Are we taking the Report Stage now?
Committee on Finance. - Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1943—Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration".
This is the Report Stage.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that he undertook to do certain things on the Report Stage. We made a few points with regard to certain important aspects of this matter, and I think that Deputy Dillon succeeded in getting an undertaking from the Minister that he would consider these aspects between the Committee Stage and the Report Stage. There were certain aspects of this Bill to which we took very strong exception, and I understood that the Minister had undertaken to review these matters. Accordingly, I was very much surprised to notice that there was scarcely any change. A rather important change has been made in regard to sub-section (1) of Section 3, but a question was raised, with regard to sub-section (3), as to this matter of the disqualification for membership of committees of agriculture, and also the matter of receiving any benefits or advantages offered in the pursuance of agricultural schemes administered by these committees, and so on. I understood that the Minister undertook that, if the House felt it was necessary to have that safeguard put in, any benefits that a committee could secure would be of a general character. At any rate, I certainly understood that the Minister undertook to look into the matter. I also understood that he was to look into the matter of Section 5, but, on looking at that section, I find that there has been no change whatever. That is the section to which the House generally took great exception, but the Minister, evidently, has considered no alternative with regard to a man's reelection in the case of the dissolution of one of these committees. I understood that the Minister was going to look into that matter.
Then, in regard to Section-9, I drew the Minister's attention to sub-section (2), which says that the Minister may terminate a suspension under that section, and that every such suspension shall continue until so terminated. We felt that there should be some qualifying clause there—something to qualify the word "terminate". We felt that there should be something to the effect that the Minister should satisfy himself as to the grounds of suspension. As the sub-section stands, the Minister has complete and absolute power, regardless of the position of the committee concerned. If the committee feel that they should not retain an officer, the Minister can terminate that officer's tenure of office without an inquiry, and we felt that if the committee took such a decision, unless the Minister was fully satisfied that it was a frivolous charge, there should be an investigation. I understood that the Minister stated that he would have that matter investigated, and I wonder if he would tell us now why there has been no change in that regard.
I want to support Deputy Hughes in his expression of regret that while the Minister appeared to have a certain sympathy with the proposal that in the event of his dissolving the county committee of agriculture he would impose upon himself the duty of first seeking to reconstitute it out of the members of the county committee before he appointed an individual or group of individuals of his own choosing to discharge the functions of that body, the Minister now seems to have turned his back on that altogether. I can recognise, of course, that it would be an additional nuisance to the Minister to have to do that, but I think that if the Minister really means to preserve the essentials of democratic local government he ought to accept the inconvenience he would have to face in the very unlikely event of his being properly called upon to use the powers in this section. I cannot conceive such circumstances ever arising, but if they do I think we should have provided the elected body with the safeguard that Deputy Hughes suggested.
The other ground on which I strongly object to this Bill is Section 11. That section is now incorporated in three Bills which this House has considered in the immediate past, and it operates to take from an officer his contract rights in his original contract of service. I know that in a matter of this kind it is extremely difficult to engage the sympathy of Deputies of Dáil Eireann, but I want to say that in passing Section 11 you are doing something which is contrary to justice. It seeks to establish this principle that a young fellow of 23 or 24 years of age, with his life before him, is offered conditions of employment by the State. He looks at these conditions of employment and says: "Well, the salary may not be as big as I can earn outside but there is a certain degree of security here, pension rights and a variety of other prerogatives available if I accept this contract of service". Influenced by these considerations he goes in at 23 and accepts the employment. Thirty years later when that man is a man of 53 years, when he cannot contemplate starting a new career, Dáil Eireann comes along and completely changes his conditions of employment. Not content with doing that they enact Section 11 which bars and bolts the High Court to that individual, absolutely prohibits him from going before an equity or common law judge and saying: "I have been unfairly treated by the Government and as an individual citizen I claim the protection of the judiciary." We, Dáil Eireann, supposed to represent the people, being the delegates of the people sent here for the purpose of keeping our eyes on the Executive and preventing the Executive from unduly trespassing on the rights of the individual, enact Section 11 which says: "The fact that an officer is in office at the date of the passing of this Act shall not be a ground for contending that the three immediately preceding sections of this Act do not apply in relation to such an officer". There is no private employer in this country who can alter the conditions of employment and if the employee did not accept these alterations dismiss him without rendering himself liable to action for wrongful dismissal and payment of damages. The State is no more entitled to wreak injustice than an individual. It is true that the State has power to do injustice if we, the Deputies of Dáil Eireann, give to the Executive the authority. We are the legislating instrument of this community and we should not give to the Executive authority to perpetrate injustice. What we are doing in this section is manifestly unjust.
There is not a single Deputy in this House, if I got him alone in the Lobby, who would not agree with me that it is not fair to lure a man into your employment when he is a young man on one set of conditions and then radically to alter those conditions when he has passed middle age and forbid him access to the courts in order to get the damage done to him computed by an impartial judge if he has suffered damage. There is not a single Deputy here who would not agree in private that it is unjust and wrong to do that and yet the whole Fianna Fáil Party will go into the Lobby and vote for it. I could go from here to those benches opposite and there is not a single Deputy who is an employee, either a teacher or something else, would not admit that they would bitterly resent it if they felt they were unjustly treated, yet they will go into the Lobby to-day to enact that the treatment of every employee of a county committee of agriculture is to be left to the Government. It is bad enough to leave it to the Government but what in my opinion is so maddeningly unjust is to close the courts to them. There may be some addled-pated individual who will say there would not be many unfortunate teachers who could afford to go to the High Court. But the organisation could. A test case could be brought and would be brought; in an analogous case a test case was brought and the rights of an individual member of the service were protected. It is because the Minister and his advisers believe that this Bill would not stand examination by the High Court if a test case was brought that Section 11 was inserted. I am not sufficient of a lawyer to judge whether the section is conformable to the Constitution. Personally I would strongly advise the association of vocational teachers and teachers in the State service to take advice at once with a view to determining whether such provisions are constitutional or not. I do not believe we could get a sufficient number of Deputies and Senators to refer this matter to the Council of State, though I would gladly have that done, but definitely the persons to be affected have an organisation which can bring a test case. Once before we had a Bill of this House rejected by the Supreme Court on the ground that it was a breach of the Constitution. A very grave breach of the Constitution and a very detestable one was attempted in that education Bill.
Perhaps a matter of higher principle was involved in that Bill, but I declare the purpose of Section 11 to be a meaner attempt at a breach of the Constitution. It is a more contemptible and more hateful breach of the Constitution to do an injustice and then debar access to the courts. Are Deputies going to stand for it? Is there any voice in the Fianna Fáil Party with courage to get up and say that, bound as they are to their Party allegiance, they feel free vocally to demur from the proposal? Is there any Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party who, knowing that if these provisions were to apply to himself he would resent them, will have the courage to get up and reject them? Is there any member of the legal profession there who, recognising the utterly detestable character of the section, will get up and vindicate the profession to which he belongs by protesting on behalf of the individual citizens? Is there any Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party who has so much independence who will say what he believes in regard to this section? If there is, there is some hope for the Party system in this country; but if 68 Deputies, every one of whom knowing that this provision is mean and contemptible, is going to stay silent while it is passed, then God help the future of individual liberty in this country.
I desire to say a few words in support of the matter with which Deputy Dillon was dealing. When replying on the Committee Stage the Minister stated that he knew of no case where an individual had been taken over by a county committee from the Department of Agriculture. I do not want to name a particular individual, or the county committee under which he is now functioning, but he joined the service of the Department of Agriculture in 1909, and remained there continuously until 1928, when he was taken over by the county committee that he is now working with. He has worked continuously with the same committee, with the exception of one or two brief periods, when he did temporary duty elsewhere. When this man reaches 65 he will have had 45½ years' continuous service in connection with agriculture, the majority of the time being with the Department of Agriculture, and the remainder with the county committee. When he joined the Department of Agriculture in 1909, at the age of 19 years, he was entitled to believe that at the end of his term he was going to have a fair basis of superannuation. If he was not to receive that, he should have been told to the contrary when he entered. What the Minister proposes to do here is to conclude a contract on one side only. This man joined the service of the Department under certain conditions, and the Minister now proposes to change the conditions to suit himself, thereby injuring the individual concerned.
As Deputy Dillon stated, no private employer, no individual and no company can conclude a contract on one side, without leaving the employer or the company open to an action for wrongful dismissal or for breach of contract. The State is setting up an example in this case, and similarly in the Vocational Education (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, by concluding a contract on its side, but the same courts which will grant redress to an individual aggrieved in the case of a private employer or a company are precluded by this Bill from even considering the application of an official who is treated in what can only be described as a detestable fashion. The Minister is being set up as the sole arbiter of the rights of the private individual. When it comes to a matter of giving fair superannuation to an employee who came in under certain conditions and who is now too old or for whom there is no other position for which he might be suitable, open, the Minister can say: "We are cutting your superannuation. We find you unsuitable and you can go." The individual is left with no redress. If that is the position a man who is entitled to a fair compensation should have the right of redress in the courts.
I should like Deputy Hughes and other Deputies to realise that I did not leave the Dáil with the idea of paying no attention to this matter. I did look into all the points that I thought required further consideration. I did not say that I would bring in an amendment, because it was wrong to make that promise. I gave consideration to points that were raised. I could give various explanations of the different sections referred to by Deputy Hughes. One of the matters the Deputy did not mention concerned the laying of regulations on the Table. As a matter of fact, on going back to the office I found that that point is covered in the main Agriculture Act of 1931, and that any regulations made under this Bill will be laid on the Table. With regard to Section 3, the benefits must be of a general nature. Deputy Hughes will admit that that was to a great extent settled, on the Committee Stage, because I was moving an amendment making it clear that the Minister could make an exception of a particular type rather than of a general nature. In view of the wishes of the Dáil I withdrew that amendment. The courts might take a different view, but the draftsman, who does not claim to be infallible, believes this to be of a general nature.
It precludes the particular type.
The fact that I withdrew the amendment was sufficient proof that I had given in to the Deputy and that we were against any particular treatment for any person. There was a long debate on Section 5, and on a division the Dáil decided that this power should be left in the Bill when the principle was decided that the Minister should have power to dissolve a committee of agriculture directly, without having to adopt the roundabout way that he had to go through previously, of going to the Minister for Local Government. The Minister gets that power here directly. The section as drafted is a reasonable one, and anyone reading it would gather that the first thing to do was to see if the county council would appoint a new committee that would carry on under the circumstances then prevailing, whatever they might be. If that were impracticable the next thing to do was to appoint an ad hoc committee of local people, principally farmers, and if that were impracticable, a person would be appointed who, of course, would be as usual referred to in the Dáil as a bureaucrat. That is the way I would approach the matter. I think anybody in my place would act in the same way. I am not saying that he would be bound to do that as the section stands. He might ignore the county council and the county committee and might consider appointing another person. Any reasonable person would pursue it in that order, taking the first alternative if possible, and, if that was impossible, taking the third one.
As regards Section 11, the question of principle is discussed. I do not think the example given by Deputy Dillon was a very impressive one. The Deputy spoke of a man who joined the service at 20, whose conditions were changed when he reached 50. I agree with Deputy Dillon that a young man will take a position in the Civil Service or in the service of local authorities, even if he is going to get less pay than he would get from a commercial firm, because he is looking forward to security, to a job for life, and, if he does his work, a pension at the end. That is all right, but still if he is any sort of reasonable man, he knows that he is going to be pensioned at some time or other. At least he should not expect to be left in a job until he reaches a very old age.
I am sure every Party agrees that the big consideration is the public service, and that we must keep in mind the necessity for seeing that every one of these officials carries out his duties efficiently. We do not want to have people in positions who are unfit to carry out their duties owing to age, sickness or any disability of that kind. Therefore, this matter of laying down a retiring age is a necessity. The rule that will be made in regard to a retiring age will be a general rule. I do not know what retiring age may be decided upon, whether it will be 65 or some other age, but 65 is usually the age for public positions of this kind. At any rate, once it is made and for the class for which it is made— for instance, if it is made for secretaries of committees—it will apply to all of them. Similarly if a retiring age is made for county agricultural instructors or for poultry instructresses, it will apply to all of them. There may be a different age for each class according to the work they are doing. Undoubtedly, some men are better able to carry on than others at 65, but I am quite sure that if I came to the Dáil and said: "I am going to lay lown a rule for each individual," the Dáil would say that that was very unfair and that that the Minister might discriminate as between one person and another. I think on the whole that a general rule is better. Every individual will have to conform to that rule. Our first aim should be to get a good public service and, secondly, I think we would all agree that a general rule with regard to the retiring age is most desirable. Of course, a general rule with regard to retiring age has applied for some time to people coming into the service. They come in on that condition, but we should remember if we are aiming at that efficiency which is desirable, that even 30 or 40 years hence there would be some people in the service, who entered before the new rule was made, and to whom no retiring age would apply unless some provision in that respect is made now. If we are to be consistent in looking for efficiency, the retiring age must apply to all existing officers.
Deputy Dillon made a very vehement speech about the great injustice of this proposal, and Deputy Cosgrave supported him almost as vehemently, but there is no injustice whatever in it. The county committees of agriculture, if this Bill were never passed, could to-day or to-morrow make such a rule for themselves but they are not doing it. As a matter of fact they are not tied to any age. The Principal Act passed in 1931 by another Government laid it down that the county committee of agriculture could retire its officials. It does not say whether for sickness, age, or anything else.
They could, just if they took it into their heads, retire their officials if the Minister approved. We must have had a very accommodating Dáil here in 1931 when that clause was allowed to pass. We were in the Opposition Benches then but we did not press the Minister to insert all sorts of safeguards because we took it for granted that any Minister would have a certain amount of commonsense and sympathy. Section 22, sub-section (4) of the Act of 1931 says: "A committee of agriculture may dismiss any servant of such committee".
That power was not used.
No.
But this is going to be.
The sub-section goes on: "And, with the approval of the Minister, remove any officer of such committee". I am not saying that the Dáil put that through—hoping that it would be used.
It was not used.
The Minister is in possession.
The Dáil put that through hoping that the county committees of agriculture would do their job and that they would get rid of public servants when these servants became too old to discharge their duties efficiently, but the county committees of agriculture have not done that and Deputies know very well why. They know very well that members of county committees of agriculture who are meeting these officials every day of the week are too sympathetic and too soft towards them. They just leave them there even though they know that they are not doing their work. Therefore, no new power is being taken here. The local authority official had no privilege to continue in office irrespective of age or other considerations. At least, since 1931, if he read that clause in the 1931 Act he knows that he is in no privileged position and that he can be put out of office by the local authority. He has no privilege in that respect and we are not taking any privilege from him by bringing in this section. The point is, of course, that when we come to individual cases, whenever the axe falls and when that rule is made, the Bill lays down that six months' notice must be given before it comes into operation. When the Minister does make the declaration referred to in this section, that the retiring age should be 65, then those who have reached the age of 65, in six months' time will go.
As to the rate of pension, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health can be very generous if he wants to. It is the Minister for Local Government who is concerned in this case, not the Minister for Agriculture, because, as I explained before, the Minister for Local Government is in charge of the rating authority and therefore must have the last say in such a matter as superannuation. He has power to be very generous. In practice he sanctions a pension at the rate of one-sixtieth of the salary for each year of service. In cases where that practice was departed from where officers were removed because they became redundant or where the office was declared no longer necessary because of amalgamation, added years were granted and the pension was very generous. I do not think anybody here would say that if an officer reaches his full pension, that is, after 40 years' service, and if he gets two-thirds of his salary as pension, we should do anything further for him. I know that the sympathy of Deputies and my own sympathy would be extended to the person who had not got a full 40 years' service and who still would have to go out of office. That is not an easy matter to deal with. I have discussed that matter with the Minister because I promised the Dáil that I would do so. I said that I felt I could not bring in an amendment to deal with it and that the only thing I could do was to discuss the matter with the Minister for Local Government to see what the position was going to be.
There is a Superannuation Bill coming along dealing with the officials of local authorities. I am not going to say that it will put these particular men right. It will, at least, regularise the position, because at the moment, as the law stands, the local authorities may grant a pension or they may not. Of course, the individual concerned can appeal to the Minister and the Minister can award a pension. There are things like that to be made right, and also with regard to the retiring allowances. All I can say at this stage is that where there are men who have to retire immediately when the Order is made, men who are 65 years of age and who have not served the number of years—that would give them the full pension—that is, men who have under 40 years' service—a certain sympathy can be shown in such cases and we can, at any rate, try to cover the gap between what would amount to a full pension and what would be awarded on the one-sixtieth basis—that is, one-sixtieth for each year of service.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
Mr. Hughes rose.
There seems to have been a general debate on the Report Stage, a most unusual procedure.
I was not responsible for that. I merely asked the Minister to deal with certain promises he made. This Bill met with a good deal of vigorous opposition, and with every justification. It is an objectionable measure, especially as it is to be operated against such a body as county committee of agriculture. When we consider the constitution of those county committees and how they are operated, the position becomes even worse. The Minister said he had no cause to complain as to the manner in which county committees have carried out their duties. Therefore, the introduction of this measure, in such circumstances, is extremely provocative. I suggest the Minister might take this opportunity to assure the House that, in so far as the administration of this measure is concerned, it will be only in extreme and exceptional circumstances—only as a last resort—used against county committees. In that way the sting can be taken out of it.
The case the Minister made for this Bill was not a convincing or impressive case. He did not convince us that this measure is necessary and we should like to have an assurance from him that in the event of any committee failing completely to carry out its duties, the powers contained in this measure will be used only as a last resort, and after the Department have explored every avenue in order to get the committee to do its work. It is, I suggest, only then that this legislation should be utilised. I feel sure the Minister will be prepared to give the House that undertaking.
I was glad to hear the Minister assuring the House that he would be sympathetic when dealing with existing officers. So far as the members of this Party are concerned, we do not stand for keeping inefficient officers or men who, through old age or infirmity, have become incapable of carrying out their duties. I do not think there is anything to be said against retiring a man at 65 years, provided you deal justly with him and give him ample compensation for the breaking of a contract solemnly entered into years ago. No matter what arguments the Minister may use about the 1931 Act, the fact is that it has not been operated all these years. The Minister mentioned that county committees have been working closely with officials and they may be slow to take action under that Act, but now this is sprung upon them, terminating the service of officers of county committees and breaking their contracts. The Minister, I am sure, will again assure the House that every sympathy will be given to individual cases and all the circumstances will be taken into account.
We pointed out on the Committee Stage that the difficulty is that there is a precedent established so far as the operation of the 1925 Act is concerned. Any member of the House who has experience of a local authority knows that in computing the superannuation allowance the number of years over 60 has been definitely established and there is no question of added years of service. That is a difficulty that will not be easily surmounted—the fact that there is that precedent over a number of years, and no added years of service. We know of no case where years were added to the period of service in order to arrive at a superannuation allowance. An assurance from the Minister that such cases will be dealt with sympathetically, in view of the fact that this is definitely interfering with a contract of service, will be welcome. In view of the fact that you are interfering with a contract and that you are asking a man to retire at an age earlier than he anticipated, we suggest he is entitled to more generous treatment than a man who is fully informed as to the conditions and the length of his service. If the Minister can give us that assurance, it will be generally welcomed.
The most objectionable feature of this measure is that it gives the Minister power to dissolve committees of agriculture. The Minister has not been able to give the House any sound reasons why this power should be included in the Bill. One thing, I think, is certain, and I believe the Minister will agree with me, and that is that there never was at any point during the past 20 years an instance when it was necessary to utilise such power, if the Minister had it. I suggest it is very unlikely that in the next 20 years an occasion of that kind will arise. Why then go to the trouble of enacting a measure which includes a provision for which there is absolutely no necessity, which may cause grave disquiet, and which could be, in certain circumstances, abused by a Minister for Agriculture, not perhaps in a moment of calm consideration, but at times when tension over some particular political question might be rather rife in the country and when feelings and tempers might be aroused? In such circumstances a Minister might be tempted to utilise this power to destroy a locally elected body. No occasion arose during the past 20 years when the exercise of such power was justified, and I suggest there is no reason why it should arise in the future unless the Minister or some Minister would avail of it in order, perhaps, to vindicate a political party, or score over an opposing political party, or for some other consideration arising in the heat of the moment and without calm consideration.
While those bodies have administrative functions, they are, to a great extent, advisory bodies inasmuch as they bring to the administrative machine and the executive officers of the Department, at first hand, the views and opinions and experience of people engaged in the agricultural industry. Now that we have done our best to have the objectionable features deleted from the Bill, I trust the Minister will give an assurance that they will not be used unless in very exceptional circumstances.
It is rather tiresome to have to repeat that it was only in an attempt to regularise local government legislation generally that Section 5 was put in, containing the power to some Minister or other to dissolve a county committee of agriculture. As each of the three Ministers, Local Government, Education, and Agriculture, had divided up that local government legislation, it naturally came into my Bill rather than the others. I do not think there need be so much discussion of this power. I do not know if it would ever be used. I have been almost 12 years in the Department and I never would have used the power in that period because I never had any necessity to do so. I hope it will not be necessary to use it in the next 12 years.
I am glad to see that Deputy Cogan is now taking a favourable view of the county committees. He was very uncomplimentary to them on one occasion. When I announced that I proposed to have the Agricultural Consultative Council composed in future principally of the chairmen of county committees, he told me that they did not represent anybody. I hope the Deputy will agree with me in future that they are very important bodies and that the chairmen are very important and representative men.
Question put and declared carried.