The other two motions, I take it, are being taken in connection with this. That does not, of course, extend the time.
Private Members' Business. - Road Workers' Superannuation—Motion.
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Local Government to introduce proposals for legislation to amend the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1948, so as to secure (1) that servants of local authorities who did not apply for registration as established servants within the statutory period of six months be now permitted to apply with full credit for previous service; (2) that employees of local authorities who had been directed to work other than county council employment during the statutory three years' qualifying period be given full credit for periods spent at such work, e.g., farm work, minor relief schemes, Land Commission schemes, E.S.B. employment, drainage committees; (3) that the subscription of 1/2d. in the 1/- be abolished and a charge of 1/-per week substituted, and (4) that servants of local authorities, who have been registered as established servants but who for any reason have not been credited with previous service, be now given credit for such service. — (Deputies Dunne and Kyne.)
That is agreed.
It is understood that three hours would be allowed.
As the Minister for Defence said a while ago, when these matters are going on from time to time, we find it difficult, particularly after the Christmas period, to get back into our stride again. However, before Christmas we drew attention to the difficulties that beset the road workers, that is, what we may term the established servants of the council and also established officers. We appreciate that no matter what legislation may be passed in this House, it is only when it is put into operation that the various snags which are bound to arise can be seen.
One of the biggest problems we find in connection with Part III of the Act dealing with established servants is that of local authorities and the advice expressed not so much by members alone but by legal advisers to these various councillors. Let me say, however, that I do not believe for a moment that legal advisers to any county council try to put a certain view merely to suit themselves. From the experience we have had in various parts of the country I can say that those legal advisers co-operated in so far as it was possible for them to do so. The difficulty seems to be that the Act is such that very many views can be expressed both by the legal authorities connected with the various local authorities and the members themselves. In County Cork, for instance, we have been confronted with the problem of the outlook of certain members who at the very outset seemed to be anxious to take advantage of any opportunity which arose to prevent this particular section from coming into operation to the benefit of the men. It is so easy for us to speak of established servants but in certain parts of the country there were men working for the county council as road workers, servants of the council, for anything up to 20, 25 and even 30 years and it has not been accepted by that local authority that those people are established servants. That means that for a very large percentage of such road workers this Act would give little or no benefit because in many instances unless they were going to obtain the advantage of their past service they would gain little or nothing by applying under the Act.
It may be true to say that when this Act was introduced and passed by the House, all Parties believed that such disadvantages could have been overcome but unless we can have some form of amending legislation to ease this difficulty, at least 95 per cent. of the road workers in southern Ireland at any rate—I speak more particularly of Munster and some of the counties adjacent to Munster—will not get the advantage which we had really hoped they would get.
Again it is stated under the Act that even after proving the case of establishment in a period of less than five years pensionable service if the man should work less than 200 days in any one year, he is victimised once more. In this regard I am not to be taken as either praising the Administration of the time or attacking the present Minister, but it is quite obvious to me, as it is to the other members of our Party, having considered the operation of the Act, that mistakes have been made in it. It is a great pity if we cannot, through a system of co-operation, help these men rather than leave in the hands of various councillors and various local authorities an opportunity to avail of many loopholes. Those of us here who are members of local authorities know that it frequently happens that there may be sufficient employment for these men, who may be classified as established servants, for a few years; but it can also happen that there would be a bad year. For instance, we agree with the policy of local authorities in concentrating on the steam-rolling and tarring of main roads, generally improving these roads, and getting as much work as possible done during the summer period. However, there is the difficulty that coming into the autumn period when harvesting work has to be done, some of these road workers, because of their loyalty to their neighbours, and because of their understanding of rural life, realise the necessity of giving their time in helping neighbouring farmers at the harvesting period. Unfortunately, as the Act is before us, that worker, through his sense of co-operation and his realisation of the necessity for helping in the harvest work, particularly in a bad year when it might be most important to do so, even after a four-year period having well over 200 days employment, is victimised even though he has been considered as an established servant of the council. That, in my opinion, warrants the consideration either of an amendment to the Act or, if necessary, new legislation.
Let us also realise that even in the reading of the Act it is undoubtedly beyond the compass of the average layman to scrutinise every section and sub-section in it, to weigh the "whereas" in a section and the "wherefore" in a sub-section, and so forth. When we leave it to the legal advisers, the legal advisers are inclined to give different interpretations. Therefore, we consider that the only satisfactory solution to this problem is the complete overhaul and adjustment of the measure in such a way that the difficulties will be surmounted.
Whether we like it or not, there is also the matter of the percentage contribution by the worker. It would be well to glance back over a period of years in this country—indeed, we need go no further back than the past five or six years—and to take into consideration the wage increases which the worker has received in that period. Any increase he has received is not commensurate with what he deserves to enable him to keep his family going. In my view, the charge is undoubtedly a heavy impost on the average road worker, if he has a family to keep. If it were possible to have that matter remedied, I believe the road workers would realise the advantages coming to them. We appreciate that there had to be a certain period, when this Act became law, when road workers were entitled to live registration—but were they to miss that period they would have to wait a long period again before they could qualify. Furthermore, one of the weakest points of the present measure is that it is left to the local authority to decide the maximum number which they consider suitable to enter on the register in their area for employment. That, in itself, again places us in a most awkward position. Should it happen that a county council, because of improvements they may consider necessary in various parts of their county, decide to employ a larger number of men, the register has been computed in such a way that the men coming in cannot take advantage of it for quite a long period of time.
Then there is the problem of established officers. Naturally my approach to this matter is, from the outset, the same as that of my colleagues, Deputy Dunne and others, and that is to face it from the viewpoint of the established and unestablished servant. We realise our responsibility to consider the case of the established officers also. We have heard of men in various counties who were established officers but who retired, through ill-health or otherwise, since 1948. I have here particulars of a man who retired in November, 1948. It may be that the Minister is not in a position to give due consideration to their demands for the increase in their pensions which was provided to them under the Act of 1948 but which they never got. Other sections of the community have received certain advantages either through consideration in respect of the cost of living or in some other way. If this Act has been preventing the just case of men from being met, then we are entitled to say that, though the intention behind this Act may have been good, there are so many loopholes in it that it requires revision.
Again I have in mind the question of established officers or clerks who were established during the period 1948 to early 1949. Some of these people— not a large number—gave some years' service in a temporary capacity. Those officers who were established prior to the 1948 Act did not have to give any contribution but those men who, after 1948, were considered permanent and pensionable are now faced with the problem that, even though they gave valuable years of service to the local authority the impost is placed on them of having to pay a certain contribution, which they find it difficult to meet.
I believe that the points I have made support the case we have been making for an investigation of and consideration by the Minister of the question either of amending the measure or of introducing legislation which will improve it.
It frequently happens, of necessity, that a Minister is allowed by the various Acts introduced and passed by this House to make regulations. It is written there for us to read that, if necessary, regulations may be annulled by this House within 21 days. How often does it happen that regulations are made by a Minister—I am not thinking in particular of this case— and the papers are placed on the Table of the House at a time of the year when the House is not sitting? We all know that a number of regulations can be placed on the Table of the House about the 2nd or 3rd of January, at a time when neither House of the Oireachtas is sitting and when the members are thinking not of regulations but are wondering how they are going to meet their own Christmas bills. Therefore, in the matter of questioning regulations, it can be said with justification that we are often at a disadvantage because of the time of the year when they are placed on the Table of the House. I have a horror of departmental circulars. I do not mind which Minister or what Department is concerned. There are people in certain Departments of State, including Local Government, who seem to have a mania——
It is the Minister who is responsible to the House, nobody else.
I am drawing attention to a circular and will give the reference.
Any blame or praise must come to the Minister and nobody else.
My difficulty is that I cannot do that if I want to be honest. I do not know whom I am blaming in regard to this circular.
The Minister is the only person responsible to this House and the only person who is able to speak for himself in this House.
I will give the date and it will prove that I cannot blame the present Minister.
The Minister is responsible.
I presume it is his predecessor.
The Deputy will allow me. I cannot allow civil servants to be blamed in this House. The Minister is responsible to this House and he is the only person able to meet cases that are put forward in this House.
Something should be done about that.
An Ceann comhairle
That is another matter.
I want to make it clear, by giving the date, that I cannot say if it is the present Minister who is responsible. I presume he was not there at the time. Therefore, it must be his predecessor. I have already said that. As long as I am in the House, within the Rules of the House, I will draw attention to such matters. The circular in question is circular E.L. 5/51. That circular was issued to local authorities. I would ask Deputies to notice the date—21st May 1951. At that time we were in the throes of a general election. Circulars should not be issued at such a time. That circular was a damnable circular and offered opposition and obstruction to the working of the 1948 Act. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to consider that circular to see how far it is helping or obstructing the present Act.
I have tried to be fair in my contribution to the debate. The time is limited and I want to allow Deputies who wish to speak to get in.
In Cork and other counties it is almost impossible for road workers to prove that they are established servants. There is also difficulty in the case of officers. There is a provision that, if an established officer has 20 years' service or over, he is allowed ten years. As a result of the terms of appointment they also are victims in some cases.
It is vitally necessary for us to admit the weaknesses in the Act. Legislation should be introduced to close the loopholes so that the Act may be regarded as an Act for the benefit of road workers in rural Ireland and all the others concerned.
The Minister is aware that there was a legal action in Cork in connection with Cork Corporation employees. One court held that a certain number of the employees were exempt from contributing to a superannuation scheme. The corporation and the city manager appealed against that decision and the decision was reversed. The whole thing hinged on whether a register of employees was or was not kept in years previous to the passing of the Act. The first court held that where a wages book had been kept for a certain number of years the men who were enrolled on it for a certain number of years were qualified for exemption. The higher court decided that there was not a proper register of employees kept and that those employees should pay their contributions. A great deal of money was in arrears at the time. Some people had paid the first portion and it was supposed to be paid back. There was a hold-up in the payment of contributions by others.
Undoubtedly, an injustice was done to those employees because in other local authorities where a register was kept the employees were exempt from paying contributions. Before the action was taken I discussed this matter with officials of the Department and they were convinced that the employees would win under the Act. That was not the case. Amending legislation should be introduced without delay. We have made representations to the Minister on that matter. I hope the Minister will bring in amending legislation without further delay.
I also agree with Deputy Desmond that the contributions demanded from some road workers would make it impossible for them to come within the scheme. In some cases it would amount to from 10/- to £1 a week. They could not be expected to make such a contribution. A reasonable contribution should be required from them.
I am especially interested in the City of Cork employees, and would ask the Minister to bring in amending legislation as a matter of urgency.
From my experience of the discussion in the House when the 1948 Act was under consideration there would appear to be no difference in principle between the members of the House on the pertinent point as to whether pensions should be provided for employees of local authorities who were supposed to be covered under the terms of the 1948 Act. The only question that remains to be decided by the Minister and his advisers is whether the administration of the 1948 Act complied with the wishes of all the members of this House who voted for the 1948 Act. The Minister ought to have figures at his disposal to convince him as to whether the Act was administered in the way that he as a Deputy intended it to be administered when he voted for its enactment, or not.
I have no experience of the working of this Act, as I am not a member of a local authority, but I have received large numbers of complaints—in some cases through union representatives and in other cases from individual road workers, for example, who made application for the benefit of the Act and whose applications were rejected by the county manager. I submitted many of these appeals during the past couple of years to the Department and it was only in a very small percentage that the applicant succeeded in having the decision of his county manager reversed.
I discussed this matter with other colleagues of mine in this group and I listened to lengthy discussions on the manner in which this Act has been administered in different counties throughout the State. It was a pleasant surprise to hear the sympathetic way it is administered in counties adjoining the two counties of my constituency, compared to my own constituency. That may be due to the advice tendered to the county manager by the legal advisers in counties outside my own, or it may be due to the generous and sympathetic way in which the county manager himself endeavoured to give the best possible terms to the individual applicants. I am not making that point as a complaint against one county manager as compared to another; I am making it for the sole purpose of endeavouring to impress on the Minister the necessity to amend the existing Act so that there can be no difference whatsoever in its administration in one county as against another. If a certain type of road worker has certain qualifications, experience and service, similar to his colleagues in an adjoining county, all things being equal, I do not see why, for legal or managerial reasons, he should be turned down while his colleague in the other county gets the full benefit of the Act. There is room for tightening up there, no matter what Minister is in power and no matter how sympathetic or fair-minded his officials may be. It would be a good thing if the Act were amended in such a way as to remove that kind of grievance from the minds of road workers and others.
Addressing the Minister through you, a Cheann Comhairle, is it not a fact that we all agree with the principle of providing pensions for certain types of employees of local authorities, no matter what local authority they served under? I believe the local authority should be the model employer in any county but I know of industrial concerns and small firms and individual employers who are treating their workers, when they retire at the end of their working life, in a far better and more generous way than any local authority I know of is treating its workers under the terms of the Superannuation Act of 1948. I say the State should be the model employer in the country; I say the local authority should be the model employer in the county. If we believe in pensions for workers at the end of their lifetime of service, whether it is in a local authority, a manufacturing concern or a private concern, let us try to be just and fair in the way in which we make provision for their pensions or retirement allowances.
I think it is not unfair to ask the Minister to state whether—from the facts and figures at his finger tips, furnished to him by his official advisers —he believes that the Act of 1948 is being administered in accordance with the wishes of those responsible for its enactment? If he believes it is, he is not going to move an inch. He has facts and figures at his disposal, so I would ask him to give us, when replying, the percentage of applicants for pensions to the various local authorities who actually received those pensions. Could he say what percentage of applicants was turned down when they appealed to the Department —how many had their appeals allowed and how many were rejected? Deputy McGrath, the Lord Mayor of Cork, has quoted a case which I have heard discussed by some of my colleagues. He has made a convincing case so far as that section of workers is concerned that there is room for the amendment of the Act. If his statement is correct —and I assume it is—that the official advisers to the Minister were of opinion that the section of workers represented by the Lord Mayor of Cork were entitled to their pensions and if they did not get them, that is an indication. One case is, therefore, quoted and is on record where the intentions of the members of the House have not been fully complied with.
Exemption from contributions. Deputy Hickey knows all about it, too.
There is another aspect of it. We are not looking for something for nothing. Those of us who subscribe to the principle of the 1948 Act—and that means all of us, I presume—believe in a contributory system of providing pensions. I personally have always held very strong views on that over a long period. Someone may point out, in reply to that kind of argument, that the civil servants are getting pensions for nothing. Not at all; they get pensions and their contribution is by deferred pay—there is no doubt that when the salaries of civil servants are being fixed, no matter what Government is in office or who is responsible for fixing them, the question of the cost of providing these pensions is taken into consideration. We are all in agreement on the question of a contributory pension scheme. Therefore, we are not asking the Minister to provide something more for nothing. We are asking him to provide pensions for those who have given service with reasonable qualifications and for a long period.
We now come to the amount of the contribution. I was a member of a contributory superannuation scheme and I served for a number of years on an advisory body in connection with the administration of that scheme. I am fully conversant with a number of solvent superannuation schemes of a contributory nature. They are based on a contribution by the employer and a contribution by the worker. The pension is based on the number of years' service and a gratuity is provided in some cases. It may be interesting information to the Minister and his advisers to know that in no case I am aware of or had anything to do with was the contribution less than 4 per cent. or more than 6 per cent. of the salary or wage of the worker concerned. To that extent, I agree with Deputy McGrath and everyone else who says that the contribution provided under the Superannuation Act of 1948 is excessive, when you take into consideration the small number of people who benefit by it.
I think that a solvent pension scheme can be established by a contribution based on a reasonable percentage of the employee's wage or salary. How is it we have no complaints—there is no justification for them, I suppose—in connection with the pensions paid to permanent officials of public bodies? This question only arises in the case of the ordinary worker.
There is a request contained in this motion by Deputies Dunne and Kyne. It asks the Minister when considering this whole matter and, when introducing amending legislation—as I hope he will—to take into consideration as part of the qualifying period the service that was given by road workers, say, in other spheres. These are indicated in the terms of the motion. No one knows better than the Minister that there is a sort of policy or understanding between members of certain county councils in certain parts of the country. Deputy Cogan knows this, I am sure. During the busy period, when agricultural labourers are badly needed by farmers for harvest work, there is an understanding that road workers would be laid off in order to make them available for work on the farms or in the bogs. Why should that be used against them when they come to apply for pensions under any properly laid down pensions scheme?
The road workers in Laois and Offaly, during the whole of the emergency period, were taken from ordinary road maintenance work and told to get into the bogs to provide fuel for the nation during that period. Why should they suffer for that? They were transferred and directed to go from their normal work and work for Bord na Móna and for the community as a whole. I submit that their working period on that kind of work should be credited to the employees of local authorities under any amending scheme which may be brought in to bring this Superannuation Act of 1948 into conformity with the reasonable wishes of the Minister and of the majority of the members of this House.
There is no question of Party or of politics in this. It is a question of justice. I am sure that the Minister has at his disposal reliable information to convince him that the superannuation scheme of 1948 has not worked out in the manner that was intended. I may be pressing an open door and hope that I am. I do not intend to say more, but I hope that the Minister will give an indication that he is prepared to bring in the necessary amending legislation.
I agree with a good deal of what has been said by the other speakers in support of this motion. I have the feeling, as a member of a county council familiar with this problem, that those Deputies who have spoken have not touched the kernel of it. In dealing with established officers employed by the county councils, the matter is quite a simple one. It is very easy for a man who has secured employment over a period and becomes an established officer, thereby to qualify for a pension. In the matter of road workers you are dealing with a very big problem because road work is, and always has been, regarded as a source of employment for those who are casually or temporarily disemployed in agriculture, turf-production or sugar manufacture.
For that reason the number of workers employed by the county councils increases and contracts from month to month and year to year. Because of that, it is difficult for any county manager, or county council, accurately to estimate the number of men who can be put on a permanent established basis. I think it is altogether wrong to put men on the register as established servants of the local authority if there is not a reasonable certainty of being able to give them permanent employment, and thus enable them to qualify for superannuation.
I think that if a man is employed by a county council on the roads, and if there is no certainty whatever that he will be able to secure the amount of employment that will qualify him to remain on the register, he should not be asked to make a contribution. It is right, as Deputy Davin has said, that a man who wishes to qualify for superannuation should pay a contribution towards his pension, but it is equally wrong that the man, for whom there is not a reasonable certainty of permanent employment, should be asked to make a contribution.
Therefore, I think that the whole of the existing legislation should be reconsidered and revised and, if necessary, tightened up so that only those men for whom there is the prospect of permanent employment on the roads should be registered as established servants of the county council and be asked to make a contribution. The law as it operates now is somewhat different. Men who, for example, may be engaged on constructional work for a year or two, or who may have worked a certain number of days, automatically qualify to go on the register, but when that happens—having become registered servants—the employment may not be there for them and their service lapses.
I think the whole position should be reviewed. Road work is a natural means of relieving temporary unemployment. It is available in every part of the country, and is, therefore, a means readily available to manual workers to secure temporary employment. I think, for that reason, that it is not right to endeavour to declare men established servants when you are not in a position to guarantee them permanent employment. I know that this is a problem which has arisen in a number of counties, and that it is causing considerable difficulty. Even in small counties, it is necessary to have at least two officials permanently employed keeping a check on the number of hours worked by men so as to ascertain whether they will become established servants or not, or, if they are established, whether they can retain their positions. I think all that is wrong. What we should have, perhaps, in every county is a hard core of permanent employees who would be registered established servants, and that any man who cannot be put into that position, because there is not a certainty of continual employment for him, should not be asked to make a contribution. One of the difficulties about putting men on the established list is that a single man, perhaps, even by chance gets a place on the established list and so will have priority over a married man who is seeking employment. That very often causes a good deal of bitterness and discontent, but that would not arise if we had a position similar to that in the Civil Service. If men were definitely selected as being good workers, and selected as permanent employees on the register as such, there would not then be any question of the number of hours worked or anything else. They would be declared to be permanent employees, and the obligation would be on the county council, having taken them on as permanent employees, to give them permanent employment. Those who would not be on that list would receive employment as and when it became available.
The whole matter requires revision and reconsideration. Deputy Davin was quite right when he said there was a considerable amount of dissatisfaction, but it is true that county managers in the counties with which I am familiar, together with the officials and members of the local bodies, try to be as sympathetic as they can to the workers in the administration of the Act.
The terms of this motion appear to be very reasonable. They are designed to remedy certain defects which have been discovered since the Superannuation Act of 1948 came into force. In many of these cases, the defects which this motion seeks to remedy could not have been anticipated until that Act came into operation. The Act was designed for a class of public servant who were not previously catered for and was a very progressive step, a step which was long overdue.
A number of road workers, in addition to the permanent staff, are required to contribute towards a pension fund when they come into the employment of a local authority. They do not qualify to come under the superannuation scheme unless they have completed three years' full service. One point which affects County Dublin particularly is the fact that Dublin County Council was abolished and we had there a county commissioner. Some road workers who had very long periods of continuous service were dismissed because it was considered by the commissioner that they were not fit to carry out the class of work they were required to do under the county council in connection with road repairs. Many of these men had far more than three years' continuous service. Many of them had between ten and 20 years' service before they were dismissed and the terms of the 1948 Act did not take such cases into consideration.
It did not go back far enough to take in these men from the date on which they were dismissed, with the result that they were not entitled to the benefits of that Act. Less than 20 men in Dublin County were affected in this respect, but these men have now reached an advanced age and for that reason any amendment of the Superannuation Act would be welcome and would only be fair to them, in view of the fact that they had been so long employed by Dublin County Council. I am not now referring to men who had only three years', or a little more, service. I am referring to men who had in some cases more than ten years' service with the council. I agree that the service of a number of men was broken during the emergency years by reason of the necessity for diverting them to various emergency services which left them in the position of not being able to qualify according to the terms of the Superannuation Act, and for that reason the motion is very desirable.
It is a very reasonable motion and I hope the Minister will consider the introduction of suitable amendments to remedy the defects which have been discovered in the 1948 Act. I must say that, in general, the defects have been very few but it is a small section of the community who are so badly hit, and that is why an amendment of the Superannuation Act should be carried out in order that justice be done to these people. A very reasonable case has been made for an alteration in the subscription towards the superannuation scheme which is to be made by persons employed by these local authorities who would be qualified to benefit under the scheme, and I should like to see the Minister introducing amending legislation as soon as possible to meet the purposes for which the motion is designed.
If anybody has a genuine case in respect of an amendment of the Bill, it is the employees of Cork Corporation. The men contested it originally and went to the Circuit Court, where they won their case. It was appealed to the High Court and they won their case in the High Court and those from whose wages deductions of so much per week had been made got a refund. The matter was again brought before the courts in relation to a similar class of workmen and the same judge tried the case. He could not but come to the same decision and it was then sought to have a case stated for the Supreme Court. The men were beaten in the Supreme Court, but not by a unanimous decision, because two judges made a very important statement that the men were entitled to get the benefit of the Superannuation Act.
The reason that they lost their case was that the Act sets out that there should be a register of permanent men kept and the city manager and his officials stated that they had no such register, but that they had a list of the permanent men. To prove the justice of their case, ten years before, we had an argument as to who should be displaced when a question of redundancy of men arose and a list of the permannent men was made out by the city manager and his staff. Professor Alfred O'Rahilly was brought in as arbitrator and each man's period of service was mentioned and it was agreed that all these men were on the permanent list. Nobody was to come within the Act except those with three years' continuous service and not only had these men three years' service to their credit, but some had six and seven years' service, but their temporary period did not count. There were men in the corporation and there still are, with 26, 30 and 33 years' service without a break. Because of that technical point that the word "register" as against "list" was not used in the case of the permanent men a majority of the Supreme Court decided that there should be a register as the law specified.
I would appeal to the Minister that the Act should be amended in such a way that these men in the corporation service from three to 33 and 34 years could get the benefit because, after all, the 1948 Act was intended to serve the men who had been in the corporation's employment for all those years. I hope that the Minister will agree to amend the Act. His own Deputies from Cork, both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, Deputy Lynch, and Deputy McGrath, have all the facts and know the merits of the case of the Cork Corporation employees. I understood that the Minister had some headings for the amendment of this Act, and I do hope that the employees of the Cork Corporation for whom the Act was intended and many like them will benefit by the amendment of the Act.
I thought I had conveyed to the House, but maybe I am wrong, in reply to parliamentary questions dealing with certain aspects of this matter that it was the intention to introduce amending legislation. If I have not made that announcement to the House I am doing so now; but the question naturally arises as to when that amending legislation will be ready and, of course, get its place here on a very congested Order Paper. However, it has not reached the stage when we need consider that matter. Having made that announcement, I suppose there is not very much point in my discussing some of the experiences that Deputies have had in the particular counties and local bodies since the coming into operation of the Superannuation Act of 1948. If I say that I am about to, or thinking of, introducing such amending legislation, I do not want to convey that the proposals which I will submit to the House will be proposals meeting in their entirety all the recommendations that are contained in the three motions that we are now discussing. As I said, it is scarcely necessary for me to go into the matter in detail, but I think I should at least make that statement so as to leave no Deputy here under any misapprehension.
There are certain matters mentioned in motion No. 6 that in our view should be dealt with. One of the first would be that of dealing with those who failed to take advantage of the Act when introduced inside the period of six months. I can quite see how a county council worker, not knowing how such an Act as that was going to operate, might be hesitant. He might have a number of reasons in his mind for being hesitant about taking advantage of it, and I could produce dozens of arguments to show that he might allow the period of six months to elapse and he would then be late even though he might then be anxious to take advantage of the Act's provisions. That is one of the difficulties that we would, of course, propose to amend.
Then you come to the question of the broken period and the cost. Some of these motions make a recommendation or suggestion that employment of any kind—employment on farms, employment on special works, employment with semi-State organisations such as the E.S.B. and so on—should be reckoned for the purpose of entitlement to recognition and benefit. While as I say there is no reason why we should have an argument or a prolonged discussion on a point like that I could say right off that there would be no possibility of my conceding such a demand as that.
On the matter of the amount of the contribution to it, if it is to be a contributory scheme then there must be a contribution; and while I am not very conversant with schemes promoted by commercial concerns and outside organisations, as far as I know this scheme stands favourable comparison with anything that has been produced outside. Deputy Davin suggested that the State and the local body in the area over which it has jurisdiction should be the outstanding employer.
I think that that standard can be readily accepted as far as a basis for this contributory scheme is concerned. However, as I say, these are all matters that can be dealt with when the proposals I have indicated are taking shape and will be introduced in this House. I do not think there is any need for me to say more. As I say, when that time comes there will be ample opportunity for Deputies to express their views on what is provided in the amending legislation and what has not been provided for. All I can say is that I am sorry I cannot say when I may be able to bring these proposals to the House. It is not just as easy as some Deputies imagine to introduce a measure of this kind which dealt with a subject that was new. Some Deputies referred to the difficulties that confronted county councils and confronted those who were trying to break into a new field entirely and to provide under the 1948 Act for all the difficulties that undoubtedly arise when you invade such a territory as that. It took a good deal of time to see what those difficulties were. There would not be any point in coming forward with amending legislation if in a month's time another difficulty or two arose and you had to paddle back here with amending legislation. When an Act is passed like that it takes a considerable period before the Department which is mainly responsible for keeping an eye on how it is working out can see all the snags, if any, which may arise in connection with it. We have, we hope, seen quite a few of these and as I say I will try to get these proposals pushed ahead as speedily as I can. I am not suggesting that they will meet everybody's point of view or that they will satisfy all the Deputies who have spoken and been responsible for these motions, but at least they will be introduced with the intention of making amendments where we have satisfied ourselves such amendments are necessary, and they will strengthen the whole code that, as Deputy Davin said, I suppose Deputies thought they were providing when they were supporting the 1948 Act when it was going through this House in the form of a Bill.
When the employees are defeated on a technical term is it not an easy matter to rectify that?
It might be dealt with in the same way.
Could the Minister say at least, or would he say, will he amend this unsatisfactory Act in the lifetime of this Dáil?
I do not like to be tied to time. I am giving a genuine assurance that I will bring it forward as quickly as I can get it through, and there is not very much to be gained by my saying that it would be six months or seven months or eight months, as it might be more and it might be less.
I accept that the Minister will do that. There is this point I would like to mention with regard to the Act generally which has been in existence since 1948. One might say it has been in operation in some counties at least for five years and such flaws as the Act contained have become apparent during that period. I will not suggest that the introduction of a Bill of this kind is at any time an easy task, because I understand the Superannuation Act of 1948 represents the conglomeration of experience gained over a long period of years of superannuation legislation, and certain precedents established in other legislation enacted here and, I think, in the British Parliament, had necessarily to be taken into account. The net result is that we are left in the extraordinary situation of having law agents in the different counties taking diametrically opposite views on particular issues. That is confusing enough for the ordinary lay member of this House who has only a nodding acquaintance with the law, but it is doubly confusing to the ordinary county councillor who comes up against this kind of legislation for the first time in the performance of his duties as a county councillor. Imagine the predicament of the road worker who has not a clue as to what it is all about but believes he has certain entitlements and discovers, according to those who are deemed to be qualified to interpret these matters, that he has no such entitlements at all.
We have set out in our motion certain matters that we consider of prime importance. The Minister has dealt with the first point, that of late application by a person who might benefit, as one which can be provided for in future legislation. Perhaps the most important point is the amount of the contribution. Undoubtedly there must be some contribution. The average wage of the county council road worker is in the neighbourhood of £4 per week and, calculating at the rate of 10d. in the £, we find the road worker is expected to contribute 3/4 per week from his already meagre wages for the very doubtful benefits conferred on him by this Act. All sorts of complications have arisen in the administration of this Act in those counties in which it has been adopted by resolution. There have been cases of gross injustice. Nobody suggests that these injustices are deliberately inflicted on the parties concerned by the official interpretation. I myself have come across cases. Road workers believe they are qualified in every respect for pension but when they cease to be employed by the county council they discover they are not beneficiaries under the Act. There is the case of a man who may be employed over a period of 30 to 40 years but he may not have the requisite 200 days in each year. His position is rendered impossible because of the interpretation the particular law agent puts on the Act. In other counties a man in a similar position will be treated in an entirely dissimilar fashion and he will be given the full benefit of the Act on the advice of the law agent in those counties. This is not a matter that concerns only the Cork Corporation or the Dublin Corporation. If I may be permitted to localise—this may be outside my province but representatives from Cork City have referred to their particular local problem—in Dublin City we have a group of people who have been or are about to be pensioned by the Dublin Corporation.
In the 1920's certain functions of the Dublin Corporation, such as the cleaning of the streets, were carried out by a firm of French contractors. The employees to whom I refer were employed during that time by this particular firm, though they were normally employees of the corporation more or less seconded for these duties. They reverted to their former employment on the departure of this firm but they have been denied credit for their service during the period in which they were in the employment of that firm. That is obviously an injustice to those particular workers and it is one that should be remedied. I am sure when legislation is introduced that position will be rectified.
Similarly, I am informed that many employees are dissatisfied with a particular aspect of this Act; it is not specifically adverted to in our motion but it is one to which the Minister might give some consideration. Local authorities when computing pension do so on the basis of the average earnings of the individual concerned for the last three years of his employment. That is harmful in some cases because it has happened in recent years that for a considerable period local authorities did not increase the salaries or wages of their employees, and a decision was then taken to grant an increase. Where a servant of the local authority is now pensioned off following a year during which an increase has been granted he is at a disadvantage because, if his pension is to be based on his average earnings for the last three years, he will have two years calculated on comparatively low earnings plus one year of relatively high earnings. That does not seem to be an equitable approach to the matter. Is there any reason why the average earnings should not be based on the last year of service? Why is this three year period taken? There does not seem to be any good reason why it should be taken, other than perhaps the question of precedent. Precedent may be sacred in the Civil Service. It should not be sacred in the Parliament of the nation. We have to set new precedents for ourselves.
I consider that this is a very urgent matter. It is not one for which we can wait too long for a solution. As I indicated, it is something that affects not only the Dublin Corporation or the Cork Corporation employees but about 15,000 road workers throughout the length and breadth of the country. Many road workers who have had considerable service with county councils are prevented from availing of the provisions of the Act by reason of the high contribution. Others are absolutely at a loss to understand just what their entitlement would be if they were to avail of the Act. I have heard county councillors discussing the Act even at meetings of councils and they betrayed, as all of us do who have had anything to do with this Act, the confusion of mind that exists generally in regard to it. In some counties it is considered that only permanent men. 12 monthly employees, should come under the Act or could come under the Act. That is not so. Under the terms of the Act, it is conceivable that a worker employed purely on a casual basis could possibly come within the scope of the Act provided he has 200 days employment in each year. But many councils do not accept that. Some councils, not many, have indicated to employees that only permanent workers are entitled to become pensionable servants.
It must be continuous.
It must be 200 days in each year. If there is a break of ten, 12, or 20 days in the employment in one particular year so that the 200 days days are not completed by the worker some people say that that means a break in his employment. There again we come up against the fact that the legal advisers of some councils say that even with that the worker is still entitled to the benefit of the Act. Others say the reverse. It is not at all satisfactory that we should have that confusion of mind amongst the legal men who are paid by the councils to advise them. We all know that county councils are bound to take the advice of those they employ to make a study of these matters.
I recall discussing this question together with some of my colleagues in the Labour Party with the Minister's predecessor and with the late Mr. T.J. Murphy when he was Minister for Local Government. Both Deputy Keyes, when Minister, and the late Mr. Murphy were men with experience of service in local authorities who had considerable acquaintance with the problem and appreciated the difficulties in connection with it. I would prefer that the Minister would give an assurance, as I am sure he can, that legislation will be introduced amending this Act along the lines which he himself, of course, will consider from his own point of view, and I am quite sure that we will take issue with him in regard to some aspects of the legislation which he has in mind. He has already indicated that he cannot meet us fully in connection with the matter. I ask him to give an assurance at least that before this Dáil comes to an end, whenever that may be, whether it be immediately after the by-elections or next year, he will introduce a Bill so that the first definite step will be taken to have this position, which is so vexing to everybody and which creates so many problems for everybody, rectified. I feel that the Minister is as anxious as anybody to do that. I am sure he is, if for no other reason than that in his own county I dare say there are within the ranks of his own Party a sufficient number of misguided road workers to exercise some degree of pressure in regard to this matter.
Strange to say, I have had no complaints.
I heard you had. I am sure you will find a very hefty file in your office in regard to the matter.
You probably got a good interpretation of the Act from the officials.
It would be very hard to bring about the sort of uniformity in regard to the interpretation of any Act which the Labour Party seem to desire.
We are all lay persons here, as there are not any lawyers present. Surely we agree at least that the law should be sufficiently simple to be capable of a uniform interpretation. That is not asking too much of those who are paid to draft the laws which we enact. I am sure the Minister will find a very hefty file in his office. There must be a very hefty file going back almost to 1948 in regard to the very varied interpretations that have been given of the different aspects of this Act.
The Minister mentioned the matter referred to in the second part of our motion with regard to county council employees who were directed to work on farm work, minor relief schemes, Land Commission schemes, drainage committee schemes, or, in some areas, for the E.S.B. on the rural electrification scheme. There is a definite case established that the disemployment of these workers came about because the county councils desired to make labour available for these schemes. The period of disemployment with the councils during which they were working for these other bodies should be counted for pensionable purposes. I believe that if the Minister looks carefully into the matter he will find that, as a general rule, workers are not anxious to leave the employment of county councils. But, during the war, labour was somewhat scarce in the rural areas because of the fact that we were exporting it in bulk to Great Britain.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, February 11th.