Local Services (Temporary Economies) (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Committee Stage.
Debate resumed on the following amendment (No. 31):
Section 4, to delete sub-section (3) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:
No deduction from the salary of an officer made in the year 1934 and before the passing of this Act shall be lawful.—(Professor O'Sullivan.)
I hope that, as a result of meditation over the weekend—and I hope that he has given it more meditation than he gave it before the week-end—the Minister has agreed to accept this amendment. On Friday last, he put forward a defence for the Bill as it stands and an argument against the amendment that was, even coming from the benches opposite, unusually absurd. If he looks merely at the amendment and at the Bill as it stands he will see that it is contemplated that the Bill shall not come into operation before, say, some time in the summer. Otherwise, it might have been quite easy to have fixed different dates in clause 3. The House will remember that the argument he put forward on the last day was something like this: This Bill might become law before 31st March, and, therefore, there is no necessity to provide for the contingency that it will not become law. That of course is so patently absurd that I was surprised the Minister put it forward. I suggest that Section 3 as it stands contemplates the Bill not becoming law before the beginning of the new financial year. Hence the purpose of Section 3 is retrospective legislation, to make the law operative during a period in which it was not in force. At all times that is objectionable. Sometimes it may be necessary or unavoidable. If the Minister has a case of that kind to put forward, let him put it forward. Let me remind the Minister that last year when the general Cuts Bill was going through, it was pointed out that a Bill of this kind was necessary if the policy was to be implemented so far as local bodies were concerned. That was realised. Between last year and this year there was plenty of time to introduce a Bill if the Government had made up their mind upon it. There is no excuse therefore for this kind of development, making retrospective legislation necessary. It is extraordinary that any such principle should be indulged in if it could at all be avoided. But if it is indulged in, the Government should put forward some kind of an argument in its favour. They put forward none.
Again, I cannot, either on this or on any other portion of the Bill, get away from the idea that the Minister is trying to convey to local bodies that he is not in favour of the Bill; that, in fact, he is against the Bill, and that it is the bold bad people of his own Party who have insisted on going on with the Bill. But, in this amendment as in the other amendments, he has not given any justification for going on with the Bill. This is a policy of going between the two so as to get all the advantage he can from both sides. The Government want to satisfy some of their followers that they are imposing cuts according to their promises, and at the same time they are trying to convey subtly to the people who are hit that the thing is forced upon them. That is the only conclusion that I can draw from the attitude of the Minister, from his silence on this and most other clauses. I find it rather difficult to believe that the Minister can possibly entertain the absurd argument he has put forward on this and other sections as a justification for the policy he is pursuing. Generally the Minister has sat silent, or if he has not sat silent he has put forward arguments worse than silence—as he has done on this amendment. His whole idea is to be quite nice to the officials, conveying to them the idea that "personally, I am against it; do not blame me; blame somebody else," thereby trying to get the advantage of both sides, blowing hot and cold. If that is not the Minister's attitude why not give some justification for the line he has taken up on the Bill as a whole? Not in one instance has the Minister suggested that the policy for which he stands, and the policy to which the Government is now committed, is a policy which can be justified. He has given none so far as that very objectionable practice of retrospective legislation is concerned. There is no reason why the Minister should not accept this amendment. It is an amendment to improve the Bill. It is only the most serious consideration that can justify the adoption of the practice which the Minister is following.
I understand from the Ceann Comhairle that we are discussing amendment No. 32 as well as amendment No. 31. Is that so?
Yes. If amendment No. 31 passes, amendment No. 32 cannot be moved.
That is so. Would it meet Deputy O'Sullivan's views if I agreed to accept amendment No. 32 in the name of Deputy Rowlette?
Amendment No. 31, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 32—"to delete sub-section (3)"— agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 was discussed on amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On Section 4, the question was raised that the Temporary Economies Bill of last year gave power to the Minister to withhold certain moneys from some vocational education committees, and made provision for the reduction of some of their employees by a certain amount. It was stated in reply to that question that certain money was actually being withheld from some of these committees in the financial year. The Minister for Finance at the time would not give any information as to whether reductions could be made from officers of vocational eduction committees last year under the Act of last year and at the same time that reductions could be made from the same officers under the present Bill. Is the Minister in a position to assure us that officers of vocational education committees whose funds may be affected by deductions made in respect of last year will not, in fact, suffer reductions in respect of last year under one Act and in respect of this year under the present Bill?
I think I can assure the Deputy that if any reductions have been made or any moneys withheld from vocational education officers in respect of the year ending the 31st March they will be made good. I am accepting the amendment and my own amendment altered the date of the Bill so as to make it operate from the 1st of April this year. Certainly no one is to suffer from any reduction made last year.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
The following provisions shall apply and have effect in respect of every officer who holds offices under more than one local authority, that is to say:—
(a) for the purpose of the calculation of the minimum deduction to be made under this Act from the salary of such officer, such salary shall be taken to be the aggregate of the salaries which he is entitled to receive in respect of the said offices;
(b) the said minimum deduction, when calculated in pursuance of the foregoing paragraph of this section, shall be apportioned between the several salaries received by such officer by virtue of his said offices in proportion to the respective amounts of those salaries, and the amount so apportioned to any such salary shall, for the purpose of this Act, be the minimum deduction in respect of such salary;
(c) the amount of the deduction to be made under this Act from each of the said salaries of such officer shall be determined by the local authority paying such salary but shall not be less than the minimum deduction appropriate to such salary under the foregoing provisions of this section;
Amendment No. 34:—
In lines 17, 22, 28 and 33 to delete the word "minimum".—(Peadar Ua Dubhghaill, Richard Corish.)
This was debated on amendment No. 24.
It is consequential on No. 24.
I understand the Minister has some amendment to cover some of these.
Yes, to change the date from last year to the year beginning the 1st April, 1934.
This is a question of the word "minimum."
Yes, I am agreeing to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage.
The principle is accepted?
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 not moved.
Section 5 put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) The minimum deduction to be made under this Act from the salary of an officer shall be calculated in the manner following, that is to say:—
(a) where the whole of such salary is variable remuneration, under Part I of the Schedule to this Act and at the rate applicable in that Part to the amount of such salary;
(b) where no part of such salary is variable remuneration, under Part II of the Schedule to this Act and at the rate applicable under that Part to the amount of such salary;
(c) where a portion only of such salary is variable remuneration by adding together—
(i) a sum ascertained by applying to the portion of such salary which is variable remuneration the rate or rates in Part I of the Schedule to this Act which would be applicable if the whole of such salary were variable remuneration, and
(ii) a sum ascertained by applying to the portion of such salary which is not variable remuneration the rate or rates in Part II of the Schedule to this Act which would be applicable to that portion if none of such salary were variable remuneration,
(d) where the service rendered by the officer is occasional, under Part III of the Schedule to this Act.
(2) For the purposes of the application under this section of Parts I and II respectively of the Schedule to this Act to the salary of any officer whose salary is in part only variable remuneration, such part of such salary shall be deemed to be the first part of such salary and the word "first" and the word "next" in the said Parts of the said Schedule when so applied shall be construed accordingly.
(3) Where the salary from which a deduction is to be made under this Act includes an allowance or benefit given otherwise than in money, or includes fees payable by persons other than the local authority employing the person in receipt of such salary, or includes both such allowance or benefit and such fees, the deduction to be made under this Act from such salary shall (though calculated on the whole of such salary) be made only from the portion of such salary which does not consist of such allowance, benefit, or fees.
(4) Where a part of the salary of an officer consists of an amount in respect of which a bonus, varying with the cost of living and calculated by reference to such amount, is paid to such officer, such amount and such bonus shall for the purposes of this section be taken together as one sum and such one sum shall be variable remuneration for the purposes of this section and is hereinafter in this section referred to as remuneration variable by reason of bonus.
(5) Where a part of the salary of an officer consists of remuneration variable by reason of bonus and part consists of an allowance or benefit given otherwise than in money, the said remuneration variable by reason of bonus and the value of such allowance or benefit shall be taken together as one sum for the purposes of this section, and such one sum shall also be variable remuneration for the purposes of this section.
(6) Where part of the salary of an officer consists of an allowance or benefit given otherwise than in money, and no part of such salary is remuneration variable by reason of bonus, the value of such allowance or benefit shall also be variable remuneration for the purposes of this section.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
This amendment No. 39 is to decide the issue whether there is to be only one overriding scale of deductions or three scales as is contemplated in the Schedules.
On behalf of Deputy Norton, I beg to move amendment No. 39:
In sub-section (1) to delete all words after the word "be", line 56, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "the amount set out in the Schedule to this Act".
I am afraid I am not sufficiently conversant with the subject-matter of this amendment to give an explanation of it to the House. I rise merely to move the amendment on the Deputy's behalf.
I think this amendment is practically the same as amendment No. 40:
In sub-section (1), line 56, to delete all words after the word "calculated" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "in accordance with the scale set out in the Schedule to this Act."—(Deputy Doyle.)
Before the Deputy intervenes, I desire to say that a decision on amendment No. 39 will govern a whole series of amendments, the numbers of which Deputies may care to note. It will govern amendments Nos. 39 to 44 inclusive, and amendments Nos. 75, 77, 79, 80, 81 and 82.
The general purpose of this amendment seems to be to get rid of the discrimination that is shown in the introduction of two parts in the Schedule. If you compare Part I of the Schedule and Part II of the Schedule you will see that whereas under Part I an officer with a salary of £500 is going to have a cut of about £10 10s., an officer with a similar salary coming under Part II of the Schedule is going to lose three times that amount. There are very substantial differences between the two Schedules. The theory seems to be that there are two sets of officials throughout the country. One set of officials have got the Civil Service bonus and a sliding scale of pay and they are supposed to have had certain reductions made in their pay all along, according as the cost of living changed. Smaller reductions are proposed in the case of those officials as against the others.
I think the Minister will realise that the history of the application of the Civil Service bonus to employees of local authorities is not a satisfactory history. The idea that there was a fall in the cost of living, scattered throughout the country, produced in the minds of local authorities the impression that they might not give an increase of pay that they otherwise would give. In fact, when the Civil Service bonus was operating they took action only in certain cases, a very limited number of cases. I submit that the Minister cannot produce any grounds for showing that there is a case for making a discrimination between the two classes of officials. It is quite unreasonable to impose on one set of officials substantially larger cuts. The general effect of the amendment is to delete the higher scale of deductions in Part II of the Schedule.
What the Deputy says about the difference in salaries of the officers of local authorities throughout the country is, of course, quite correct. The application of the cost-of-living bonus to officials of local authorities was not general by any means. The reason for the two Schedules here is to try to bring about some definite scale amongst the two classes of officials. One class, which is probably the smaller class, to whom the Civil Service scale and the cost-of-living bonus applied, have had cuts over the last ten or 12 years. When the cost of living went down they suffered a cut. The other people, who have had fixed salaries, are in a different position. In many cases it could be shown that where their salaries were fixed they would be higher than the salaries of the men to whom the cost-of-living bonus applied. They have escaped those other cuts. We thought, in making this arrangement, that it was only fair that those who escaped any cut for the last ten or 12 years should have a somewhat heavier scale applied to them than the scale applied to the officers who have had those cuts over a period of ten or 12 years. I think that is fair and just and I do not think a strong case can be made against trying to treat all alike in so far as the cut is concerned. The men who had the advantage during the last ten or 12 years should not have a great grievance if they are getting a slightly heavier hand laid on them now than is laid on those who suffered those cost-of-living cuts to which I have referred.
I submit the Minister can hardly call the difference between Parts I and II of the Schedule slight. The Minister mentioned that the larger class have escaped cuts up to the present. To a very large extent what they have escaped is increases. In normal circumstances the officials of local authorities would expect an increase in their salaries, but when civil servants were having their bonus cut systematically and regularly the other officials under local authorities were having their salaries reduced in the same way. The general effect has been that officials of local authorities have been deprived of increases that in normal circumstances they would have received. Many of them have given long stretches of service without getting any increase. Now a very substantial difference, by reason of the two Schedules, is being put into operation. My submission is that the cuts proposed in Part II of the Schedule are entirely unwarranted. The rate of deduction ought to be the rate set out in Part I.
May I take it that amendment No. 39 is being withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
If amendment No. 39 is withdrawn I desire to divide the House on amendment No. 40.
The same principle is embodied in No. 40.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Traynor and Moylan; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Ordered: That the words proposed to be deleted stand.
Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 not moved.
Before we come to amendment No. 46 I should like to ask a question about sub-section (3). Earlier in the Bill the Minister introduced an amendment by which a salary got from elsewhere than from a local authority was not to count for the purposes of this Act. Sub-section (3) says "includes fees payable by persons other than a local authority."
The Deputy is correct in saying that fees got from other than a local authority would not be counted.
Is that conveyed in the section as it stands? As the section stands, I am afraid that fees got from sources other than local authorities are included.
Is it the intention in this sub-section to apply the Bill to people receiving a salary or allowance from two local authorities? The wording of the Bill includes "fees payable by persons other than a local authority employing the person in receipt of such salary." Is it the intention in that phraseology to apply the Bill to a person in receipt of a salary from one local authority, but in receipt of a temporary salary from another local authority?
We have covered that in another section which makes it necessary to include both salaries. Any salary or emolument of any kind received from a local authority, whether the office held be temporary or permanent, will be counted in making the cut—the total of the salary received.
Sub-section (3) decides that the deduction will be made from the local authority's portion of the man's income. By implication it seems to suggest that the deduction will be computed from the salary from the local authority, plus the fees, though it will be only taken from the local authority's salary. I want to know whether the Minister has guarded himself against computing a man's salary by adding to the salary from the local authority the fees he gets from any other person. I admit that whatever the deduction is, it can only be made out of the salary paid by the local authority, but in arriving at the computation as to what the amount will be, and therefore the total salary of the man, it is quite clear that the fees from other persons will not be taken into account?
There are certain fees received by virtue of the office.
I am not referring to these. I am referring to fees received from people other than the local authority—fees received from any other person. They will not be taken into account in computing the salary for the purpose of determining what the deduction will be?
I take it that they will be included in the salary.
I am afraid that I have not made the point clear. A person gets a salary from a local authority. He also gets fees from persons other than a local authority, say, from private individuals. I take it for granted that those fees will not be included in determining the salary for the purpose of making up what the deduction will be. I want to know whether that is safeguarded.
Any sum received which arises out of the office that the person holds and forms part of his emoluments, not to say his salary at all, will be counted. For instance, there are certain fees paid to officials for making up the register, and they will be included.
That is not the point I want to make.
Supposing an analyst is employed, say, by the Dublin Corporation as a whole-time officer, and his qualifications make him a person whose certificate is of considerable value. Supposing that person is asked to undertake the analysis of any liquid or substance, is it possible that that portion of his income, derived in that way, will be calculated for the purpose of assessing his salary for the purpose of this Bill?
If the Deputy has the case of the analyst in mind, I do not think the analyst is allowed to get any fees in that way.
Not now, but formerly he did.
I take it that in a similar case any sums given to that man, any emoluments arising out of the office he holds, would be taken into consideration in computing the cut.
Might I put the case of a public vaccinator? In a dispensary district the dispensary doctor is, by virtue of his employment, public vaccinator for the area. An obligation imposed on him is to vaccinate free, as far as the people who attend at a certain place, at a certain hour, and on certain days are concerned. Arising directly out of his office he might also get fees for carrying out vaccinations in private houses. That is income arising out of his office. Will that source of income be counted under this?
I do not think so. That is a case of a private person. Undoubtedly it arises out of his office, but my own interpretation is that it should not be included.
Will the Minister accept this—that the phraseology there, as it stands, and particularly as explained by the Minister, gives rise to an amount of doubt and ambiguity and that something should be inserted in the Bill in order to make the meaning more clear and specific? It is open to an immense amount of abuse by local authorities as things stand.
The implication is that the salary may include fees payable by someone other than the local authority?
How would they be in the salary? The Minister said as a result of that he gets certain fees?
Those are generally payable by a local authority?
They may be paid by somebody else—a private individual possibly?
That is what we want to guard against. If the Minister gives the matter full attention we will be satisfied.
I will have the matter examined. There is an amendment, No. 14a, which I introduced myself and which, I think, covers that point. If it does not cover it, I will have the matter attended to.
The Minister will remember that I asked whether a previous amendment had covered that particular point?
Would the Minister pay particular attention to the fees paid to medical practitioners, including the fees paid to dispensary medical officers by the National Health Insurance Committee? I take it the Minister does not want to bring them under this Bill in any way.
I think they would be included.
But they are suffering under the "Cuts" Bill of last year.
I am not certain but I think they would be included. I will look into the matter.
On that question would the Minister ensure that they will not be subject to cuts under both Bills?
I will assure the Deputy that they will not be subject to cuts under both Bills.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
On the section I want to refer to the position of officers whose remuneration under this Bill will be affected by Part III of the Schedule. This section sets out what the minimum deductions from salaries are to be. Looking at Part III of the Schedule through Sections 4 and 6 of the Bill it would appear that in the case of persons affected by Part III of the Bill the minimum deduction in certain cases is to be nil and the minimum deduction in other cases is to be five per cent. The point I want to raise on the matter is of considerable importance to all the municipal employees in the City of Dublin who work more or less in a manual capacity. It seems to me to be possible under Section 4 and Section 6 for a cut to be imposed on artisans and other skilled labourers, and persons hired to perform only subordinate duties or ordinary labour, if the Bill goes through in the present form. I gather from the Minister that the intention is that skilled labourers and artisans are to be exempted from the scope of the Bill, but when you look at Section 4 and Section 6 it seems to me that Part III of the Schedule could be held to read that whereas under one section the minimum deduction is five per cent., in other cases the minimum deduction is nil.
It means that a local authority could impose no cut, but there is nothing to prevent the local authority from increasing the amount of the cut, and there is nothing to prevent the Minister sanctioning the amount of the cut, unless, perhaps, the undertaking which he gave the last day to make the amount set out in the Schedule the maximum instead of the minimum. In order to ensure that artisans and skilled labourers will not be cut under this Bill, and that local authorities will not exercise any powers conferred on them under this Bill to impose cuts on the wages of artisans and skilled labourers, it seems to me to be necessary to put in there under Section 4 or Section 6 an amendment to the effect that in the case of artisans and other skilled labourers, and persons who are hired to perform only subordinate duties or ordinary labour, no cut shall take place. I gather that that is the intention of the Minister, but it seems to me from the way in which the Bill is drafted it is possible to regard the "nil" set out in Part III as making "nil" the minimum, and making the maximum higher than nil. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that that is not intended.
I should like to say at this stage that the Irish Municipal Workers' Union, which represents the manipulative staff of the Dublin Corporation, has received legal advice from an eminent counsel to the effect that as drafted at present Part III of the Bill does not give them security against a cut. The only thing it gives them security against is a minimum of "nil." It gives them no security whatever against a maximum, unless the Minister will meet the difficulty by providing specifically that the wages of artisans or other skilled labourers, and persons hired to perform only subordinate duties or ordinary labour, will be exempted definitely from the scope of the Bill.
I do not know that that is necessary. I do not think there is any doubt on the matter. In case there was any doubt I gave an assurance here during an earlier discussion on the Bill that it was not the intention to include in the Bill the case of artisans and skilled labourers hired to perform subordinate duties. A number of amendments to Section 4 have been accepted, and when the new form of the section comes before me if I find that it does not cover the point raised by the Deputy I shall see that it does.
In framing his own amendments will the Minister bear that point specially in mind?
Might I ask, seeing that Part III is referred to in Section 6, whether we can at this stage get a definition of artisans and other skilled labourers? In the Dublin Corporation there are persons employed as caretakers, timekeepers, paving overseers, waterworks inspectors or waterworks foremen. Those are people who have been tradesmen employed by the Dublin Corporation, and got a slight step up by being put in charge of sections of the staff there. I should like to know from the Minister are those assumed to be artisans for the purposes of this Bill? They are really in wage earning categories and, of course, none of them reaches £300 per annum.
If they are skilled artisans—I think there would be no doubt about it, no matter what particular post they hold in doing subordinate work—they would be covered, provided the salary is not above the minimum.
Would a timekeeper or cleansing overseer in receipt of £4 per week be liable to a cut under the definition set out in Part III?
I certainly cannot at this stage give an answer to every case which the Deputy is liable to put up as regards different categories and different individuals.
The Minister will appreciate that it is very important, because of the fact that we have no definition as to what are "artisans and other skilled labourers." It is desirable before the Bill leaves the House completely that somebody should know who is intended to come within that category, so as to give an opportunity for bringing in amendments to the particular sections. Take a carpenter in the employment of the Dublin Corporation, who is in receipt of £4 10s. per week. I take it he would be assumed to be an artisan or skilled labourer. Am I right in that assumption?
Certainly. A carpenter, plumber, plasterer or any man belonging to the recognised skilled trades, would certainly be regarded as an artisan for the purposes of the Bill.
A pavior is a skilled tradesman?
I want to know does that definition still extend to him if he becomes an overseer of others who are paying?
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
For the purposes of calculating the deduction to be made under this Act from the salary of a person in continuous employment whose rate of salary is altered during the year 1934, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) each part of the year 1934 during which the rate of salary of such person remains unaltered shall be treated as a separate employment;
(b) the deduction proper to be made under this Act in respect of each such separate employment shall be ascertained and shall be calculated as if such separate employment were the only employment of such person during the year 1934;
(c) the deduction to be made under this Act from the salary of such person shall be the total of the several deductions ascertained under the next preceding paragraph of this section.
(d) this section shall apply whether the said continuous employment of such person does or does not extend over the whole of the year 1934.
I move amendment No. 47a:—
In page 5, lines 57 and 59, and in page 6, lines 5 and 12, to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "current local financial year."
This is the same as amendment No. 12a.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
In the calculation of the minimum deduction to be made under this Act from the salary of an officer from whose salary deductions were or are made (whether before or after the passing of this Act or before or after the commencement of the year 1934) under Section 12 of the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933 (No. 37 of 1933), such officer shall be entitled to credit against such minimum deduction for the said deductions so made from his salary under the said Section 12, and the amount of the said minimum deduction shall be reduced accordingly.
Amendment No. 49 not moved.
I move amendment No. 49a:—
In line 16 to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "current local financial year."
This also is the same as amendment No. 12a.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 50 not moved.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Where, after the expiration of the year 1934, any local authority ascertains that the deductions made or purported to be made under this Act in that year from the salary of any officer in its employment were either greater or less than the deductions required by this Act to be made from such salary, such local authority shall, before the end of the year 1935, adjust the amount of such deductions either (as the case may require) by a refund to such officer or by a deduction from the salary of such officer payable to him in the year 1935.
I move amendment No. 50a:—
In page 6, line 22, to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "current local financial year."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 51, 52, 53 and 54 not moved.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
For the purpose of calculating the amount of the minimum or any other deduction to be made under this Act from the salary of a medical officer of a dispensary district (including an officer appointed temporarily during a vacancy or as substitute for another officer), the annual rate of the salary of such medical officer shall be taken to be £50 less than the actual amount thereof.
I move amendment No. 55:—
In line 36, before the word "fifty" to insert the words one hundred and".
By Section 10, the Minister recognises that the medical officers of dispensary districts occupy a special position and that there are peculiarities regarding their service which entitle them to some special consideration, and he proposes that the salary, for the purpose of the Act, shall be taken to be £50 less than the actual amount thereof. The Minister, therefore, admits the principle that dispensary doctors should, in fairness, be treated differently from other officers of local authorities, and the only question between us is as to the amount of the concession that should be granted in their special case.
On an earlier stage of the Bill, a good deal of discussion took place as to the position of dispensary doctors at the present time, and it was pointed out that their general emoluments had been considerably lessened in the last few years, and that, therefore, the time was inopportune to interfere with their emoluments from public service. I do not wish to delay the Dáil by labouring that point over again, but I should like to pay particular attention to the case which the Minister has accepted, that they deserve special consideration, and to discuss the amount which he proposes to grant in the concession he offers in the Bill.
The special case of the dispensary doctor is that he is probably the only local officer who has to do a considerable amount of travelling without receiving any special allowance devoted to travelling expenses. The whole-time officers, such as county medical officers of health, receive a certain allowance for travelling—no doubt, inadequate for their work, but still they receive a travelling allowance. It is of the very essence of the work of the dispensary doctor that he should be able to travel expeditiously over his district. His district is often a very large one and is very difficult to cover in the discharge of his duties. He receives no allowance for his travelling expenses, in attending to patients whether at their own homes or, as he generally has to do, at outlying dispensary stations. All that out-of-pocket expenditure is supposed to be covered by his salary. The Minister recognises that, and, I take it, that is the justification for the special concession he gives. He proposes that the allowance of £50 should be considered in virtue of that annual expenditure— unusual as compared with other officers—that the dispensary doctor is put to. The dispensary medical officer must keep a motor car, and he has, in almost every case, to keep a man to look after the car and drive him. It is unlikely, unless he is a young and active man, that he will be able to do his work efficiently, if he has to attend to and drive his car as well as attend to his patients. Formerly, he was given some concession in connection with the motor tax, but that concession has been removed and he now is at exactly the same expense, covering a considerable mileage, as any person who keeps a car of the same class and who covers a similar mileage. In respect of the mileage he covers in the discharge of his duty, he is at the same expense as anybody driving the same number of miles for pleasure. In the last few years his expenses of locomotion have undoubtedly increased.
On a previous stage, the Minister made the point—no doubt, accurately— that the returns kept by a dispensary doctor did not show any increase of tickets attended to, but I take it that he will not complain that the work of a dispensary doctor as such has not increased in recent years, owing to the inability of many patients, who formerly paid him, to pay him nowadays. In addition to the fact that his private practice has dwindled, he has to travel just as much as he had before, and even more, because he has to attend just as many patients but now they do not pay him, whether they come directly on the poor law books or not, and he has to cover his district as frequently. The salary of a dispensary doctor is, I think, £175 per annum and I am assured by dispensary doctors in many parts of the country that they calculate that even on a salary very much above £175, at least half is expended in out-of-pocket expenses in travelling through their districts. The amendment which I am moving is that instead of the £50 concession which is proposed in the Bill an amount of £150 be allowed in the case of dispensary doctors. That is certainly not an extravagant estimate of the expenses entailed by dispensary doctors merely in travelling. The salary runs from £175 to £350 and it is not extravagant to say that a sum up to £150 is spent in out-of-pocket expenses and that on the smaller salary there are only a few pounds of actual emoluments left. On the larger salary, of course, there is more. I hope the Minister will give favourable consideration to this amendment and accept it. He must recognise that having admitted the principle by making any concession in the Bill, the advance he has made does not really meet the justice of the case and that the £50 does not, except in perhaps a very small number of dispensary districts, meet the out-of-pocket expenses the dispensary doctor is put to in performing his work. I ask the Minister to give it his kindly consideration.
I should like to support Deputy Dr. Rowlette in this amendment. I put it to the Minister that the amendment is really a very modest one. What is asked for in it is not very much. It is to grant an exemption of £150 to the dispensary medical doctors rather than £50. It is merely asking the substitution of £150 for £50. The reasonableness of that particular amendment, I think, is demonstrated from the joint request that is made to the Minister from the fact that supporting this amendment you have members of this Party, members of the Independent Party and members of the Labour Party, and I am certain that, if it were not for the dictates of Party discipline, we would have the names of many members of the Minister's own Party supporting it. The case was made earlier in this debate that on account of the very conditions that make this Bill a necessity, these dispensary doctors have been already more harshly penalised than they can be by any Bill of this kind; that the unpaid demands on their time have been increased; that the volume of their travelling has been increased. Their income has gone down while their expenditure has gone up. In view of that, some further recognition of their really difficult position should be given.
I would remind the Minister also that during this year we have had legislation compelling these men to insure their motor cars, and that compulsion is associated with a 25 per cent. increase in the previous cost of insurance. In the past, through mistaken motives of economy, very many dispensary doctors were not insured. They are compelled to insure now, and they are compelled to pay a 25 per cent. higher rate than previously. It is out of the question to suggest that any one of these doctors could go back to the horse and trap. There would be an outcry if they went back either to the bicycle or to the horse and trap. In view, then, I say, of their decreased income, their increased volume of unpaid practice, and consequently the increased cost of covering the road, the increased cost of insurance and taxation on their vehicles, I would urge the Minister to grant the modest all-party request that is enshrined in this particular amendment.
I would like from the Labour Benches to join my voice with those who have already spoken, in asking the Minister to accept this. The case has been put forward by Dr. O'Higgins and others, and I would urge the Minister to accept it. I would like to bear testimony to the great services given by dispensary doctors to the working classes. The great growth of the red tickets, a devolopment that has depleted the income of the doctors, should be considered by the Minister. There is no section of the community for which a stronger appeal could be made than for the dispensary medical officers. The terms of the amendment are reasonable, and I hope the Minister will give it his favourable consideration. Deputy O'Higgins has pointed to the increased demands on the dispensary doctors by unpaid patients and to lesser remuneration because of the depressed conditions of the people. Because of these depressed conditions the people are making more use of the dispensary doctors who are responding voluntarily indeed to the call, and making no bones about it. As a worker, and as one having an intimate connection with insurance work, I have nothing but the very best to say as to the way in which the doctors serve the working classes of the community. I join my voice with the other Deputies who have spoken in asking the Minister to consider this amendment as favourably as he possibly can.
I cannot agree that the amendment is a modest one and I doubt if Deputy Rowlette is serious in asking that the amount already provided for, that is an exemption of £50 special allowance to medical practitioners in dispensary districts should be increased to £150. The effect of that amendment would be to remove these doctors in dispensary districts from the operations of the Bill.
I could not agree to that. I think we have gone as far as was reasonable. I admit, and I admitted it when discussing the previous amendments, that there is a special case to be made for dispensary doctors. I think that case was met by the special allowance that was made to them. In fact, the only case where a special allowance was made was that of the dispensary doctors. It may be, as Deputy Rowlette and Deputy O'Higgins have said, that their incomes have decreased. That may, or may not be the case; I do not know. Exception has been made in their case, and while I do not put it down and will not for reasons known to the local Deputies, we do not want that this exemption that we are giving them in the way of travelling expenses should affect them later on when the subject of their pensions comes to be discussed. I think the allowance made to them may not be adequate and may not be all that we possibly could desire, but it is as far as we can go in the present circumstances.
Would the Minister split the difference and make it £100?
Question put: "That the words proposed be therein inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 47.
Tá
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Traynor and Moylan.
Question declared lost.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(2) Where a person who has been granted a superannuation allowance or a pension is in receipt of a salary from which a deduction is made under this Act, the amount of such allowance or pension actually payable shall be computed by reference to the full amount of such salary, and such deduction shall not be taken into account for the purpose of such computation.
On behalf of Deputy Doyle, I beg to move amendment No. 56:—
To delete sub-section (2).
It is aimed at achieving the deletion of sub-section (2). The purpose of that is to prevent an injustice which would be done to people who have been given pensions and gratuities. The amount which, in fact, they receive out of the nominal pension or gratuity has been based on certain conditions which impressed the minds of those who arranged them as just when the arrangements were made. The position under sub-section (2) will be this. Supposing a person has a pension from a local authority under any of the Acts which gave pensions for service to the State in a military way, the amount of the pension is reduced according to a scale, the scale fluctuating according to other emoluments which that person may get from public authorities. I want to preserve the existing situation with regard to these people. There are people who might simply rely on a pension but who, being offered work at a particular salary, take that work and give service for the value of the money. They might draw, possibly, £100 and, possibly, £200 for the extra work they are taking on. It is possible, as things are at the moment, for a man to be entitled to a pension of, say, £400 a year for doing nothing, and then on coming into receipt of emoluments for certain work done, say, to the value of £600, he does not draw his pension of £400 plus his salary of £600, but something in between. That is, he is doing a £600 job for about £150 or £200. When that scheme was arranged originally and the sliding scale fixed, it was thought a desirable thing to have these men, some of whom were pensioned at a time when, clearly, they had not passed the period of being able to give service to the State, induced to come back into the service of the State. There is no reason at the moment to have that upset, and the upset that is going to be occasioned to these people will be considerable to them as individuals, while the saving likely to be effected will be very small. I think there is a complete lack of balance between the two.
I do not think that what the Deputy suggests is likely to happen. There are, as he properly says, a number of people who have pensions and who have taken on employment under local authorities. Some of them have taken these posts under a local authority and, again, as the Deputy properly said, instead of getting a salary of £400 a year, they are only getting £150 or £200 a year because of the pensions. Some of them are getting a larger salary and drawing no pension, because there is a section in the Local Government Act of 1925 which arranges a sliding scale by which the salary was reduced according to the amount of the pension, or the pension, in certain circumstances, would not be paid at all. However, if we were to do what is suggested here, it could easily happen in the case of these people who can draw pensions and are not drawing them, or certain portions of them, that a cut could be made on their salaries and then their pensions would automatically increase. In that way, they would avoid any cut. Since the principle of cuts has been agreed to on the Second Reading of the Bill and they are in order for everybody, an arrangement of that kind, between the officials of the local authority and the local authority, whereby they could avoid a cut by having the pension automatically increased to cover the amount of whatever cut they might be subject to, would not be fair to the other officials concerned. On that ground, I cannot accept the amendment.
I can quite understand the Minister not accepting the amendment but I cannot understand his opening phrase, in which he says that what I have suggested is not likely to happen. It only affects a limited class, but to every member of that limited class what I have indicated as likely to happen will, in fact, take place. I think that that is beyond doubt. For instance, take the people who are getting pensions at present for military service. They have a pension of a particular amount. Then, those of them who do get work, as they are not getting the full pay ordinarily given for that work, lose, perhaps not on the pay, but on the pension; but between the two they do not get the amount of the pension or the two salaries. In every one of these cases of a person getting a pension and also doing work of this nature, this sub-section is aimed to have this effect. I seek to prevent it having that effect on any of them. As I say, they are a small number of people and the saving to the local authorities or whoever is supposed to benefit by this is not going to be very much in toto, while it is going to have a serious effect on the small and limited number of individuals who will suffer. These are people who have been given pensions or gratuities for very definite services rendered to the State; so I do not think that what the Minister said about the Second Reading should be allowed to override cases of individual hardship. These people are only a limited class in the public service. This is not an all-round cuts Bill. That is the objection. If there were to be an equal way of spreading hardship that had got to be borne it should be by ordinary taxation; but simply to attack, as the Bill definitely aims at attacking, people because, in the first instance, they are in the public service and are not in the local service, is unjust, and I hold it is immoral also. I cannot understand what the Minister said as to the sub-section not having an effect on every one of those people in receipt of public moneys and getting that salary now, and that once a cut has been applied it should apply to all these people.
Question—"That sub-section (2) stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
The making under this Act of a deduction from salary paid under a contract of service shall not operate to terminate such contract, and such contract shall, notwithstanding the making of such deduction, continue to subsist but subject to the obligation or right to make and the obligation to suffer such deduction.
I move amendment No. 57.
In line 55 to delete the word "and," and substitute the words "unless the person, from whose salary paid under such contract of service a deduction under this Act is made or proposed to be made, claims that the making of or proposing to make such deduction shall operate as his discharge and the termination of his contract of service, and in the absence of such claim."
The amendment itself is to insert words, which I have set down here, about half way down in Section 12. As it reads, the section amounts to this, that where there is a contract of service, the terms of the contract ordinarily having relation to work to be given on the one hand and, in consideration for that, moneys to be received, now an attempt is being made under the section to enable the contract to be changed—a consideration by way of the moneys paid for the services rendered to be lessened, and at the same time prevent that operating as a breach of contract. The section is aimed at preventing anybody saying that because the salary for which he took up certain work is being reduced that the contract is broken and also to prevent him from saying, if he can say anything, that it follows from a breach of contract. The section is clear in its aim, and that aim is that "the making of a deduction from salary paid under a contract of service shall not operate to terminate the contract." That is taken up in the section, and it also says that "such contract shall, notwithstanding the making of such deduction, continue to subsist but subject to the obligations or right to make and the obligation to suffer such deduction." I want to insert a formula, the result of the insertion of it being this, that if there is a deduction from salary paid under a contract of service, the making of that deduction shall not operate to terminate the contract unless the person from whose salary paid under such contract of service a deduction is made or proposed to be made, claims that the making of or proposing to make such deduction shall operate as his discharge. And then it ties up the end as follows: "and in the absence of such claim, such contract shall, notwithstanding the making of such deduction, continue to subsist but subject to the obligation of right to make and the obligation to suffer such deduction." In other words, I am going to assume that the terms of the measure will have been brought to the notice of everybody likely to be affected by it and to put the onus on the person, on presumed notice being received by him, to say: "I consider that that breaks the contract," and then for him to take whatever action is open to him. There may be no claim, but at any rate he should have the right to say that the contract has been broken and it should be left open to him to see what remedy he has. If he fails to make such a claim, then the section flows on as before. The contract still exists subject to the making of the cut.
Again I want to stress that the onus is put on the person to claim. It is not that automatically, because the deduction is made, the contract is broken and certain results may be discovered afterwards to follow and may be enforced; it is only when a person is alert and vigilant enough as to his own position, and sees that he is worsened and claims, for better or worse in relation to himself, that the contract is broken, and he is going to see what then is due to him. All this amendment means is that when you have entered into a contractual relationship with people in the public service that contract ought to be as sacred as any other, and should not be open to one-sided revision. It should not be open to a local authority, as I asserted it should not be open to the State in the case of the public service, to say: "No matter on what conditions we induced you into the service as to pay, holidays, security or anything else, we are going to deduct this and show the strength and length of our arm, and say that you shall not be entitled to hold that that is a breach of your contract, and shall not be entitled to pursue any rights for the breach of it." I do not know what the repercussions will be. I have not examined the contractual rights of those in the service of local authorities, but, at any rate, whatever they are, they are open to the person to enforce for himself. Until he does make the claim that the contract has been broken, and seeks to enforce his rights, nothing follows. In fact, in the absence of a claim, he is understood to have waived whatever rights he may have in relation to a breach of contract. I suggest, therefore, that this is a useful amendment.
I do not know if there are any officials of local authorities who have actually entered into a contract. It all depends on what definition you give to the word. I do not think they enter into a legal contract. There are contracts of another kind. Certain agreements are entered into between them, but those agreements are very frequently rearranged by local authorities. There have been rearrangements of salaries on several occasions since the Free State was established. I do not know that local officials themselves would demand what Deputy McGilligan seeks to demand for them. At any rate, I cannot accept the amendment.
Local officials whose salaries are liable to be cut under this Bill have at least had the matter brought to their attention through the Press, if not in a formal or official way. I do know that many of them have already, by getting increases proposed for themselves, sought to nullify the possible effects of the Bill. At any rate I do not see that it is possible to accept the amendment. It would practically nullify the section. That would not trouble the Deputy, but it would make any amount of trouble for local authorities who would have a condition of affairs such as was experienced under Article X of the Treaty in connection with the Civil Service. If I can avoid it, I do not propose to allow any such state of affairs to exist so far as officers of local authorities are concerned.
The Minister's answer has entirely evaded the point. If there is no contract of service, what is the meaning of Section 12? Section 12 is put in with the object of preventing anybody claiming that a deduction is a breach, but it only has its effect where in fact a salary is paid under a contract of service. If it is not so paid, then the section has no effect, and neither will the amendment.
There may be some contracts.
Whatever number there are, they will be a limited number, and the amendment will protect as the section will destroy their rights. If it does not apply at all, then the section is no good and the amendment is no good. One is as valueless as the other, and one might as well be in as the other. If they have widespread application the mind of the person who got the section drafted had fears that there was a big number, and set out to protect the State's end. I want to protect the employee's end. If it has only application to a small number, it does not matter putting in the section or the section with the rider to it.
The Minister went on to say that he does not want to have the officials of local authorities put into the position of, say, Article X people, but they will not be by the amendment unless they are in something of that position already. If they have no contract of service the amendment does not remove the earlier words. My amendment is to be inserted after the very important phrase "deduction from salary paid under contract of service." My amendment does not say that there is any new right of action or anything like that given. It simply says that the making of a deduction shall not operate to terminate the contract unless the person claims that the making of the deduction shall operate as his discharge and the termination of his contract of service. What rights he has after that will remain for further research. It does not give him any new right. It does not put him in any better position than before. Whatever his position was he simply gets this clear-cut admission made by the State: "We are making a deduction from your salary; you can claim that you think that breaks the contract, and when you do claim it does operate to discharge and bring about a termination of your contract with the local authority, after that you can get whatever rights are due to you." That is the beginning and end of the amendment. The Minister had to exaggerate the effect of it in order to make any argument against it.
He also said that the amendment seeks to put the officials of local authorities in a better position than they would claim for themselves. I have in my hand a copy of a memorandum which is stated to be a reprint of a memorandum dealing with economy cuts forwarded to the Minister for Local Government. Possibly that is one of the reasons that the Minister is not aware of what these people do claim, because I notice at the end of it the hope expressed that the Minister will be good enough to alter his previous decision on the question of a deputation. It is very easy when you do not hear a deputation to pretend not to know anything about the claims of the people to whom you have refused audience.
It is easy enough to be unaware of the cogency of the arguments those officials might advance when you have shut your doors upon them. I do not claim to have done anything in this amendment outside what I know their claim to be. Apart from what they claim, I think it is an equitable thing to say that if there is a contract of service entered into, and only if there is, and if that is based, on the one hand, on services rendered and, on the other hand, on moneys received; if there had been no change at least in the way of lightening the services rendered, but if the moneys are going to be reduced, then the person who reduces the moneys paid should have to put up with the position when the other party to the contract may say: "I think that breaks the contract. I think that means my discharge and the termination of my services." All that then happens is that he is out of the service. What happens after is a matter for further consideration.
Is the Minister merely like a child, afraid of the dark in connection with Deputy McGilligan's amendment? He has some vague, nameless, indeterminate fear about something that may be at the back of Deputy McGilligan's amendment, and he cannot put his finger on it. He does not know what it is, but he says it may be something like Article X of the Treaty in relation to the civil servants. The employees of local authorities have no such rights as civil servants have under Article X of the Treaty. What is he afraid of? They have no such rights. The object of Deputy McGilligan's amendment is merely to preserve what ought to be preserved by every Party in this House, namely, the sanctity of contracts. This section hits at the basis of contractual justice in this State. The Executive Council and the Minister, by the introduction of this Bill, have by State action interfered in a contract between what are essentially private parties. All that Deputy McGilligan wants to ensure is that when one party to the contract has been enabled by means of an Act of the Oireachtas to break this contract the other ought to be put in the position of repudiating the contract by reason of that breach. That is an elementary principle in the law of contracts, and all that Deputy McGilligan's amendment wants to do is to preserve ordinary justice in relation to contractual rights.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Brennan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 12 put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
(1) Every doubt, question, and dispute which shall arise as to whether any person is an officer within the meaning of this Act or as to the amount of the salary for the purposes of this Act of any officer or as to the amount of the minimum deduction to be made under this Act from any such salary, and if such salary is paid by more than one local authority, as to the amount of the minimum deduction to be made from such salary under this Act by each such local authority, shall be determined by the Minister whose determination thereof shall be final.
(2) An auditor duly appointed to audit the accounts of a local authority may, on any audit of the accounts of such local authority, raise any such question as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section in relation to any payment appearing in such accounts of the salary of any officer of such local authority, and every such question so raised shall be determined under this section by the Minister whose determination thereof shall be final.
Amendment No. 58 not moved.
I move amendment No. 59:—
To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words "provided, however, that an appeal from such determination shall lie to the Civil Service (Compensation) Board established in accordance with the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929 (No. 36 of 1929), and the said Board shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any such appeal and the determination of the said Board shall be final and conclusive."
The first sub-section of Section 13 establishes for the future that in the case of every doubt, question or dispute which shall arise on mentioned points:
as to whether any person is an officer within the meaning of the Act or as to the amount of the salary... of any officer or as to the amount of the minimum deduction to be made under this Act from any such salary...
with a fourth point that may arise also for determination in the same way:
...if such salary be paid by more than one local authority, as to the amount of the minimum deduction to be made from such salary under this Act by each such local authority
the determination of the Minister is enforced, and that determination is to be final. The Minister may be the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Education, or the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, but, in the main, it will be the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. You have a new position now for local authorities identical with the position created under the Public Services (Economies) Act for public servants. Disputes are likely to arise, or may arise, on whether a person is a person caught by the Act; on what is the amount of his salary for the purpose of calculating the deduction, and what is the amount of the deduction to be made. On all these points in respect of the vast majority of the officials of local authorities, the determination is the Minister for Local Government, and his decision is final. My amendment is to add to the end of the section a provision by which an appeal will lie to the Civil Service (Compensation) Board, and I give that Board jurisdiction to hear and determine any such appeal and establish that the determination of that Board will be final and conclusive.
This amendment is, I think, in identical terms to those of an amendment moved by Deputy Keyes to the Public Services (Economies) Bill when it was before the House. He was then aiming to give the right to appeal to public servants, and I am aiming at giving a right of appeal to local servants. I should not, perhaps, say that the amendments are identical, but the aims are the same. The Deputy had previously moved to allow an appeal to be taken to a court of competent jurisdiction. The only difference between us is that I am asking that it be taken to an informal type of court, which is working very satisfactorily, very easily and very cheaply, in relation to questions of pensions, the status of officers in the service, deductions and so on and so forth. It is a court which has great experience of this type of matter. It was specially established in order to give a speedy and cheap and, I might almost say, an informal way, of getting points of importance to the service, in relation to these matters, decided. I am asking to have the appeal taken to that body under this Bill. The basis of the amendment, of course, is that it is a wrong thing and has always been recognised as a wrong thing to have the person operating an Act as the final and only judge of rights under that Act. That is a principle that has been encroached upon from time to time, but has always met with resistance and has always been argued on that point of principle, that it is a wrong thing to set up a person and to give him the right to determine, in the first instance, and the right, in the second instance, finally to determine these questions. Sometimes the principle has been accepted and has grown up with a service, but certainly at each new attempt to establish it in relation to some new side of a service or in relation to new arguments or new points that may arise, it has always been very stoutly and definitely resisted.
I should like to have consideration given to it at the moment. It cannot be argued that it will delay the operation of cuts. If cuts are legitimate; if they are proper under the Act; if the people from whom they are to be taken are the people aimed at under the Act and so on, the cuts will be achieved. The only thing is that the people who are going to suffer the cut will not suffer under the definite sense of grievance under which they otherwise would suffer when they see that the person who brings in the Act, pilots it through the House and is responsible for the whole idea of economy, has given into his hands this knife which has been sharpened for use against certain people and told to wield it at his own will, and as the only person whose discretion is to be called in as to whether he is using that knife properly or improperly. That is a bad situation to allow to develop.
I am afraid the Deputy's memory must be somewhat at fault when he says that this is introducing any new principle. I think that in several Bills, introduced when the Deputy was a member of Deputy Cosgrave's Government, sections identical to this were inserted, and I never heard the Deputy protesting. I do not think that even any member of his Party protested, and if anybody protested—I do not know that I did; some members of my Party did, I think, when we were in opposition—the Deputy did not, in my recollection, nor did any of his Party, protest when exactly similar sections were introduced, probably more than once in each year, during the term of the Cosgrave Government. There is, therefore, nothing new in it. It is a point which has been introduced into Local Government Acts and other Acts, by which the Minister is the person to determine and decide—to be the arbitrator—in cases of doubt, question or dispute. I would not be surprised if Deputy McGilligan, who moved the amendment and argued in favour of it, argued in favour of the very opposite when on the Government Benches. Whether he argued against this very amendment I cannot say, but I know that my recollection is that he argued against similar amendments.
I challenge the Minister to quote where I did.
If I had time to search up the debates I am sure I would find very eloquent speeches made by the Deputy, if not on this particular matter, on other questions arguing quite opposite to this amendment.
Unfortunately, I cannot quote them at the moment. I must try between now and the next time this Bill is debated to search the debates and to give him examples. I can certainly quote for him Acts introduced and passed in this House containing these very sections for which he voted. I cannot accept the amendment.
The Minister's refusal to accept the amendment would apparently come down to this, that the Cosgrave Government could not do wrong. I gather from the Minister's defence of this section that he or some member of his Party spoke in heated terms against clauses similar to this being inserted into Bills during the time of the Cosgrave Government, and he says that the Deputy spoke in favour of such clauses. That means that the Minister, when in opposition, was against such a section as this. Let us now regard the situation as being a complete wash-out, that the situation has changed, and let us look at it from the point of view of the principle, and that it is not a question whether the Cosgrave Government did certain things or not or that the Minister's Party, when in opposition, spoke for or against a provision such as this. That does not determine the matter. Let us say, as I will say, that provisions of this kind, whether inserted by the Cosgrave Government or the de Valera Government, are absolutely wrong. They strike at the very root of the citizens' rights. They strike at the spirit, if not at the letter, of the Constitution, which provides that all matters which are justiciable should be decided by the courts set up by the Constitution.
This class of section, no matter by what Government introduced, is an arrogation by the Government of powers which they should not take, and it is a distinct attempt to deprive the citizen of his rights under the Constitution. There was no Department so strong on the question of bureaucracy as the Minister's own Department of Local Government and Public Health. The class of provision contained in this section is really bureaucratic. It is not the concern of the Minister to try a dispute between two outside parties. If these parties find that they cannot agree they can go to arbitration. If they do not go to an arbitrator then they have the courts for which the taxpayers are paying. If an employee of a local authority wishes to litigate a matter in the public court, if he insists upon his right as a citizen, no wrong can be done to the local authority, because if the employee is wrong he will be mulcted in costs and there will be no injustice done. But there will be injustice done between the local authority and the employee if the case is decided by the Minister or by one of his inspectors, who do not know the real facts and can only get them on a file.
Amendment put and negatived.
Section 13 put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
No resolution of a local authority increasing the salary of an officer of such local authority in respect of the year 1934 shall have effect after the passing of this Act unless the Minister has consented to such increase.
I move amendment No. 59a:—
In page 7, line 13, to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "current local financial year."
This amendment is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Where the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has, before the passing of this Act, fixed the remuneration of any person appointed under sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), to perform the duties of a local authority, the said Minister shall make and is hereby empowered to make for and in respect of the year 1934 such variation (if any) of such remuneration as shall, in his opinion, secure that the sum earned by and payable to such person as such remuneration in the year 1934 shall be reduced by such amount as the said Minister shall think proper having regard to the minimum deductions from salaries to be made under this Act and the other circumstances of the case.
I move amendment No. 59b:—
In lines 21 and 24, to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "current local financial year."
This is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 not moved.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) Where an officer (other than the chief executive officer) of any local authority held on the 1st day of January, 1934, offices under more than one local authority, he shall, not later than one fortnight after the passing of this Act, give to the chief executive officer of each local authority by whom he was so employed written particulars of the nature of his employment with, and of the salary which he was or is entitled to receive from, each of the other local authorities by whom he was so employed.
(2) Where an officer (other than the chief executive officer) of any local authority became or becomes at any time in the year 1934 employed by any other local authority (whether he is or is not at that time also an officer of the first-mentioned local authority), he shall, within fourteen days after the passing of this Act or his becoming so employed, whichever is the later, give to the chief executive officer of every local authority by whom he is or was employed on or after the 1st day of January, 1934, written particulars of the nature of his employment with and of the salary he is or was entitled to receive from each of the other local authorities by whom he is or was so employed.
(3) Where, in the case of an officer to whom either of the foregoing subsections of this section applies, any variation occurs after the passing of this Act and before the end of the year 1934 in the nature of his employment with or the amount of the salary which he is entitled to receive from any of the local authorities by whom he is employed, such officer shall, not later than one fortnight after such variation takes effect, give to the chief executive officer of each of the other local authorities by whom he is employed written particulars of such variation.
(4) Where an officer (other than the chief executive officer) of any local authority receives any portion of his salary in the form of fees or other remuneration not paid to him by a local authority, such officer shall, within fourteen days after the passing of this Act, give to the chief executive officer of every local authority by which he is employed an estimate in writing of the probable amount of such fees or other remuneration to be received by him during the year 1934, and shall also, within fourteen days after the 31st day of December, 1934, give to every such chief executive officer an account in writing of such fees or other remuneration actually received by him during the year 1934.
(5) If any officer refuses or wilfully neglects to do any act or perform any duty the doing or performance of which is rendered obligatory for him by virtue of this section, the Minister may remove such officer from his position of employment by any or every local authority and such removal shall be deemed to be removal for misconduct.
(6) If an officer giving written particulars or an estimate in writing in pursuance of this section gives any such particulars or estimate which are or is to his knowledge false or misleading in a material respect, such officer shall be guilty of an offence under this section and on summary conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £50 and also to be removed for misconduct by the Minister from his position of employment by any or every local authority.
I move amendment No. 63a:—
In sub-section (1), line 52, and in sub-section (2), page 8, line 4, to delete the word "January" and substitute the word "April"; in sub-section (2), lines 61-62, sub-section (3), line 10, and in sub-section (4), lines 24 and 27, to delete in each line the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "current local financial year"; and in sub-section (4), line 25, to delete the word and figures "December, 1934" and substitute the word and figures "March, 1935."
This is also covered by a previous amendment.
Is this a readjustment, too?
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.
I move amendment No. 66:—
To delete sub-section (4).
I can see the object of sub-section (4), but I want to find out what the Minister had in mind as to the detail of this information. Sub-section (4) runs this way:—
Where an officer other than the chief executive officer of any local authority receives any portion of his salary in the form of fees or other remuneration not paid to him by a local authority, such officer shall... give to the executive officer of every local authority by which he is employed an estimate in writing of the probable amount of such fees or other remuneration during the year 1934... and within 14 days after the 31st December, 1934 shall give to every chief executive officer an account in writing of such fees or other remuneration actually received by him during 1934.
I want to raise one or two points on that. I take it that section envisages only a man getting funds from a local authority and not getting funds from another local authority but from some outside source. The section never envisages a man getting money from two local authorities. Why does the section say he shall give the chief executive officer of every local authority this estimate in writing?
There are some officials getting money from as many as three or four local authorities.
There is a contradiction somewhere. "If an officer receives any portion of his salary... not paid to him by a local authority," then he has to give to the chief executive officer of a different local authority an indication of these funds. But where is the co-relation of the funds that he gets from each of the separate local authorities by whom he is employed? I take the section to mean that nobody does draw fees or emoluments from more than one local authority——
——and, therefore, all you had to cover was a man getting fees from a local authority and getting fees elsewhere. However, that is only a small point, and I do not want to enlarge upon it. As to giving an estimate in writing of the probable amount, and a statement after the event of the actual fees, do I take it if the estimate and the actual amount differ, the next sub-section may be brought into effect and it might be counted as a wrong return? Would it be considered wilful neglect of the performance of a duty and the official might be removed from his office?
Supposing a person makes an estimate before the year is out of the fees or emoluments to be received, and that differs from the actual return made afterwards. Let us take an unusual case, where the estimate is higher than the actual result. Will a refund be made?
Supposing the estimate is less, can extra moneys be levied off the man?
Then in that event why not wait for the return at the end of the year, and levy after the facts are known? The reduction will be then based on actual receipts, and not on an estimate. I am afraid to leave this in a dubious position, because a very severe sub-section follows, and I am seeking to have it struck out. I have three amendments here, and it might save time if they were considered together. The position would be that if an officer refuses or wilfully neglects to give particulars in an estimate or if, in giving particulars, he gives false information and so on, certain penalties follow. He would be subject to the penalties in sub-section (6), and I notice that in sub-section (6) the monetary penalty is the one that is pushed into the forefront. He would be liable to a fine, not exceeding a certain amount. I take it that a fine means court proceedings. Removal from office would never be attempted except in the case of a very serious offence.
Sub-section (5) puts removal as the penalty, and deems that removal to be removal for misconduct which, I think, precludes any right to pension. I do not know why there should be that very stringent limitation, and the punishment of removal for misconduct in relation to refusing or neglecting to do a thing, whereas if a person gives false information, which is, from the angle of a completely dishonest man, the next best thing to refusing or neglecting to give the information, a monetary penalty, and court proceedings are pushed into the forefront. I think it is objectionable that a man might be charged with having neglected or refused to give information because he has given a wrong estimate. I think it would be preferable if this could be entirely removed, and leave a man to be brought into court for the giving of false information based on the actual return made by him after the year, when he was bound to know all the facts which can be proved against him. That would be a better procedure than allowing the Minister to operate a section which enables him to remove for misconduct a man who had neglected to do an act or perform a duty.
With regard to the two returns, the estimate and the final return of the actual receipts, the estimate is certainly necessary. The chief executive officer of the local authority will want to make out in advance what amount is to be cut from the salary of the officer, and he will have to have some idea what fees or other emoluments come to the officer concerned before he can make out his estimate of the cut to be made in the succeeding months. If no cut were made, and it were left to the end of the year, and the officer concerned was asked to send in a return, the cut would have to be made in one slice, and it would be very heavy. It is for the purpose of making it as light a burden as possible, and dividing it into monthly portions, that the estimate is asked for. The purpose of the later return is to check up and see that the proper amount was cut from the officer's salary or emoluments.
With regard to the other point, I agree with the Deputy that it does look a severe punishment for an officer who might refuse or neglect or might be guilty of wilful neglect and I think the argument the Deputy has put up as to the severity of the punishment is a sound one. If he agrees to withdraw the amendment, I will have the sub-section looked into and altered, perhaps not exactly as he suggests, but in some form so as to reduce the severity of the proposed punishment.
I will certainly withdraw the amendment in order to enable that to be done. As regards the desirability of having an estimate, those who are going to be cut under this measure can have it impressed on them in other ways that it is desirable to send in this estimate. What I am objecting to is that the refusal or the failure to send an estimate, or the sending in of an estimate with wrong particulars, may be held to be an offence and may either get the man removed from the service or brought before a court. As the section stands the person may be punished in either of the ways set out. That being the case, the cut can be enforced. There is no great chance of anybody getting away. Why leave a power in the hands of any Minister to say that the failure to send an estimate, or the giving of wrong particulars in an estimate, may be the foundation for an action in court and a man may be put to considerable trouble to defend himself? Most people will not, if there is simply there this question of sending an estimate in, but to make the penalty apply only to the refusal or failure to comply with all the parts of the section except his writing of the estimate would involve hardship.
It is a power that is very unlikely to be used to the detriment of any official by any Minister so far as my experience goes.
Yes. It is only the odd case that would cause hardship.
Amendments Nos. 66, 67, 68 and 69, by leave, withdrawn.
Would the Minister consider amendment No. 70 also? I was rather trying to take away this removal. However, it can be considered together with the others.
I will consider amendment No. 70 also.
Amendment No. 70, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) The chief executive officer of every local authority shall submit to such local authority, in respect of each officer (not being an artisan, skilled labourer or a person hired to perform only subordinate duties or ordinary labour whose employment is occasional only) in the employment of such local authority during the year or any part of the year 1934, a statement showing the estimated amount of the salary payable to such officer during the year 1934 and of the minimum deduction to be made under this Act from such salary and where appropriate of the proportion of such minimum deduction made by such local authority and such chief executive officer shall so submit such statement not later than one fortnight after the passing of this Act or the entry of the officer to whom such statement relates into the employment of such local authority, whichever is the later.
(5) The Minister may by order make regulations prescribing any matter or thing referred to in this section as prescribed, and the word "prescribed" in this section means prescribed by such regulations.
I move amendment No. 70a:—
In sub-section (1), lines 47 and 49, and in sub-section (2), lines 56 and 62, to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "current local financial year."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 71 not moved.
I move amendment No. 72:—
To delete sub-section (5).
Why take away this Order?
How will the regulations be made hereafter?
The Minister has all the power necessary without putting it in.
Is the power given to him in this Act?
Could the Minister give me a reference as to where the power is?
They can send in what is necessary in any form they please. We are not prescribing the form.
Amendment No. 72 agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933 (No. 37 of 1933), is hereby amended as follows and shall be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say:—
(a) by the insertion in that sub-section of the words "or will make" immediately after the words "has made," and
(b) by the deletion of the words "current financial year" and the insertion in lieu thereof of the word and figures "year 1934."
Amendment No. 73 not moved.
I move amendment No. 73a:—
In page 9, line 27, to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words and figures "financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1934."
Amendment No. 73a agreed to.
Amendment No. 74 not moved.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 75 is covered by amendments Nos. 24 and 29.
In so far as it refers to the word "minimum," but I am not sure that it is covered in so far as it refers to Part I.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 covered that. The Ceann Comhairle, I think, held to-day that that would be covered by these.
Does it mean that for the future we have only one Schedule?
Oh, no. We have two. There was a vote on amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
You mean that it falls with that?
Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 not moved.
Amendment No. 78 is a Labour amendment, but if it is not going to be moved by the Labour people, I should like to move it for the sake of having it put as an expression of opinion, at any rate, from this side of the House. Accordingly, I move amendment No. 78:—
In Part I, to delete the figures "£300" where it occurs and insert therein "£400" and to delete "£400" where it occurs and insert therein "£500."
The object of this amendment is simply to delete the figure "£300" where it occurs in Part I and to insert therein "£400" and to delete "£400" where it occurs and insert "£500." At the moment, the Schedule operates to effect that the deductions where the annual rate of salary does not exceed £300 shall be nil, whereas under the amendment in Deputy Corish's name that would be changed to read that "where the annual rate of salary does not exceed £400 the deduction is nil." The second part of it says that "where the annual rate of salary exceeds £300 but does not exceed £400, the deduction is 2 per cent. per annum." Those two figures would be substituted in Deputy Corish's amendment by £400 and £500, and would read that "where the annual rate of salary exceeds £400 but does not exceed £500 the deduction is 2 per cent." and then that these other special cuts which follow in a series now applicable to salaries exceeding £400 would only be applicable to salaries exceeding £500. It raises the exemption from deduction also by another £100.
I cannot accept the amendment. The figure of £300 is, I think, a fair figure, and it is the farthest we can go. I think that the type of people, even in the City of Dublin, that will come in under this section will be able to meet their obligations, and that the cut will not be so heavy on them at that figure. That was the figure that was passed by this House in relation to a former Economies Bill, the Bill relating to public servants, and while I do not say that it was accepted as a fair figure by everybody, I think it was a reasonable figure, and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.
Again, I want to remark that treating this amendment in this way clearly shows the mind behind the measure. We are told by the Minister that people of this type ought to be able to meet their obligations, but this is not a question of paupers. Surely, we have not got to the scale of people who are merely at the subsistence level, but of people who have been put into honourable and responsible positions under local authorities and who had salaries given to them in proportion to the service it was thought they were giving to the community. We are not, at any rate, in this measure, aiming at reducing people nearly to the bread-line and stopping at the point where we think we are putting them over it, and then taking pride to ourselves that we have stopped somewhere short of that. This is a question of people employed by local authorities, in the main under contracts, whether legal contracts or not, with salaries established in circumstances that realised what the work was that these people were doing and its value to the State, and, taking the other side of the account into consideration, in finding out what was the salary meet and proper to give to these people to enable them to keep up a certain situation compatible with the work they had to do and the position they were going to enjoy. Then, suddenly without any test being made as to whether the work has decreased in value or whether they were not performing the work properly, they simply come in and say that they have thought of a figure as a certain minimum and then that they have thought of another figure and they bring the salaries down to that figure. The whole thing is arbitrary. It is very unjust in the manner in which these people have been segregated out for cuts at all without the slightest argument being advanced that these people were overpaid previously and therefore were what might be called people in possession of fat jobs who were the appropriate people to be cut in their salaries in a time of crisis and depression. No such argument has been advanced. We are simply taking those people because they stand in a certain relationship to the Government; they are within the sweep of the cutting arm, and that is the best that can be said for the measure.
Deputy Corish had an amendment down. Deputy Corish is fairly expert in local government matters. He has been in a position of authority in one of those local bodies for many years and it is very well known that he has great experience of these matters. Viewing this measure, feeling, I am sure, in his heart, that he would rather not have the cuts at all, but looking at it and the people on to whom the cuts are to be passed, and the work they do, he says it is better to raise the exemption limit by £100 and to raise the salary on which the cut is to be made by £100, so that those will fall in a new series. The Minister's answer is: "It does not matter; we are giving those people enough to live on," and that is the point to which we have got in local government.
Question—"That the figures proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Brennan.
Question declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81 are covered by amendment No. 39.
I want to ask for some information. Previously I had raised a point on amendment No. 75 and I can certainly understand that the abolition of the word "minimum" was covered by certain things that had been agreed to. Where the attempt to achieve that there should be only one scale in the measure had been previously debated and decided I could not discover. It may have happened under some amendment the principle of which governs this.
It was on amendments Nos. 39 and 40, to the best of my recollection.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
Schedule put and agreed to.
TITLE.
An Act to provide for the making of deductions from the remuneration payable during the year 1934 to persons employed by local authorities and from certain scales of expenses and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid and in particular to amend the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933.
I move amendment No. 82a:—
In page 2, line 10, to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "local financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1934."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Title, as amended, put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage fixed for Thursday next.
