As I was saying, in the case of Dun Laoghaire, the current year's contribution from the rates amounts to £5,340. The grant from the Minister's Department amounts to £8,671, a proportion of eight to five. Taking the total grants made by the Minister's Department in 1943-44, as shown in the report for that year, we find that the total grants for the entire country amounted to £345,440 and the contributions from local rates to £222,951. There the proportion is roughly in the neighbourhood of three to two. We come then to particular committees and we find this position: Limerick—grants, £13,206 and contributions from rates, £2,606; Waterford—grants, £7,839 and contributions from rates, £1,850; Tralee—grants, £5,074 and contributions from rates, £574; Wexford—grants, £3,289 and contributions from rates, £570; Sligo—grants, £4,059 and contributions from rates, £522; and Drogheda—grants, £3,100 and contributions from rates, £616. I hold that these figures disclose that the grants are being distributed in an arbitrary fashion by the Minister's Department and that regard is not being had to the provisions of Section 53 of the Act of 1930, which stipulates that, in making grants, the Minister must give consideration to the amount of the contribution from the rates, the amount of the rate required to raise the contribution and the population of the area, and I hold that, on any of these bases, the grant which we are receiving in Dun Laoghaire in proportion to our contribution from the rates is not equitable.
Vocational Education (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee Stage.
What is the figure for Dublin?
I have not got the figure for Dublin. What I want to convey is that, in certain cases, the proportion of grant to contribution from rates is as high as four to one, whereas, in our case, it is in the proportion of eight to five. In other cases, you will find proportions of three to one and two to one, and I hold that that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, if not a deliberate evasion of the Act.
I want to ascertain from the Minister what principle operates in his Department in distributing grants. Is it merely an arbitrary decision, or is he acting in accordance with the provisions of the parent measure? I know that away back in 1930, when the original measure was before the House, a standard year was taken and on that particular year a basic grant was fixed. But we have to realise that at that time several schemes of vocational education were not developed as fully as they are to-day. I consider that it is unfair to continue to distribute the grants on whatever basis was arrived at then, if that is the basis upon which they are being distributed.
Not only that, but some two or three years ago in Dun Laoghaire we suffered a cut in our basic grant of £1,650. We felt very sore on the matter and we interviewed the Minister and his Departmental officials with a view to the restoration of this grant. The only thing that emerged from that interview, so far as my memory carries me, is that we were being cut to provide for, if you like, the poorer areas, forgetting that we in Dun Laoghaire carry a very high percentage of poor people and that we carry a very high percentage of youths, between 14 and 18 years of age, who are in need of vocational training and education. We argued then for a restoration of that grant, and I am sorry to say that our efforts were fruitless.
What I want to convey is that this system of grants does not obtain in any other section of the Minister's Department. The grants for primary education are based on a common standard all round, irrespective of the locality, irrespective of the conditions of the locality, irrespective of local contributions to rates or anything of that kind.
Of course, I shall be told that it is a matter of local taxation. Even so, I hold that in this matter of vocational education we should approach the problem of finance on the national basis and that we should have an equitable distribution of public moneys all round. Now the Minister is attempting by way of Section 2 to bring about uniformity in the contributions from local authorities, in so far as he is fixing certain maxima in the rates in the £ which they may raise. Again, I want to stress and emphasise that this will not arrive even at an equitable local contribution from the various local authorities. Take the case of Dun Loaghaire. A penny in the £ will raise something like £800. A penny in the £ in, perhaps, Tralee or Sligo—I do not know what the figures are—will raise considerably less. Again you get even by way of local contribution, an inequality in the amount of money which different local authorities should contribute to local education.
I ask the Minister to consider this whole problem of financing vocational education and to put it on a national basis so that there will be equality; equality in local contributions, if you like, but certainly equality in the matter of the distribution of grants from public moneys. The principle obtaining at the moment seems to be a Robin Hood principle of robbing the rich to give to the poor. That may be quite a good principle for Robin Hood, but it is not a good principle for the Minister's Department. It certainly is not in keeping with the provisions of the 1930 Act.
I want to know from the Minister how the amount of the grant in any particular case is arrived at. Is full consideration given to Section 53 of the 1930 Act, particularly (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2)? What are the other things which he takes into consideration when he allots a grant to a particular committee? I think that it is unfair to Dun Laoghaire that we should suffer in this way, seeing that we put up by way of local contributions ten times more than some of the local authorities who are virtually receiving the same amount of grant. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
The system of grant laid down when the Principal Act was passed in 1930 was that existing basic grants would be paid, that the existing grants payable to vocational education committees would continue and that, over and above this, the State would pay an equivalent, or perhaps more than an equivalent, to the rate in excess of, let us say, 3d. in towns and boroughs. In other words, the fruit of that threepenny rate was regarded as being equivalent to whatever the State was paying at the time and, over and above the threepenny rate, the State contributed in the counties in the proportion of one to one, in the City of Dublin in the proportion of one to one, and in Dun Laoghaire in the proportion of two to one.
Of course, it could have been an argument with the City of Dublin committee—I do not want to say that they used it as an argument, but I daresay it did not escape their attention—that if Dun Laoghaire, which really was in a position entirely analogous to the City of Dublin, was to get the equivalent of £2 for every £1 raised over and above, as I said, the three penny rate, then the City of Dublin should get equal treatment. The Deputy has referred to the fact that Dun Laoghaire has a large number of poor people. That may be, but it is an area which, as the figure he has given shows, could raise a very substantial amount of money even on a penny rate.
Whether it is that the valuation is high or that the district is more prosperous, whatever the reason, the fact is that the £800 which can be raised on the penny rate is, I think, a proof that Dun Laoghaire is in a rather prosperous state. We have to take into account the fact that, so far as higher technological education is concerned, a certain number of pupils from Dun Laoghaire will, I take it, come into the city, particularly if the programme for the new city schools and for the new technological institute comes into force. It will mean that whatever advanced education in the way technological education is being given would naturally be provided in Dublin. I pointed out to the deputation to which the Deputy refers that the people of Cork City, which is not in the happy position of Dun Laoghaire of being able to have its inhabitants avail themselves to some extent of the facilities under a neighbouring scheme, have to provide a school of music, a school of commerce and a school of domestic economy. Therefore, we have to make allowances for the fact that a certain amount must be spent there in providing higher facilities. I remember visiting the Cork Institute and seeing university students attending some of the advanced classes in chemistry, for example, and I daresay that is true of other courses. It shows that the Cork Institute can do advanced work of university standard. We must have regard to that in distributing the grants. The main case that might be advanced for Dun Laoghire, or any other area perhaps, has not been made by the Deputy—that there has been any hold up. If the Deputy could show that the scheme was weak financially, was not able to pay its way by reason of the present distribution of grants, or that we were in any way holding up necessary development by reason of our present policy, it would be a case that would be more worthy of examination.
It is a point which I think is deserving of consideration, that if areas like Leitrim or the town of Tralee—which, by the way, would raise over £80 on a penny rate—are expected to carry on even their existing schemes, unless you are going to make the local rate-payers foot an enormous bill or unless you are going, on the other hand, to increase enormously the State subvention, it is difficult to see how they can carry on.
A number of these areas had reached their maxima and we were giving them special assistance but if it is said to me, as the Deputy has said, that the Government should come to the rescue and should not expect small areas to carry their schemes, and should give them further financial aid, my reply is that this system of vocational education is based on local rating with State aid in addition. While I admit that in certain of the smaller schemes an extra penny in the pound brings in very little and that it would take a large rate to produce sufficient for substantial development, nevertheless, the principle of contribution by the local authorities exists. When one considers what parents have to pay for the equivalent of vocational education in post-primary education in the secondary schools or in some other way, the vocational education facilities are very inexpensive indeed. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the fees are small and, as Deputy Alderman O'Sullivan said, it is practically free. If we were to charge parents in respect of the education the children are receiving under vocational schemes and if we were to rate them accordingly, they would have to pay far more than the existing rate. The facilities the individual child is getting are altogether in advance of any direct cost that the ordinary parent has to pay.
There is also the point that in distributing the moneys which the Government is prepared to make available more consideration must be given to the poorer areas. In fact, the existing scheme, if it is to be criticised, ought to be criticised on the basis that perhaps the larger and more prosperous centres ought to be able to pay even more than is proposed here from the rates and that the State should contribute far more towards the poorer and more thickly populated areas where the amount that can be raised is necessarily limited. That is my view. If there is a development, and if the question of the school-leaving age, and so on, enters into it, it is quite certain that if vocational education is to be one of the methods adopted to bring post-primary school facilities to the children in the country generally, the Government will very seriously consider whether they are not justified in continuing the policy of asking the local authorities to contribute a substantial share.
If the burden is too severe on the local authorities, then all I can say is that I shall urge the Government to reconsider the question but, until it can be shown that the burden that is imposed on the ratepayer is too severe or that the local scheme cannot develop in the way the committee would wish, or that all the circumstances point to the fact that the Government must give additional assistance, I do not think I would have very sound ground for going to the Government and asking for more money.
The fact is that in respect of the building that has been going on and for which we can congratulate ourselves, the State has been contributing, roughly, 50 per cent. in certain cases and more than 50 per cent., in other cases. We are contributing in the proportion of £3 from the national Exchequer to £2 from the local rates generally and while the Deputy may feel that Dun Laoghaire has a case, I feel, in view of the considerations I have put before the House, it is not such a strong case and it is not by any means the strongest case that could be made of all the schemes in question for asking the Government to reconsider the matter.
Wherever it is clear that the existing machinery and the existing provision does not enable a scheme to be carried on satisfactorily, and there is no way out of it, I am prepared to take up the matter specially with Finance, but I am not satisfied that at the moment it is necessary to alter the basis on which we are working.
I should like to point out to the Minister that under our scheme this year we are catering for advanced courses in chemistry, economics, commercial law, and kindred subjects, courses which will enable students to qualify for secretarial, accountancy and technological examinations and that, so far as that is concerned, we are doing much the same type of work as Cork is doing. We have distinguished men giving instruction and we have quite a number of university students—medical students and others—attending the courses.
I do not agree at all with the principle that the better class areas—the higher rated and higher valued areas —should be starved of grants to feed the poorer areas. That is a sound principle for national taxation—and that is just my point—but it is not an equitable principle at all to apply in the matter of local contributions, and particularly in the distribution of grants based on local contributions. If I understood the Minister aright, he said that in Tralee a penny in the £ would raise only £80, whereas a penny in Dun Laoghaire raises £800. All that I can say is that, looking at it superficially, there would appear to be something wrong with the valuation of Tralee. If we are to keep on this rating system the time has arrived when there must be an effort made to provide some other basis of valuation so as to arrive at a uniform, equitable charge for all.
The ordinary taxpayer has to pay for primary education through national taxation. I hold—it is my own personal view—that the same should apply to vocational education, all the more so when you consider that the types of pupils you get for vocational schools are the sons and daughters of the poorer class parents. Their sons and daughters go to the vocational schools to get some training to enable them to qualify to earn a living. There is no analogy whatever between the secondary school pupil and the vocational school pupil. The vast majority of secondary school pupils come from middle-class families whose parents can provide out of their own pockets for the education of their children. The vast majority of vocational school pupils are, as I have said, the children of poor parents, and it is essential that that education should be made available to them free of charge, if at all possible, or at least at a nominal fee. I do not want to advance any arguments that would seem to suggest that I want to increase the fees on pupils attending the vocational schools. In fact, I want the very opposite. I do want the Minister to consider revising the whole scheme of the distribution of grants. If we are to advance in Dun Laoghaire on the lines which we envisage at the moment and develop our technological side, despite the fact that we are so close to Dublin, we feel in Dun Laoghaire that we should have our own independence, and that we should not have to depend on Dublin. I do not agree at all with the Minister that a big majority of our pupils in Dun Laoghaire come in to attend certain classes in Dublin. A certain number may come in for domestic economy, but as regards the ordinary pupils in Dun Laoghaire very few of them come in to Dublin.
I have no figures on that aspect of the matter. We intend to develop along advanced lines, and it is essential, if we are to do that and develop our schemes further in that direction, that we should get greater aid from the State than we are getting at the moment. Our proportion this year, as I have said, is the proportion of eight to five, not two to one, and it looks with the present tendency to increase the local charges which will come into operation when this scheme is in force, that the proportion will be still higher against us. All that I am pressing at the moment is that the Minister would reconsider the whole problem of grants with a view to a fair distribution all round.
I move amendment No. 1:—
To delete paragraph (a).
I also have a second amendment to this section.
The two amendments can be discussed together.
In moving this amendment I want to say that on the Second Reading of this Bill I failed to gather from the Minister's statement the reasons for this very drastic measure. The reason appearing on the face of the section is that it is to remove certain doubts as to the operation of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act of 1944. In order that the House may clearly understand what is being done under this drastic provision I should like to direct attention to the position as defined in the Act of 1930. By virtue of Section 27 of that Act, the Minister had power by Order:—
"either upon or without any suggestion or complaint from a vocational education committee, remove from his office or employment any paid officer or servant of a vocational education committee (whether appointed by or transferred by this Act to such committee) whom he considers unfit or incompetent to perform his duties, or who at any time refuses or wilfully neglects to perform his duties or any of them, and may direct that a fit and proper person be appointed in his place in accordance with the law relating to appointments."
Under sub-section (2) of that section the Minister could not remove from office any officer or servant of such committee unless and until he had caused a local inquiry to be held under the Act in relation to the performance by such officer or servant of his duties as such officer or servant, and until he had considered the report of the person who held the local inquiry. Now, in addition to that officers of the old technical instruction committees who had served under the British régime, and who later came under the authority of the Free State, were guaranteed by Section 99, sub-section (3) of the same Act that they would not suffer in remuneration or in the conditions of their employment any deterioration either in the amount of their remuneration or in the condition of their service. In other words, these officers were given this guarantee by law that they would come into the new service under the new committees with at least the same conditions and the same remuneration as they had previously enjoyed. One of the conditions was that they would have to have a certain minimum period of service before going out on pension. I think the period was 25 years. In addition, there was no maximum age at which they might be retired. Any anxieties that these officers had on the creation of the new system were allayed by this definite guarantee given to them by law.
In 1944 the Minister sought to take away, and did, in fact, take away from these officers by Section 6 of the Act of 1944 the conditions which they had hitherto enjoyed. The Minister got authority to fix the age limit in respect of any officer or office either belonging to a specified class, description or grade, or for one or more specified offices, so that he can make a general age limit. Under that provision, by making the age limit in respect of any particular officer, he can name a particular officer and say that he has to go at 55 or 60 years of age, or whatever the age may be. In addition, he took powers under Section 7 to suspend officers.
Under Section 8 he took further drastic powers to remove the holder of an office from that office for unfitness, for refusing to obey any lawful order, or for misconduct, where he was satisfied, as a result of a local inquiry, that any of the statutory grounds for removal from the said office existed. That was a definite worsening of the position of these officers, particularly the transferred officers. Apparently, some case must have arisen and the Minister must have been advised that the powers which he took to himself in 1944 were not drastic enough to deal with particular cases and in this measure he seeks to bring in a more drastic provision and to remove any obstacle or impediment which might stand in the way of the exercise of this arbitrary and drastic power. The section says that "For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 99 of the Principal Act, Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the 1944 Act," to which I have referred, "will apply to a person who (a) by virtue of the said Section 99 was transferred to and became an officer of a vocational education committee, and (b) is the holder of an office under a vocational education committee." In other words, the Minister is getting arbitrary powers to remove any officer.
I hold that this is a progressive deterioration of the position of these officers. A definite statutory undertaking and guarantee was given to these officers in 1930 that their conditions pre-1930 would be preserved to them. In 1944 these conditions were worsened. There you have a definite breach of the statutory undertaking given to a body of officers. That is a most reprehensible proceeding on the part of any Parliament—to guarantee by law certain conditions of service and subsequently to remove by law the conditions guaranteed to them; and not only that, but to seek now the most drastic powers to deal with these officers. I know that the Minister may say that something similar has been done under the Local Government Act, 1941, in reference to officers of local authorities, but I ask the Minister not to follow a bad precedent.
The rights of these officers are being filched away by this measure. The pre-1930 officers, such of them as are left in the service, are not very numerous. Many of them came into the service late in life from other vocations. They were the pioneers of technical instruction, or vocational education as we call it now, in this country. By reason of that fact it is only right and proper that they should receive fair consideration in any measure affecting their position.
I hold that an invasion of their rights, such as is contemplated in this measure, is so drastic and extreme that, if exercised in an arbitrary manner, it might lead to very serious injustice in particular cases. I am not suggesting that the Minister intends to exercise these powers arbitrarily, but the House should not give such drastic powers to any Minister, no matter how reasonably minded that Minister may be.
I can see cases where a conflict may arise between an officer and an inspector of the Department, where the idiosyncrasies of a particular inspector and the idiosyncrasies of a particular officer may create a personal conflict that will result, perhaps, in adverse reports on that officer to the Minister. I can see cases arising where, as a result of this conflict, the Minister may be forced by his inspectors to investigate matters of that kind and, despite the best goodwill on his part, an injustice may be done. The Minister knows that not so many years ago a grave injustice might have been done to a particular officer had not other minds been brought to bear on the matter outside the Minister's Department.
The attitude I take on this is that a statutory undertaking given by a law of this House should not be broken unless for the very gravest of reasons. Once a statutory undertaking is given to a body of officers, it should be upheld through the years. Surely the Minister has adequate powers under the existing law to deal with any officer for unfitness or misconduct? He can hold a local inquiry and following that inquiry he can decide on the fitness or unfitness or the misconduct or otherwise of the officer. That should be sufficient for any Department to decide a matter of this kind without the Minister seeking this extraordinary power which, in certain circumstances, may be exercised arbitrarily.
I ask the Minister to withdraw this section from the Bill. I feel that it may result in a grave injustice to particular officers. I do not know if the Minister has any particular officer in mind in this measure. If so, the measure is all the more represhensible because it is an effort to get, as it were, ad hoc at a particular officer, and it is therefore a measure that should not receive the endorsement of the House. If the Minister cannot see his way to remove the provision, I would ask him to meet the case I am trying to meet by my amendment; that is, to restrict the operation of this very drastic provision to future officers and to allow the present position to obtain as regards those serving to-day. The pre-1930 officers who came in from the old régime cannot be very many; I have no idea what the number would be. If any of these men have reached an age at which their services are no longer considered necessary in the public interest, then the Minister can get rid of these officers by fixing an age limit for them under the 1944 Act.
I think it would be a fair and equitable way of dealing with the matter. If he were not disposed to do that I would ask him to consider what the Department of Local Government do in relation to particular officers with technical qualifications who come to the Department late in life, that is, avail of the provisions of the 1941 Act, by which added years may be given to them. Many of these transferred officers may have been 40 years of age on coming into the service and may not have 25 years' service to-day. Even if they had, I think that would not give them a right to the maximum pension. Unless provision is made, a feeling of uncertainty and anxiety will be created. I ask the Minister to withdraw the section, if at all possible, and, if not, to restrict its operation to those to be recruited in future.
I would like to support this amendment. The 1944 Act, which amended the 1930 Act, did—in the sections referred to in Section 5— seriously interfere with the existing statutory rights of transferred officers. At that time there was strong opposition here to the proposed sections. The Committee Stage had a very protracted passage and I think there was also vigorous opposition subsequently in the Seanad. That opposition was shown not merely because it referred to vocational officers but because the principle involved in the sections— which are in the 1944 Act and which are made more objectionable by the proposed section in this Bill—is a very well-known principle, which should not be violated in an arbitrary fashion. That principle is that one party to a contract has no right to violate it to the detriment of the other, without making adequate recompense. An ordinary contract between two parties may be broken by agreement or, if it is violated by one party, the other can secure redress. But under the 1944 Act and under Section 5 of this Bill, the violating party is the Minister and, since he is doing it by statutory enactment, the injured person, namely, the employee of the vocational education committee, has no redress under the contract or in equity at law. It is a most objectionable provision and I urge the Minister to withdraw it.
These transferred officers, taken over under the 1930 Act, had reached advanced years in many cases. They had spent considerable time, money and energy, both intellectual and physical, in reaching a high standard of proficiency and in securing these positions and found themselves, on that account, entitled to teach the higher classes and the most advanced subjects.
The normal procedure would be that, if they would not qualify for the maximum pension on retirement, they would be granted one-third, or whatever period was deemed necessary, in order to qualify them for the full pension. Under this Bill and under the 1944 Act, the Minister sweeps away the redress which those people had, merely because his Department is not satisfied with the work or conduct of certain officers.
Deputy Coogan has demonstrated clearly that, if the 1930 Act were not sufficiently strong to give the Minister power to remove unsatisfactory officers, he got that power in the 1944 Act, which enabled him to remove persons who were unsuited for the office or unfit to carry out their duties. If they were guilty of any misconduct whatever, after the Minister had held an inquiry, that person could be removed. Apparently, the Minister is not satisfied with all those stringent powers, but wants power, under Section 5 of the Bill, in case of any doubt under the 1944 Act, not merely to apply this to future officers but to those who contracted to accept the terms of service when they were taken over. It is a well-known principle that, in any case affected by legislation, a corporation or body is compensated, possibly after an inquiry, while an individual is usually given the option of retiring on pension rights or of re-engaging on new terms, realising that he then takes on a new engagement with changed terms. But in this case, these people were transferred. Apparently, they accepted whatever conditions were offered to them in 1930 and now, under the proposed reinforcement of the 1944 Act by this Section 6, they are to be adversely affected and have no redress. It is a most objectionable form of legislation. It may inflict injustice—I suppose it is bound to do so, if anyone is removed from office as a result. If the Minister does not consider it advisable to withdraw the provision, he should at least accept Deputy Coogan's amendment.
I wish to support the appeal made by Deputies Coogan and Cosgrave in this matter. One wonders why the Minister finds it necessary to introduce this section at all. There was a very arduous discussion on the 1944 Bill and many of us thought the Minister was then taking too wide and too sweeping a power to deal with these officers. There was general praise for the progress of vocational education throughout the country. Surely the progress of the schools in that work is due to the teachers and officers responsible for guiding it. Previous speakers have stated that, when these older officers transferred, they came in on definitely assured and guaranteed conditions.
I do not know what happened to induce the Minister to take the very strong powers he took in the 1944 Act.
Something must have happened even since 1944 to induce the Minister to take this further and more drastic step. It is now sought to include in Section 5 people who got specific assurances from the old technical instruction committees. They are receiving treatment of a very drastic character and treatment which is at variance with the assurances given them and the conditions under which they worked under the previous Act. The Minister has power to remove any unsuitable officer. He is not handicapped in removing, under certain conditions, such a person. If the Minister finds it necessary to have Section 5, he should apply it only to officials who will join the service in the future. There cannot be a reasonable case made for introducing a section to deal with persons who have been working under the guarantee of an Irish Parliament. When we break our word as a legislative body to a responsible body of citizens, it is calculated not only to injure the citizens but to injure the Legislature itself. We look for rectitude and high moral standards on the part of our Parliament. When we give our word in a legislative Act, it ought to be regarded as a solemn bond and should not be violated.
Under the amendment which we are discussing, the Minister would still have all the powers he is seeking to deal with officers recruited in the future, leaving existing officers to work under the guarantee which was given them. They have honourably carried out their part. There have never been any outstanding cases of dereliction of duty. The general conduct of those officers has been satisfactory and the proof of that is to be found in the rapid strides which vocational education has made. We should do nothing to mar those happy relations. I join in the appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment and to utilise those powers only in the case of future officers, leaving the present protection to existing officers. If he will not delete the section, I ask him to do that.
I associate myself with the appeal which has been made to the Minister by Deputy Coogan, Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Keyes to delete this section. I should not have spoken on this matter if I had not received strong representations. The association of vocational education officers have discussed this Bill very carefully, with special reference to the section now under discussion. The Minister has appealed on many occasions for close co-operation between those administering the Act and the teachers. If the Minister is anxious for such co-operation, he should be prepared to go some way to meet a very reasonable request. The only objection I see to this Bill is the section under discussion.
Assuming that the Minister is not prepared to withdraw the section—he must have very good reason for the insertion of it—I respectfully request him not to implement it in cases in which, as Deputy Keyes pointed out, a guarantee has been given by Act of this House. The Minister is giving himself very great powers by this section. I am sure that, on the strong representations put up to him, he will be prepared to reconsider the matter and accept the amendment tabled by Deputy Coogan. If the Minister is not prepared to meet the very reasonable request made to him and if the section goes through as it stands, would the Minister give a guarantee that, in the event of an officer being compelled to retire, years will be added to his service in order that he may qualify for full pension? I know that there is nothing in the Bill which will give that as a legal right but I should be prepared to accept the Minister's assurance on the matter. In view of the strong protests that have come from the organised body of these highly respected officials, I ask the Minister in all sincerity to meet the request made by Deputy Coogan. If he does, I am sure the happy relations that exist between the Minister and his Department and these officials will continue.
I support the amendment moved so very calmly by Deputy Coogan. On two occasions, he used the word "reprehensible". If this section goes through as it is printed, the word "reprehensible" could be used by every member of the Dáil. What does Section 5, which the Minister wants to get through, state?
"For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 99 of the Principal Act, Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Amending Act of 1944 apply to a person who (a) by virtue of the said Section 99 was transferred to and became an officer of a vocational education committee and (b) is the holder of an office under a vocational education committee."
Deputy Flanagan asked the Minister for a guarantee that nothing drastic would happen existing officials under this section. What good is the Minister's guarantee? Those officials got a guarantee from this House some time ago. They were assured that their rights would be protected. Now, some years afterwards, in a section, "for the removal of doubts" these rights are being removed. What good is the Minister's guarantee in such circumstances? We have no guarantee that he will not bring in a section in some other Bill to take from those officials rights they enjoy. The best course would be to withdraw this section entirely and to substitute a provision which would be arrived at in agreement with the officers concerned and which would satisfy them that their rights were being protected. Deputy Coogan said that there was a man already marked for the operation of this section—a man who might have availed of the law as it stands. If this section is aimed at one individual, as Deputy Coogan says, it is reprehensible. Fault may be found with an official in an inspector's report. On personal grounds or public grounds, the person concerned may be shown this section and may be told that he had better retire.
We ask a guarantee, for what it will be worth, by way of an amendment to the Act that if such men have to go, a certain number of years' service will be added that will give them a reasonable pension. Suppose, as Deputy Coogan says, that a man is transferred and comes into the service at the age of 40. That man may not have 25 years' service to-day and is he to be told to get out because himself and some inspector may have had a difference? I would ask Deputy Coogan to press, first, for the withdrawal of the section. If that cannot be done, I would ask that he press the amendment to a division and, if necessary, come back on another occasion with another amendment until such time as there is an agreement on this question. These officers had a guarantee under an Act of Parliament, and that guarantee is now being taken from them by this sub-section. There may be some doubts as to their position, but what doubt is there in anybody's mind about the previous Act unless the Minister wants to take from some individual rights which he already enjoys and of which he could get the benefit by a judicial decision? I would ask the Minister to withdraw the section now before the House.
Of course there is no foundation whatever, I can assure the Dáil, for the suggestion that this section is aimed at some particular individual. The position, as those who were here during the discussion on the 1944 Act will recollect, was that it was quite clearly the intention on my part then, that Sections 6, 7 and 8 in the 1944 Act should apply to transferred officers. I think that anybody who was present at that time—in fact, the concluding portion of Deputy Byrne's speech just now confirms it—will admit that was clearly the intention. The Deputy wonders why we are seeking to remove doubts. The position is that it was sought to repeal under the 1944 Act, Section 99 (3) of the 1930 Act which is in specific terms. It was found, and a legal opinion has been given, after the 1944 Act became law, not á propos of any case because no new case has arisen, that the general position relative to vocational education officers as a whole——
Was that a legal opinion?
The legal opinion is that clear words would be necessary to make the matter quite specific, to indicate that the provisions which were intended to prevail under the 1944 Act will prevail over Section 99 (3) of the 1930 Act. I need scarcely go into the question again but I might remind the House that the officers in question, before the 1930 Act was passed, were officers of local authorities. Had we not vocational education legislation, presumably the enactments which have since been passed dealing with officers of local authorities would apply to them. It was because of that legislation in connection with rating, and dealing with local officers, etc., that it is necessary for the Minister for Agriculture and myself, in respect of agricultural committees and vocational education committees, to move in step with the practice as laid down by the Department of Local Government and Public Health when the 1944 Act was introduced.
I explained at the time that if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, as he has done recently, makes an Order—and we all know that for many years the matter has been the subject of discussion; it is nothing new—it cannot be regarded as an injustice to the officers concerned that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health should now intimate that he is making an Order fixing a retiring age. Everybody agrees that that is a reasonable thing to do and that all the circumstances have been taken into account. At the moment, if I make such an Order there is this legal doubt as to whether it will prevail over the provisions of Section 99 (3) of the 1930 Act. I want to set that doubt at rest. We were only trying in the 1944 Act to do what the Department of Local Government was doing in respect to local officers generally. There was a good deal of argument at the time to the effect that the Minister was taking arbitrary and drastic powers. We had some amendments and I tried, as far as I could, while safeguarding what I thought was the essential interest of the vocational committees and the necessity of having schemes as efficient and economic to the ratepayers as possible, to meet the feeling of the House in the matter of officials who are in question, with respect to the matter of retiring age for example. I do not think it can be said they were badly treated. Had there been no vocational education code, they would scarcely have done as well as they have done. They were taken into the new scheme. In some cases they were made chief executive officers. They received higher salaries, they received promotion and others had opportunities of promotion made available to them.
These chief executive officers hold very responsible posts. In fact they are the keystone of the system of the local schemes. I think it will be admitted that they are largely responsible for drafting the programmes of work, building, curricula and various other matters, the control of the staffs and planning ahead, that they are advisers to the local committee, that upon their shoulders falls the task of supervising and controlling local staffs. If they are doing their duty properly, they will not alone see that everything is done efficiently and economically but they will go out to the centres under the scheme, see how the work is going on and carry out as much personal supervision as possible over the work of the officers. It can hardly be claimed that all that can be done effectively and that the public interest will be served effectively, if the person responsible is not in his full health and is not physically capable of undertaking it. We have a number of chief executive officers, for example, who are over 65. We have even some who are over 70. It is not necessary for me to assure the House that this matter has been given the greatest consideration. I think that very few Deputies, if they were in my position, would have any doubt or reluctance about going ahead to deal with this matter.
We had the question of added years, and as I assured the House—I do not know whether it was the Dáil or the other House—in an official circular issued on 28th June, 1944, we informed the committees, and they are all officially aware of the concession which is available for those who either have not the 25 years' service when they reach the retiring age, or who spent some time teaching, either as secondary or primary teachers, and who had service in that way but who would not get credit for it, unless some arrangement was made to give them added years. I think the committees generally are satisfied now—two years have elapsed —that the powers we sought were, as I explained at the time, needed to deal with perhaps exceptional cases of inefficiency and so on. We have not had such cases, but I still think it is necessary to have the power.
The immediate matter which arises, however, is this question of the retiring age, and, if it is national policy that there should be a retiring age of 65 for officers of local authorities generally, I do not see how it can be argued that we should not have a similar provision in respect of officers of vocational education committees. When the Order is made, there must be at least six months' notice, and I think the persons in question who are approaching 65 years of age have already got notice and that, with the concession regarding added years to which I have referred, no one can argue that he is being treated ungenerously or unfairly.
What is the basis of the added years?
The basis of the added years is set out in a letter which I have had from the Minister for Local Government. In the case of officers who, prior to appointment as officers of technical or vocational education committees, had served as teachers in primary and/or secondary schools, the number of years they had served in primary and secondary schools may be added to the actual pensionable service, subject to a maximum of ten years. In the case of officers whose pensionable service on retirement is less than 25 years and who are under 70 years of age, special consideration will be given to proposals of vocational education committees to add the difference between the actual pensionable service and 25 years, or the difference between the officer's age and 70 years, whichever is less, subject to a maximum of five years.
We now get the position that the Minister has sought a legal opinion upon a hypothetical case and he assures the House that he has nobody in mind. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that the Minister should come to this House merely to meet a hypothetical case and to give himself powers for a contingency which he does not expect to arise. I am not at all satisfied that that is the correct explanation, and it seems an extraordinary state of affairs that, as there is no difficulty there, these drastic powers should be sought. Again, I say there is a considerable weakness in the Minister's case. Now we are in this position, that we are merely removing certain doubts. The Minister felt that, under the Act of 1944, he had given himself all these powers. He sought legal opinion and found he had not given himself these powers in relation to the transferred officers. Yet, he says he has no particular officer or body of officers in mind. Why come to the House at all in these circumstances? Why not wait until the condition of things arises that would need such drastic treatment?
Apart from that, I want to put this point of view to the House: these officers are not State servants. They are appointed by the local committees and they are the officers and servants of the local committees, and the Minister is not a party to the contract. The Minister's function in relation to appointments and dismissals is merely that of a sanctioning officer. The appointment is made under Section 23 of the 1930 Act, subject to the approval of the Minister, and the approval of the Minister means, in effect, that the Minister and his Department must be satisfied that the particular appointee has the necessary qualifications for the office. I hold, therefore, that the Minister's functions are satisfied once the officer is appointed under the regulations which obtain in his Department. Again, a dismissal may be made by the committee with the approval of the Minister, and, under the same section, a committee may not only dismiss but remove an officer with the approval of the Minister. Surely the House will realise that no responsible vocational committee would keep in their employment an officer who was not giving value for his money.
I want to put this matter in its proper perspective, because I feel that, both in relation to primary teachers and vocational teachers, there is an attempt on the part of the State to encroach upon the privileges and rights of these sections of the community. The Minister comes into this matter of vocational education really as the representative of the people, and, if you like, to ensure that the people's rights are properly protected. In representing the people, he represents the parents, and locally the committee's functions are virtually to take the place of the parent in providing the necessary means of vocational education. In our Constitution, which is so much extolled from time to time, it is laid down emphatically that the primary function of education intellectual, social, physical and otherwise, is vested in the parents, but we all know that no parent can set up a university, that no parent can set up a vocational school to educate his child.
Again, under the Constitution, a parent may avail of the facilities provided by the State for the education of his children and it is only on that ground that the Minister comes in at all, but because the Minister supplies a certain proportion of the funds expended on vocational education, he arrogates to himself the right to come in as a party to the contract. I am not at all clear that he can come in as a party to the contract merely because he happens to contribute by way of grant a certain proportion of the cost of vocational schemes.
Is that not a very wide question to raise on this?
I hold that the officials who came in as transferred officers came in under a definite contract, that these officials had certain conditions under that contract before the 1930 Act was enacted. Whatever these conditions may have been, they were guaranteed to them by Section 99 (3) of the Act of 1930.
An effort was made in 1944, apprently unsuccessful, to brush these conditions aside and to leave these officers in the position that they held office at the will and pleasure of the Minister. That is, in essence, what we are getting at. These officers, as I have said already, are the appointees and the employees of the local committees and not of the Minister.
I am not going to venture a legal opinion on the matter as I have not gone into it, but I hold that there is a conflict there, and that it is not at all clear to me that the Minister has this right to come in. Undoubtedly, the Minister supplies the cash. He prescribes the regulations under which officers should be appointed, dismissed or removed. But he seeks now to give himself arbitrary powers and to deprive these officers of any protection whatsoever.
I hold that these powers are so drastic and so wide in their nature that this House should not concede them, and I will again appeal to the Minister to withdraw the section. If he cannot see fit to withdraw the section, and if he feels that these powers must be given, I think he has given his case away when he says that he got a legal opinion on a merely hypothetical case, that no case at the moment presented itself to his mind, that there is no case of difficulty with the Department, that there is no concrete case upon which he wants to exercise those powers at present, but he wants to be sure of his powers. Then let him take the powers but restrict them to future appointees. Let the existing officers be given the benefit of the conditions which were guaranteed to them by this House in 1930.
I have no desire to argue the case of men who are 65 years or upwards. I think that, as a general principle, when men reach that age they should retire in favour of younger men. But I agree that they should retire on full pension. If these men came into the service in middle life, perhaps sacrificing other careers outside in commercial life, the same provisions that are applied to teachers, primary and secondary, should apply to them. In the case of teachers, the Minister may add ten years. In the case of other persons, he may add the difference between 15 years and 25 years, or between their age and 70, whichever is the lesser, but in no case more than five years. Again, I say that all officers should be treated on an equal basis. I press on the Minister that under Section 6 of the 1944 Act, he has the right to prescribe a maximum age for any class of officers or for any individual officer. Surely, if there is a difficulty there, by merely exercising that right he can pension off those who, by reason of age, are considered unfit for their office.
Might I remind the House that we do not pension our Supreme Court judges until they reach the age of 70? There may be men in the service of vocational education who are physically and mentally as energetic as our Supreme Court judges. These men are administrative officers. They have had a long experience in the running of schemes of education. They have had a long experience either in commercial life or in teaching and, if they are active and fit men, there is no reason why they should not serve to 70. But I am not going to press that point. I think that, as a general principle, 65 should be the maximum and that the aged should make way for the younger, active and energetic officers. I think that, with the developments which are taking place in vocational education, it is essential that we have in the executive posts, particularly as C.E.O.' s, the most active and energetic men that we can find. If there are a number of those who must go, they can go under the powers already granted by this House and there is no need that I can see, and there is no case that the Minister has made, for the drastic measures he is seeking now. I would again appeal to him to consider this matter, withdraw the section and bring in an amended section for the Report Stage.
I should like to say another word to the Minister. His argument sounded most extraordinary. He said that these powers might not be necessary, that since 1944 no case had arisen, that he did not think a case would arise, and that he had got a legal opinion on a hypothetical case. Certainly it seems extraordinary to me that the Minister thought it necessary to have a legal opinion on the phraseology of the 1944 Act when he had no particular case in mind. I do not think it is the usual procedure in Departments to seek legal opinions on portions of Acts without a concrete case being decided upon. The Minister stated that the retiring age for local government employees had not found any opposition. I think it found quite strenuos opposition, except that there was one saving feature, namely, that up to a maximum of one-third of the salary rate was allowed for pension purposes in the case of those who had not reached the maximum number of years. That certainly watered down the effect of the retirements under the Local Government Act.
In general, I think it is desirable that people should retire at an age that will allow young people to advance more quickly than at present and that would also permit those who retire some years in which to enjoy their pension. That being so, I think that in most cases the earlier retirement age was regarded as usual where manual or physical work was concerned. But it is an extraordinary thing that in the case of judges of the Circuit, High, and Supreme Court not alone was the age limit not reduced, but some years ago, because I think a judge's birth certificate could not be found, they added two years to the retiring age, which is now 72 for Supreme Court judges. I do not know whether as you advance in years you reach the mental optimum or not, but it is an extraordinary thing that for certain categories of State or semi-State officials, certainly people whose salaries are provided out of State funds, there is a tendency to raise the upward limit and in others a vigorous tendency to reduce it.
I certainly suggest to the Minister that in this case, in view of the serious view which is taken of the 1944 Act and the proposed amendment by the officials and officers of the vocational education committees, he should accept Deputy Coogan's amendment. The only hope that these officials have in future is that the legal opinion which the Minister got will be as good as the earlier Fianna Fáil legal opinions. Then the Act may not be in doubt, but it may be wide open and they will probably be able to continue on.
I have only to say that the case is not hypothetical. I have had no particular officer in mind, and I have not raised any hypothetical case. A general opinion had been given that there was a doubt in the matter and this doubt might possibly affect the making of an Order by me fixing the retiring age. If such an order were to be challenged it would obviously be necessary to introduce legislation to validate it. It seemed to me appropriate, when we were bringing in this measure dealing with other vocational education matters, to clear up this doubt. Deputy Coogan asks, when we have already power to fix a retiring age under the 1944 Act, why bother about it now? The reason is, as I have said, that we want to be quite sure that there will be no challenge, no doubt, about the action we take.
May I remind him that most of the older officer to whom the retiring age would apply are in this category of transferred officers. There would be very little use in making an Order fixing a retiring age if we excluded transferred officers, who make up the majority. I think it would be absolutely meaningless to accept the amendment because it is quite clear that the sections in the 1944 Act cover the officers who have come in since 1944. I am simply being asked to withdraw the section and, in view of the case I have made, which explains the matter fully, I am not prepared to withdraw.
If that is the position, then there is a very easy way out. I will withdraw my amendment and would ask the Minister to take the words "seven" and "eight" out of the section. He says there is a doubt as to whether he can fix the retiring age and relate that to the transferred officers. If that doubt is there and if it is well founded, as it may be—I shall not argue the merits of that now—then why not restrict the provisions of Section 5, to remove that doubt in relation to Section 6 of the Act of 1944? I would again appeal to the Minister to do that.
If the doubt applies to one of the sections, it applies to the others.
We are getting hypothetical cases and then we get the case that the difficulty is to fix an age limit. If the difficulty is merely to fix the age limit, it is quite easy to do the job. The words "seven" and "eight" removed by the Minister, will give him the necessary powers and he can proceed to fix the age limit. I would ask him either to accept an amendment from me on these lines or to bring in an amended section on Report giving effect to that. The Minister clearly has made no case for the powers; there is no concrete case in mind; and now we get the case that it is to enable him to dispose of the people who are due for retirement. Then he has a very easy way out and I am asking him to take that way out, by removing the phrase "7 and 8" from the section.
Cases may arise under Sections 7 and 8 as well and I am not prepared, now that opportunity offers of setting the matter at rest, to leave it open to any doubt whatever, whether the powers are ever in fact exercised or not.
Does the legal opinion say that seven and eight are in doubt, as well as six?
Yes, whether or not these three sections prevail over Section 99 of the Principal Act.
Why filch all the rights of existing officers merely because there is a difficulty to provide for their retirement? That is what the position boils down to now. I do not want to rush the Minister into a hasty decision now but I would ask him to reconsider this matter between now and Report Stage. If he is prepared to do that, I will withdraw my amendment.
I am not prepared to reconsider it.
He will not meet you at all.
Then it boils down to this, that the Minister wants these extraordinary powers, even though he may never mean to exercise them or need to exercise them. That is an extraordinary case. It is the first time I have come across a legal opinion based merely on a hypothetical case. As a rule, a lawyer does not give an opinion except on the facts of a concrete case. I ask the House not to subscribe to any further invasion—an invasion has already taken place—of the rights of these officers. They are not in a position to defend themselves in this House. They are a small body in the community. There is no question of Party politics or advantage in the matter, good, bad or indifferent, but it is a principle that I am fighting for. A body of servants, who are not State servants but the servants of local committees, were given by an Act of this House an assurance, an undertaking in law, that their conditions would not be worsened after they transferred. These conditions are filched from them now, merely on a hypothetical ground put forward by the Minister. I ask the House to resist this invasion of the rights of a small body of responsible citizens. They are not in any sense irresponsible. Most of these officers are men of culture, men of great intellect, with long experience in public administration. We are not dealing with a body of criminals. We are dealing with a responsible body of men who have given great national service. I appeal to the House to support me in resisting this further encroachment on their rights.
This case has been put to the Minister in a very reasonable way. As Deputy Coogan has said, it is not a political line-up. It is merely a desire on the part of members of various Parties in the House to try to ensure that nothing unreasonable or reactionary is done so far as officers who were protected by the provisions of the 1930 Act are concerned. I do not know how many persons are affected, in 1946, by the provisions of the 1930 Act. It seems to me there cannot be a very considerable number. Having regard to the fact that the 1930 Act was intended to give them certain rights, which have up to the present been recognised, and that the persons concerned are a rapidly dwindling class, which will ultimately disappear, thereby enabling the Minister to exercise his normal powers under the 1944 Act, I would suggest that the Minister might very well leave well enough alone. This problem will disappear in the course of a relatively brief space of time and then the Minister will be dealing with the normal situation. I doubt if it is wise for the Minister, at this stage, to seek to tidy up the provisions of the 1930 Act or the 1944 Act to such an extent as, unconsciously perhaps, to do injustice to people who felt that they had certain statutory guarantees, which may be abrogated by the power which the Minister is taking in Section 5. The problem cannot be serious from the standpoint of the Department or one causing administrative difficulty. By passing Section 5 we may unconsciously do very considerable injustice to many old servants of vocational education authorities. I appeal to the Minister to leave the position as it is. Whatever difficulties may exist will disappear in a short space of time. I think the Minister is unconsciously acting unfairly in the matter by trying to tidy up the provision of vocational education legislation by Section 5 as drawn in this Bill. If the Minister is not prepared to say off-hand at this stage that he will recognise the statutory rights which those people have had up to the present, perhaps he would reconsider the matter between now and the next stage so as to give an assurance to those servants concerned that it is not intended by the Legislature to interfere in any way with the rights which they believe they have at present. If the Minister can see his way to do that, I feel sure that he will help to reinforce in the minds of the employees of vocational education committees the feeling that, so far as the Legislature is concerned, it appreciates the services which they have rendered in pioneering vocational education in this country, and at the same time make clear to all concerned that, when the State gives a guarantee in respect of tenure and conditions of service, it is not prepared lightly to break the guarantee which it thus gives to those who serve it.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
- Bulter, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Healy, John B.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Bennett, George C.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, William F.
- O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
Amendment No. 2, I take it, is consequential.
If I understand Section 6 correctly, it is intended, under sub-section (4), to provide a subsistence allowance for the members of vocational education committees. If that is so, I do not see why there should be any discriminations. From my reading of the section there is an discrimination as regards certain members of committees who attend meetings. If it is intended under the section to give a subsistence allowance to members who come a distance of over three or five miles, I think the mileage limit should be excluded. If it is intended to provide a subsistence allowance for members who are engaged for three hours at a meeting of a committee or a sub-committee, the mileage limit should be cut out.
There is no reason why a member of a vocational committee attending a meeting of that committee or of a sub-committee of that body, if he happens to come within a mile or two of the place of meeting, should be deprived of the subsistence allowance, if there is one made available for his colleagues who happen to come a distance of over three miles from the meeting place. Possibly this is something that did not occur to the Minister or the draftsman. There is no good reason why there should be such a discrimination. On some of these committees there are members who happen to reside one, two or three miles from the town where the meeting is held and I do not think they should be discriminated against if you are providing a subsistence allowance for other members who come a longer distance to the meeting. I would like the Minister to clarify the position.
It seems to me that if the member of the committee is living in the town where the meeting is held, it could scarcely be claimed that he should receive a subsistence allowance. This is a matter in which, unless there are very good reasons to the contrary, we ought to have the same regulations as govern the members of all local authorities. The regulations have to be made still but unless there are some reasons for a change that I cannot see, I think the arrangement is fair enough. A person resident at a place not less than three miles by any route from his residence and obliged to remain away from his home for a continuous period of not less than three hours is indicated in the section and we must have in mind those definitely out of pocket or who have to provide themselves with subsistence in order to enable them to attend the meeting and transact the business. I think those who are actually resident at the place of meeting would scarcely be deserving of the allowance.
I am aware that on one committee, at all events, at least two members would be under the three-mile limit. Most of the men who attend these committee meetings are also engaged on other committees; they attend sittings of other local bodies and they try to fit in their time at each meeting. The greatest adjournment you will have at one of these meetings is possibly for an hour; in many cases the adjournment is for half an-hour. Are these men, simply because they do not happen to live over three miles away, to be obliged to hire a car to take them out one or one-and-a-half miles to their homes where they will have to rush a meal in order to get back to the deliberations of the committee? I do not think that is fair or feasible. If the Minister makes a subsistence allowance available at all, he should make it available all round.
If these men are to be engaged for more than three hours at a meeting, or are on a sub-committee, in some other town, possibly my point might not arise, but in their local town, if they are engaged for over three hours, they may have to attend other bodies and they will have to have some lunch in a limited period of time. I do not think it is fair to exclude them from the subsistence allowance. I believe they would not have time to leave the town and they would have to try to get lunch in a hotel or restaurant. Usually when committee meetings are held, meetings of other bodies take place on the same day so as to facilitate the members who attend. I think the Minister should make the subsistence allowance available to all the members. I hope he will consider the matter sympathetically.
The Deputy mentioned three miles. The minimum in the Bill is five miles.
If the minimum is five miles it makes my case all the stronger. If a man has to go four or five miles to his home for lunch, during a half-hour's adjournment, he may have the expense of hiring a car.
Three miles is the rule. You must have some rule, whether it is two, three or four miles, and one can always make the case that someone is excluded. A case could also be made that the expenses are not so sufficient, but we are providing on the basis of persons giving voluntary service. We have not agreed to the principle that there should be compensation, as might very well be demanded, for loss of remuneration or loss in some other way, which persons giving service on local authorities very often have to suffer. I will consult the Minister for Local Government regarding the particular point Deputy Moran has mentioned, but I am sure that, no matter what regulations we frame, we will have these border-line cases. If the regulations at any time seem not to have covered a particular case, or if some hardship which was not adverted to arises, I presume that they can be amended.