Under Section 2 (2) they are entitled now to pass the resolution. Does that sub-section mean that where the local authority, having considered all the pros and cons of the case, had refused to give a pension or gratuity, as the case may be, the case can now be reopened?
In Committee on Finance. - Local Government Bill, 1936—Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) Where a local authority resolved, before the passing of this Act, to pay under Section 7 of the Act of 1933 a sum of money to any person or the personal representative of any person but such money was not so paid either because the period of six months mentioned in the said Section 7 expired after the passing of such resolution and before such money was actually paid or because the said period of six months had expired before the passing of such resolution, then and in every such case it shall be lawful for such local authority, with the sanction of the Minister, to pay such money to such person or such personal representative (as the case may be) in accordance with such resolution.
(2) Where a person applied, either on his own behalf or as personal representative of another person, to a local authority before the passing of this Act (whether before or after the expiration of the period of six months mentioned in Section 7 of the Act of 1933) for payment under the said Section 7 of a sum of money and no resolution for such payment of such money was passed by such local authority, then and in every such case it shall be lawful for such local authority, within twelve months after the passing of this Act and with the sanction of the Minister, to resolve to pay and to pay to such person (or his personal representative) or to such personal representative any sum of money which could lawfully have been paid to him under the said Section 7 by such local authority within the period of six months mentioned in the said Section 7.
The following Government amendments were agreed to:—
1. In sub-section (1), page 2, line 29, after the word "authority" to insert the words "within twelve months after the passing of this Act and".
2. Before sub-section (3), page 2, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where a person applies, either on his own behalf or as personal representative of another person, to a local authority within six months after the passing of this Act for payment under Section 7 of the Act of 1933 of a sum of money, it shall be lawful for such local authority, within twelve months after the passing of this Act and with the sanction of the Minister, to resolve to pay and to pay to such person or to such personal representative (as the case may be) any sum of money which could lawfully have been paid to him under the said Section 7 by such local authority within the period of six months mentioned in the said Section 7.
3. At the end of the section, page 2, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Section 7 of the Act of 1933 is hereby amended, as from the passing of that Act, by the substitution in sub-section (1) of that section of the date "the 30th day of September, 1924," for the date "the 30th day of April, 1923," and all references in the foregoing sub-sections of this section to the said Section 7 shall be construed and have effect as references to that section as amended by this sub-section.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
It does mean that.
I wonder if that is really wise. Why should that be done? This is an amendment of the 1933 Act. The Minister is taking into consideration the change of personnel in the county councils.
No. The Act was passed after the last election.
If the Act was not passed until after the last election there can be no justification for the inclusion of a sub-section of that kind. It is really a vexatious provision which a county councillor or an applicant may raise after a case has already been turned down by resolution of the county council. In another section of the Bill the Minister is, apparently, giving himself the right to mend his hand with regard to certificates which have been made wrongly, if you like.
No.
We shall come to that later. It appears to me as if we were conniving at certain things being done, if you like, after people had seen the mistake they made before in not getting them done in the proper way. That is the Minister's idea. My idea is that people made the best case they could and failed, and now they are going to make a different case and get through. That appears to me to be the object of the sub-section.
The object is what I stated earlier. There are certain cases which were not presented in time, and some cases that were presented in time were not dealt with by the local authority within the prescribed time. Probably I was unwise in restricting the period during which the Act of 1933 was to operate.
I provided a period of only six months during which the Act would be in operation. I thought that the individuals interested in putting forward their claims and the local authorities would be willing to deal with these matters within that period. I did not want to have an Act of that kind hanging over for a long period. In some cases, the claimants did not put in their claims in time. Some of them made the excuse that they had not noticed the debates on the Bill when it was going through the Oireachtas. For one reason or another, local authorities did not find it convenient to deal with these matters within the period of six months which was allowed. The Bill is intended to enable these local authorities to have another opportunity of dealing with these cases if they so desire. If they do not wish to pass these resolutions, there is nothing to compel them.
I am in entire agreement with the case the Minister has made, but that section gives the right to re-raise a matter already decided by the county council or local authority.
It does.
I say that that should not be done. Claimants who made the best case they could before the county council are now entitled to come along, have the whole matter re-raised and possibly adopt a change of front.
The chairman of the county council could probably rule them out.
I suggest that he could not. It would be quite in order for a claimant to have his claim pressed by some member of the county council and a whole day's discussion wasted on new evidence because the old evidence was not successful.
In view of the Minister's statement that he does not expect this provision to cost the local authorities more than £1,000, we shall not challenge a division.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
The changed wording of this section extends it to a type of person who would not otherwise be entitled. I should like to know to how many cases it will apply and what cases the Minister had in mind when introducing this particular wording.
I think that there are only three or four cases—servants of the Dublin Corporation.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) In this section—
the expression "pensionable officer" has the same meaning as it has in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 42 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), but includes an officer who devoted the whole of his time to the service of one or more committees or joint committees appointed for all or any of the purposes of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, notwithstanding that the appointment or all or any of the appointments of such officer was or were renewable periodically;
the expression "pensionable service" means service as a pensionable officer;
the expression "the Civil Service" means the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann.
(6) Compensation for loss of office awarded under this section to any person shall not become payable unless or until such person shall have ceased to serve in the Civil Service in such circumstances that a superannuation allowance or a gratuity could be granted to him under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1923, on such cesser.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before Section 4, page 3, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) A certificate by the Minister under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1933 may, notwithstanding anything contained in that sub-section, be given at any time within twelve months after the appointment mentioned in the said sub-section or the passing of this present Act, whichever is the later.
(2) Whenever the Minister is satisfied that a certificate given or purported to be given (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under sub-section (1) of the Act of 1933 was defective by reason of a mis-statement of fact or other error of detail therein, the Minister, if he so thinks proper, may, at any time within twelve months after the passing of this Act, cancel such certificate and issue in lieu thereof a new certificate under the said Section 5 as amended by this Act.
The Minister is giving himself the right, under sub-section (2), to mend his hand in the event of a new case being presented.
I do not issue the certificates. Only one case that I know of is affected by this section. That is a case where a clerical error was made in the issue of a certificate to a servant of the Dublin Corporation. It is to meet that case, which deprived the person concerned of a certain right, that this provision is introduced.
I do not understand the Minister when he says that he does not issue the certificates. Sub-section (1) refers to certificates issued by the Minister. Sub-section (2) gives him the right to amend a certificate which he has already issued. Is not that so?
Nominally, the Minister does issue the certificates. He is responsible for them.
I suggest that the Minister should take us into his confidence and tell us bluntly what the situation is. The Minister is responsible for all these certificates. If he says that a mistake was made in one certificate and that he has no hesitation in saying that he will allow no certificate to be altered unless he is satisfied that a clerical error occurred—that he will allow no heel-tapping—there will be no objection on our part.
One certificate was issued in which, I think, a mistake was made. It certainly looks like a clerical error. It was put to us by Dublin Corporation that a mistake had been made. It is to cover that case that this provision is introduced.
There is no question of the Minister permitting heel-tapping of any kind?
No.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
To add at the end of sub-section (1) the following words—"references to resignation from a service shall be construed as including leaving such service otherwise than by dismissal."—(Minister for Local Government and Public Health.)
I move amendment No. 6 (No. 7 on Order Paper):—
Before sub-section (4), on page 3, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) When calculating for the purposes of this section the amount of the compensation which may be granted by a local authority to an officer, his yearly salary and emoluments shall be taken to be the amount which in the opinion of the Minister would have been his yearly salary and emoluments if he had continued in the service of such local authority up to and during the whole of the three years immediately preceding his appointment to an established position in the Civil Service.
Under this new sub-section, the position will be that if a person had only a few years' service, or possibly only one year's service, under a local authority, and left that service to take up arms with the Minister in 1923, he is to be allowed for that one year's service a pension based on 14 years' service. I think that is manifestly unfair. Some regard ought to be had to the service the local authority obtained from an officer before asking them to carry a pension. There is another section dealing with gratuities. In that case, the Minister for Finance is prepared to carry all the gratuities. If a person is so old that he cannot be re-employed in the Civil Service or by a local authority, the Minister is prepared to put the burden on the Exchequer, but if a man is young enough to be re-employed by a local authority, then, though that local authority may have got only one year's questionable service from him, they are to be obliged to pay the officer in question a pension on the basis of 14 years' service.
Not alone that, but the Minister apparently has power under this Bill to say what his salary ought to have been during that period and how it might have increased, and, on the Minister's calculation of what the salary might have been, it is proposed to give the person concerned a pension. I say that that is manifestly unfair. If a local authority had the services of an official for a number of years, there is some justification for that person getting a pension and the local authority might in reason be asked to pay in respect of the period when the person was in their service. But to suggest that the intervening period of 12 or 14 years should be regarded as the liability of the local authority is a thing to which I shall certainly strenuously object.
I would like to inquire whether this amendment will cover a case, the circumstances of which I shall briefly describe for the information of the Minister. I have in mind the case of a person who was in the Civil Service and who was dismissed during the British administration on political grounds. He subsequently secured employment in the service of a local authority. He continued in the service of that local authority until 1929 or 1932—I cannot say definitely at the moment. He was subsequently reinstated in the Civil Service. I think an offer of reinstatement in the Civil Service was made to him in 1922 and he asked to have the matter left in suspense for some time. Subsequently, however, he secured reinstatement in the Civil Service. There is some doubt as to whether his previous service during the period 1921 to 1929 or 1932 will count for the purpose of a Civil Service pension. Is it intended by the Minister that this Bill will cover a case of that kind? I have brought the matter to the Minister's attention, but I do not know whether he has been able to give it consideration.
It was intended for the purpose of pensions or compensation that the period of ten years would be taken by the local authority when the official comes to be pensioned. There will be no immediate cost to the local authority, but there will be, at some stage or another, a certain amount of liability on the local authority as a result of these cases. As far as we have been able to discover, there will not be more than two or three cases in the whole of the Free State. With regard to the case Deputy Norton has mentioned, I do not think that this Bill will cover it. In that case, I understand, the official left or was dismissed from the Civil Service during the British régime. He secured a position with a local authority and spent a number of years with that local authority. He was offered reinstatement in 1928 or 1929 and possibly he weighed up which would serve his purpose best, to stay with the local authority or accept the offer made to him and return to the Civil Service. At any rate, he decided to remain with the local authority. An opportunity arose again in 1932 to secure reinstatement in the Civil Service and he decided to return. I do not think, bearing in mind the fact that it was to suit himself primarily that he turned down the offer or allowed it to remain over from as far back as 1922 or 1928 until 1935, that any compensation for these years is due to an official of that kind.
Will the Minister say whether it is possible to allow the officer to reckon at least some portion of his service for pensionable purposes either in the Civil Service or in the service of the local authority? After all, the primary cause of his dismissal from the Civil Service was his political sympathy. If he had not had that sympathy he probably would have been in the Civil Service in the meantime and might well have expected pretty reasonable advancement. Undoubtedly his national sympathies caused his dismissal from the Civil Service and, as a result of these sympathies, he is now left the poorer. Quite possibly he had, at one stage, to weigh up whether it would be more advantageous to remain with the local authority or go back to the Civil Service. An examination of the position will show that any person similarly circumstanced would take the action he took. The outstanding fact in the case is that as a result of this man's dismissal by the British on political grounds, he is left the poorer to-day. I wonder could the Minister hold out any hope that some effort will be made to compensate this man for the loss of some period of his service?
He was offered reinstatement in 1922, as soon as the Free State was established, and again at a later period. He did not see fit to accept reinstatement then. Ten years later he returns to the Civil Service, some 15 years after the offer was first made. Surely he could not base any claim to compensation or consideration by way of service in the Civil Service during the period when he definitely refused to return? It is largely a matter for the Minister for Finance to deal with. I know the individual and I know the circumstances under which he left the Service long ago. If I saw any reason in the case I would be glad to help him, but it does not seem to me that he can put forward a reasonable claim if he was offered reinstatement in 1922 and did not make up his mind to take it until 1935 or 1936.
I think the Minister, knowing the person, will probably agree that he is the poorer from the point of view of pension rights by reason of his national sympathies. If he had not national sympathies he would stand better from the point of view of his pension rights. I wonder if the Minister could hold out any hope in the particular circumstances of this case? It is an outstanding grievance and perhaps it could be remedied. There cannot be many other cases, because this set of circumstances will scarcely ever arise again. The cost of adjusting this grievance will not mean much to the State, and it is only a distant liability at the present time. If the Minister cannot do much in this Bill to meet the case I have submitted, perhaps he will use his good offices in another way to have the matter adjusted.
I will be glad to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to the case.
The Minister has not attempted to justify the placing of a burden upon local authorities in respect of the pensions of people who have left their service voluntarily and whose services the local authority had not the advantage of for at least ten years. Is there any justification for compelling the local authority to pay a pension to a person who, voluntarily and willingly, left their service?
If, because of their sympathies with, say, the Minister's people at that time —that would be a political reason— they left the Service, now that the Minister is in office, I think the very least he ought to do is to consider that if those people have lost pension rights, the Government ought to carry them. He has recognised that in respect of the gratuity question, so that we have the two cases being differently dealt with. If a person who was an officer or employee of a local authority left that employment after 1922 or 1923, and has now arrived at an age at which he cannot be re-employed, the Minister is quite prepared to pay a gratuity; in other words, he realises his responsibility. But in the other case, he does not. Why is the distinction made? Why does the Minister think that a local authority ought to pay a pension to a person who did not really work for it? The Minister should tell us that, and he should tell us why he is not prepared to carry the burden.
There is a distinction between the cases of those who are paid gratuities and those who are being reintegrated or restored to the service of the local authority or the Civil Service, but we are dealing with a few cases—I think there are only three—on the same basis as the cases of those who were restored either to the local authority or the Civil Service. Where they were restored, their period out of office was counted for pension in all cases.
That is not the point made by Deputy Brennan. His point, as I gather it, is that if you are determined to count those years for pension purposes, why is it the local authority, in whose service they were not during those ten years, and in whose service they are not now, rather than the Central Fund should bear that charge? I think that is the point and I do not think the Minister has addressed himself yet to that point.
If these people had been restored to the local authority, the local authority would have been liable for their service.
And they would have had their service.
They would not have had their service over a number of years, but still they would be liable for a recognition of that period for pension purposes.
May I point out that the Minister says: "If they had been restored to the local authority"; that is, he justifies his action by putting forward an hypothesis which he says does not hold. That is the most extraordinary justification I ever heard for anything done up to the present. "If they had been restored to the local authority"—they have not been restored. All that Deputy Brennan wants to know is: why does not the body who now enjoys their services take over the responsibility for their pensions? I think that is a perfectly legitimate question.
We are sharing the responsibility between the two bodies.
We will see how we are sharing that liability. Take the case of a person who is employed by a local authority and who gives only one year's active service.
Has the Deputy any case in mind?
No, I have not.
But it could happen?
Yes. That person is now in the employment, say, of the Civil Service and he will give 15 years' service. How does the Minister think that a fair proportion of the burden of the pension is for the Minister to carry 15 years and the local authority ten years? Is that a fair distribution?
There is a fair distribution, in my opinion, in the cases we are dealing with. There is no case where an official gave one year's service to a local authority and will give 15 or 20 years to the Civil Service, and therefore, that that local authority is, to that extent and in that proportion, being injured by having pension responsibility put upon it.
I say that it is manifestly a terrible hardship on local authorities.
There are only three cases in the Saorstát.
I do not know how many cases there are, but I do know of servants of local authorities whose sympathies were with the Minister in 1922——
I have just dealt with people under this Bill whose sympathies were the other way. We are dealing with both classes.
I am only using that to illustrate my case.
Use the other case now for a change.
I am going to use the one nearest my mind. I know local officers whose sympathies in 1922 were with the Minister, and who went out and put the local authority to an immense amount of expense by blowing up bridges and things like that.
That is ancient history.
I do not want to make any capital out of it, but it is very hard lines on that local authority to be told that they must pay them a pension for that period, and, not alone for that period, but for a further ten years during which they were not in their service at all.
If they had not ten years' service, they could not get any pension at all.
Am I right in stating that under this Bill a man who had, say, two years' service with a local authority, who went out and who is now re-employed by the Civil Service, is going to have ten or eight years added in order to make him pensionable?
He will have some years added, anyhow.
He is entitled to have something added to bring him up to ten years?
We are doing it for both sides in order to settle these claims and these difficulties.
I do not mind the sides at all, but it is manifestly unfair to a local authority to have to pay a pension to anybody who voluntarily and willingly left their service.
Suppose that man went into the British Army——
And fought in an economic war.
——we would not hear a word about him.
Or maybe an uneconomic peace.
These are men who have been victimised, and victimised in a very filthy manner, for ten years.
The Minister says that one of them is on our side.
Some of them are your own crowd you forgot about.
They forget nothing.
I would expect Deputies opposite who took part in that victimisation, who sat on these benches crossing the t's and dotting the i's of the Minister who carried out that victimisation, to have the decency to shut up. One would expect that from them. We are anxious that there should be no victimisation on any side. We are anxious to end it now, and we are endeavouring to end it here as far as we can. The least we might expect, in ending it, is that Deputies who lent themselves to it for ten years, would not come along now to follow it up here again and to have the last kick. I think that is unworthy of any Party.
Perhaps the Minister could clear up a point that may be relevant to the matter at issue. He says that there are only three cases and he speaks of a fair distribution between local authorities and the Central Fund, so far as these added years are concerned. Would he give the years of service of the three cases he has in mind, and how he proposes to divide the responsibility between the central authority and the local authority?
We cannot settle these cases or the question of the pension until the period for pensioning the persons arises, but there will be eight or ten years added to the service of these officers.
Will all that be added to the responsibility of the local authority?
The greater part of that period during which they were not in the service of the local authority will probably go to the local authority. If a greater part of the service was with the Civil Service, the Civil Service will have to be made responsible.
That is my objection all the time. Deputy Corry is completely out of the picture. We do not want to penalise these people at all. I do not want to penalise local authorities. The Minister has undertaken the obligation in the section dealing with gratuities. Why should he not have undertaken it in the other cases? Why should local authorities, who did not have the service at all, undertake it?
I want to suggest to the Minister, as he is introducing a Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, that there is a case in his Department which could be usefully brought within the provisions of the Bill. Some years ago, when the Electricity Supply Board took over the Rathmines electrical undertaking, they took over from the Rathmines Urban District Council certain employees of that council who were employed in the electrical undertaking controlled by the council. At that time pensions were not granted to these employees by the Rathmines Urban Council. The Electricity Supply Board retained their services for quite a considerable time after Rathmines had been amalgamated with Dublin and, subsequent to that amalgamation, these employees were passed back from the Electricity Supply Board to the Dublin Corporation. If they had remained in the service of the Rathmines Council and had been transferred to the Dublin Corporation, they would have become pensionable employees under the Dublin Corporation and would have been entitled to reckon their previous service for the purposes of pension, but because they were transferred from the Rathmines Urban Council to the Electricity Supply Board and from the Electricity Supply Board back to the corporation they are not now, it appears by statute, entitled to reckon their service with the Rathmines Council for the purposes of pension.
I understand that representations have been made both to the Minister for Local Government and the Department of Industry and Commerce by the union catering for these employees and both Departments have expressed themselves as anxious to remedy the position as soon as some convenient piece of legislation is before the House. I think the corporation, also, is anxious to regularise the superannuation position of these men. I wonder if the Minister could examine the matter between this and the next stage of this Bill? I think there are only seven officials concerned and, as the corporation is anxious to regularise their superannuation position, perhaps the Minister would avail of the provisions of this Bill in order to do so.
I could not undertake to bring them under the provisions of this Bill. Certain representations have been made to my Department and the cases are being considered. They will be considered sympathetically, so far as I am concerned. If any opportunity arises, and if it comes in my way as Minister to deal with these cases, I shall deal with them as sympathetically as possible. I do not know whether it will be my Department or the Department of Industry and Commerce that will have to regularise their position.
In the case of one of these employees his health is now so bad that there is a prospect that he will be retired shortly. Should he be, he will receive no pension whatever from the corporation because his service will only date from the time he was transferred from the Electricity Supply Board to the corporation, whereas if he had remained with the Rathmines Council and had been transferred from the council to the corporation, he would have been entitled to some reasonable pension. Can the Minister hold out any hope that some legislation will be passed in the near future in which it will be possible to incorporate some provision for these cases?
I think this is the first time that has been brought to my notice. I should not like to make any definite promise, but I shall see that the matter is taken up in the Department, and if possible a section will be brought forward in another Bill to deal with these cases as early as possible. I have here, in reply to Deputy Brennan, some estimates of the probable cost of this proposal to local authorities and the Exchequer. In the case of local authorities, the cost of cases that may be dealt with under this section—there is a possibility of five; three we know of—some time or another in the near or the remote future for pension purposes will be £180 per annum, and in the case of the Exchequer £365 per annum.
The Minister did not tell us why he has felt obliged to make a distinction between the gratuity section and the pension section. I certainly feel that it is not fair to make the local authority carry the burden. I think the Minister ought to carry it in both cases. That is the only point I have been endeavouring to make and not the point which Deputy Corry suggested I tried to make.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7 (No. 6 on the Order Paper):—
In sub-section (6), page 4, line 15, to delete the figures "1923" and substitute the figures "1936".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (8), page 4, before paragraph (a), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(a) the expression "local authority" shall mean a body which, if its functional area were in Saorstát Eireann, would be a local authority for the purposes of this Act, and".
Are those amendments part of Section 4 or are they a new section?
They are part of Section 4.
They are a new section.
A new sub-section.
What happens is that amendment No. 4 is a new section. Amendment No. 5 is an amendment to Section 4 as it now stands.
That is right.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (2) of this section states:—
Whenever a pensionable officer of a local authority who resigned or was dismissed from the service of such local authority after the 1st day of January, 1922, and before the 9th day of March, 1932, was or is appointed, whether before or within one year after the date of the passing of this Act, to an established position in the Civil Service, and the Minister within one year after the date of the passing of this Act certifies in writing under his hand that such officer so resigned or was so dismissed for political reasons, such officer shall be deemed to have been removed from office in the service of such local authority for a cause other than his conduct, etc.
Is that an overriding authority as against the local authority? Suppose a local authority in possession of the facts had already considered this person's application and came to the conclusion that he did not make a case, is the Minister entitled over all that to issue a certificate saying: "Yes, his case is genuine." Is that the idea?
It is the idea.
Is there any reason for that? Has the Minister anything in mind when he says that he should have the authority to issue a certificate over the local authority which has had all the pros and cons of the case put before them, and compel them, under this Act, to give a pension because that is what it means in the end?
We set up a committee a couple of years ago to investigate these cases and they were investigated. There were quite a number of applicants. I do not know what percentage of the applicants were passed as people who had been victimised, but many recommendations were made to the local authorities to take them back into the service. In some cases it was found that they could not take them back, as the posts had already been filled. If the local authorities could have given any pension or gratuity to these people they would have done so. It is to meet that type of case, where these people could not for one reason or another be restored to the service, that the question of compensation has been introduced.
Despite what Deputy Corry said, the Minister has made a much better case from my point of view than I myself was able to make. He told us here in the House that as a matter of fact the local authorities were willing to take back some of those people but they had filled the posts. They had another officer in the place and they must pay him and give him his pension. Notwithstanding that, the Minister says: "If I can certify for this man they must pay his pension, too." In spite of what Deputy Corry thinks the Cork County Council may be able to do or ought to do, I say that to ask a local authority to do a thing like that is manifestly unfair.
It might be if there were many cases likely to arise, but there will not be many.
Well, Sir, I do not think that, on principle, that is a justification. After all, if there are only three cases, or five cases as the Minister has stated, it is quite possible and very probable that those five cases are going one each to five authorities. Suppose we had 26 cases, it would look quite big, but five cases are as big for five local authorities as 26 cases would be for 26 local authorities, and I think the principle is wrong. The Minister ought to prepare his shoulders for the burden, and he ought to carry it. It is not fair to ask the local authority to carry it.
It is not as wrong as the principle which put them out.
I should like also to refer to sub-section (9), which says:
"Every doubt, question, or dispute as to the right to or the amount of compensation for loss of office under this section shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, be determined by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, whose determination shall be final."
Is there any remedy as far as the courts are concerned? I thought that would really be a job for the courts. After all, we laid down a law here that a person is entitled to a pension if certain conditions are complied with. I think if that person desires to go to the court he is entitled to do so, and I do not see why the Minister should assume that type of judicial authority. Laws have been made and have been amended and extended, but still the Minister retains the right to say: "I have the last word in this matter." I think that is totally unnecessary, and I think it is assuming a judicial authority to which the Minister is not entitled.
It is very usual; that is all I can plead. It is usual in all Bills of the kind, and I know that the Deputy will probably agree with it all the more when I tell him it is very frequently in British Acts as well.
That has no influence with me—none whatever.
It is usual in all Bills of this kind since the Saorstát was established. It was no invention of mine.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I have no quarrel with Section 5. The Minister in this case is prepared to carry the burden of the gratuity. That is what he ought to have done in every case.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
LONG TITLE.
Bill entitled an Act 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.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 2, line 8, after the word "officers" to insert the words and brackets "(including persons who were formerly officers)".
Amendment agreed to.
Long Title, as amended, put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.