their posts by the manager. Neither the late Government, nor the present, had anything to do with them. The manager selected these teachers and gave them their posts, and I presume that when their time is up, and they relinquish their office, they will look for superannuation and they will have to get it, but they will not get it for the same period of office. They are now pensioned for the time which they worked under the old local authority. Later when they get their pensions, if they live long enough, they will get them out of the Teachers' Pension Fund. Of course, it is all coming out of the one pocket, but legally they are entitled to both, and unless the law is changed in the meantime, there will be no way of depriving one or other of them of what would be their legal right. I was rather agreeably surprised to hear two Cork Deputies objecting to money going into Cork.

Mr. Corry

They are paid by the ratepayers of Cork. Would the Minister consider putting a stay on these pensions until such time as these men retired. I can understand the Cork people being compelled to pay pensions for the periods of office that these men served, and to have them taken into consideration when they were about to retire. In these circumstances the ratepayers of Cork would not object to pay these men their pensions, but they have a decided objection to paying men pensions for jobs which they still hold. They are teachers to-day as well as they were teachers under the old regime. It does not matter what particular set of children they are teaching. One of these men is earning £370 a year in salary. I think it is a disgrace that that salary should be paid by unfortunate men, some of them hungry and unable to pay their rates. I think it is a disgrace to be compelled to pay out of their pockets the salary of £370 to a man with a pension. I ask the Minister if necessary to introduce amending legislation to deal with this matter.

Mr. W. Broderick

I quite recognise the point dealt with by the Minister and referred to as an accidental happening, but my point was that he should not allow, or permit an accidental happening of this kind. We were very particular, under the amalgamation schemes that no one should suffer for loss of office. There was no loss of office here, yet the Minister allows the ratepayers to be penalised in an annual sum of £140 and £1,300 arrears. I understand that the interpretation the Minister has put upon this matter is not that understood by the local authorities. If I understood the matter rightly these pensions would not be due until these men went out of office. The interpretation of the local authority is that the pensions would accrue from the moment they are entitled to superannuation, that is, since they went out of office. We contend it is not legal that the ratepayers should be saddled with a sum of £1,340 and a continual liability of £140. With regard to Cork men objecting to money being paid in Cork this money is collected in Cork, also. But I do not want to deal with a small point. This accidental happening is a gross injustice to the local ratepayers and a grave abuse of the principle of men being compensated for loss. For here there has been no loss. There were many cases in the last ten years where claims were made upon the authorities in Cork and the local authorities recognised their moral right. They never pleaded the Statute of Limitation nor the Gaming Act either. As they have done their duty so heroically I would ask the Minister to use any power at his disposal to have this matter put right.

General Mulcahy

The Minister indicated last week that he proposed to make a statement on the housing problem soon. When will he be able to make that statement?

Mr. Gorey

Did not the Minister send down a sealed order to Cork saying that these men would be paid their pensions? Could he not have waited until the courts had decided the matter? I think the Minister has exceeded his office in taking up the position he has taken in this matter. He should not have done so. As I read this case promotion was actually given to these teachers. Did the amalgamation pre-date the time that the offices of the local authorities were transferred to the Education Board? If it did not, it is possible that there is no claim whatsoever. As a matter of fact I believed they were transferred on promotion. What justification was there for the Minister sending down a sealed order in this case? These gentlemen had the courts to enforce their claims if they have any. The Minister made himself court, judge and jury in this matter, and I believe exceeded his authority.

Mr. O'Kelly

I thought I had concluded the debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the Committee Stage the practice used to be that the Minister concluded, but that practice was broken away from on two occasions within recent years.

General Mulcahy

On our part we agreed not to have any lengthy discussion upon the Local Government Estimate and we do not wish to do so.

Mr. W. Broderick

If I did anything that was irregular or out of order I regret it, but I was only following the example of others.

Mr. J. Flynn (Kerry):

I merely wish to ask a question, namely, what has become of the scheme which was drawn up for native Irish speakers in hospitals, nursing and public health institutions, including midwifery. I understand the scheme was never implemented because people concerned, such as the matrons of the chief hospitals, did not co-operate in meeting the offer of the late Government. There is an item down of £1,300 in connection with the scheme. I, and other Deputies, who represent Gaeltacht areas, would like to get an assurance that the scheme will now be implemented and carried out as far as it was intended to be carried out.

Vote put and agreed to.