Vol. 64 No. 5
I move:—
That it is expedient to authorise any payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas which are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present Session to make special provision with respect to the superannuation of particular officers and servants of local authorities, and for that and other purposes to amend and extend the Local Government Act, 1933.
It is assumed that a sum of about £750 will be required.
The Bill to which this Money Resolution relates is a kind of extension of a previous Bill, with some new trimmings. The Minister apparently felt that it was necessary to have the Act of 1933 extended, and for that purpose we are now asked to vote certain moneys. He did not tell us on the Second Reading why it was necessary to extend that Act. He said that there were certain persons and certain local authorities that had not done all that they might have done within the prescribed period. He did tell us why they did not do it. He did not tell us what delayed them or what really it was that restricted them. This Bill appears to be rather peculiar in its construction. It not alone extends, as far as I can see, the previous Act, but gives permission to local authorities, and to persons that have applied to local authorities, to have cases reopened that were already turned down. The Minister ought to tell the House what is the necessity for the extension of the Act, and why these innovations are also necessary, before the House is asked to provide the money.
I think we went into all these matters that are raised by Deputy Brennan very fully on the Second Reading.
It is not in this.
I do not know that there is any matter of principle that the Deputy has raised which was not touched upon when the Second Reading was going through. I presume if the Deputy wants to raise any matter he can raise it on one of the sections when we come to deal with them.
I am raising it now.
Has the Minister any special cases in mind which this is designed to cover?
The Minister merely stated here on the last occasion as reported in the Official Reports: "In a few cases there was some delay, and the time limit expired before the necessary resolution was passed, or before payment was made." The Minister did not give any details as to how the time was allowed to expire or as to whose fault it was. Was it the fault of the local authorities or of people who did not apply? I think he ought to give some reason for it.
He will not answer.
I will, any question in reason that is asked.
That is a perfectly reasonable question.
Could the Minister say, in respect of the provisions of the measure and of the Money Resolution, whether all cases are provided for, all claims which have not been paid within the six months, or if the Bill only refers to particular cases? I take it that during the period some lapses may have occurred. There is the second point, that objection might have been taken to payment—that the question was in dispute. The local authority changed its complexion and the new body is willing to pay, but it is statute barred. Have all cases been provided for in this measure in respect of which a dispute occurred and, secondly, are there cases in respect of which one local authority refused to pay and its successor in office wants to pay?
I have not any such case in mind. No case has been brought before me where there has been a change of attitude on the part of the local authority arising out of a change in the personnel of the local authority. In one set of cases the local authority passed its resolution, but did not operate its resolution until the six months, during which the law allowed the claims to be paid, lapsed. In other cases, individuals did not make their claim in time. I think there are not a dozen cases altogether. It is merely to enable, in one set of cases, the local authority, who has asked us over and over again to extend the period of time, to pay the claims. I have not had any case brought before me where there has been a change of attitude as the result of a change in the personnel of the local authority.
Does the £750 mentioned cover all the cases?
It does.
Surely the Minister and Deputy Cosgrave do not mean the same thing. Does the Minister mean that the total amount of the pensions and grants that may be made under this enabling Act will not exceed £750?
So far as the Exchequer is concerned, there are two cases in which civil servants are involved. The settlement of their claims, plus the administration, may amount to an expenditure of £750. That is the estimate I have got. But the total estimate of what it may cost to local authorities, I gather, is round about £1,000. I have not an accurate figure.
There is a rather new provision in this Bill which gives the Minister a right which, I think, previously reposed in the courts.
Will the Deputy take that on the section? It will be more relevant on the section and will probably arise on the section in any case.
Very well.
