With the indulgence of the House and of the Minister, when the Second Reading of this Bill was moved before the recess, Deputies were given the opportunity of studying the Bill with the explanatory memorandum until the House reassembled to-day. It was obvious from the size of the Bill and from the various references back that it was a highly technical one, and therefore we are grateful to the Minister for giving us the facility of reading the Bill again for ourselves and meeting the various interests concerned. As the Minister must know now, these interests are very many.
The number of local government officers throughout the country in various aspects of local government administration has increased considerably in the recent past. Possibly in the past ten years the development of local government has been such that it is now so complex that I believe in the future some diffusion of authority and responsibility must be created in order to distinguish and differentiate between the control and responsibility of those local government officers in the various aspects of administration.
The Minister for Local Government, as the Minister responsible, has, peculiarly enough, a very small degree of responsibility for the different types of officers who serve local authorities throughout the country. The Minister for Health probably is responsible for more officers than the Minister for Local Government himself, and the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Education also enter the scene in different aspects of the administration of local authorities. It is unfortunate, in a sense, that all the responsibility must now be thrown on the Minister for Local Government to try to establish a proper system of superannuation for officers who are paid from different Votes of the Central Fund and also paid out of purely local funds in almost every city, county and town in the country. I believe that, no matter what the Minister tries to do or to attain in the passage of this Bill, there will, in the ultimate, be very many disgruntled officers in different spheres of our administration throughout the entire country.
I believe the time will come, and should come, when each Minister responsible for payment, or sanction of payment, of local officers' salaries should take responsibility himself and try to help not only these local officers but public representatives to know in what direction one might go in order to satisfy, and even to interpret, the different claims and the different difficulties that arise in local government officials' payment and superannuation.
The interim between the adjournment of the Dáil before Christmas and its resumption here to-day is, as I said at the start, very much appreciated by Deputies, but nevertheless it may have been a blessing in disguise, inasmuch as most of us never realised how far-flung the effects of this Bill were going to be, because I am sure each Deputy in the House has received representations from individuals and groups of individuals serving the local authorities in different categories over the past few months. The Local Government Officials' Union has had interviews with the responsible officers of the Minister's Department, and in most cases its claims have not been satisfied, or rather promises to satisfy them have not been given. It is for that reason that I am sure the Minister will be overburdened with problems affecting groups and individuals during the course of this debate.
At the outset, I crave his indulgence in that respect in so far as I, personally, am concerned, and I am sure that I am only one of many who have been given memoranda of hardships that are already in existence and have not been alleviated by the introduction of this Bill, at this stage, at any rate. I feel that between now and the Committee Stage as a result of what the Minister will hear from me and other Deputies from each side of the House, he and his officers, and the officers of other Departments involved, will have to recast, to a large extent, the provisions of this Bill.
The first type of officer to whom I will refer in the few words I am going to say are officers who were recruited at a late stage in their lives to local authorities in one sphere of administration or another. These officers are men who helped to fight for the independence of this country. Some of them approached me and put up what I thought was a very reasonable case, in so far as the reckoning of their pensionable service is concerned. Men who shouldered arms or assisted in the fight for independence are, in my opinion, entitled to very special consideration. There are many men who, in their adolescence or in their early adult life, joined different branches of the forces who fought for freedom. Some of them spent many years either on active service or in such circumstances that they were unable to settle themselves in after life, while many of their friends and colleagues who did not take the same part in the fight for independence, either through economic stress or from conviction or for any other reason, joined the public service and were able to reckon their services, while their friends were unable to do so, as pensionable for the purposes of superannuation.
There are many men who, because of their nationalist outlook, were unable to take up positions in the local authorities which they might otherwise have done at a very early age. For that reason, they are now debarred from taking advantage of reckoning what has been described as temporary service for superannuation and pension purposes. I believe that the number of such men is now so small that it would not impose any undue burden, either on the Exchequer or the local authority to satisfy their claims to some extent at least. Officers with 30 years' service or more are entitled, at the end of their service in public or local authorities, to have ten years added on. Many of the men to whom I have made reference are men who, by reason of active service, or by reason of the consequence of active service in the movement for independence, were unable and will be unable to serve for 30 years before they will be compulsorily retired, and in such cases I suggest to the Minister that special consideration should be given, and that, where their service falls short of the statutory number of years, there should be some examination of their cases and some provision made in this Bill to do justice to men who genuinely and in the interests of their country were giving service in a much more important respect. I ask the Minister between now and the Committee Stage to give these men his very generous and active consideration.
There are various other types of officers to whom I would like to refer. In one respect, the next case I am going to make — that is the case of legal assistants in county law offices— is much akin to the case of the Old I.R.A. men to whom I have just referred. In order to qualify for appointment, many of those officers who are giving very good service in county council law agents' offices throughout the country were obliged before they were qualified to enter that employment to have at least five years' service in a law office. Unfortunately, under the terms of this Bill, these men will be unable to take credit for the service that they gave outside the local authority for superannuation purposes, although that service was such that it assists local authority law officers in carrying out their different functions.
I think it was under the 1926 Local Government Act and under the 1948 Act—which this Bill amends—that the local authority was given power to add years to service in special circumstances. This Bill which in its explanatory memorandum claims to be an improvement on the old Bill, actually puts such men in a worse position. The Bill, in Section 13, I think, describes what the special circumstances are that will qualify persons to have years added to their service for superannuation purposes and it apparently limits that qualification to professional officers. Unfortunately, legal clerks and legal assistants in county law offices are not considered officers and their type of service is not considered to be professional. Therefore, although the Bill in its explanatory memorandum is claimed to be an advance and an improvement on existing legislation, so far as the definition given of people who can qualify for added service is concerned it has been very strictly confined so as to exclude such men as these.
I do not know whether a constitutional issue could arise on this—that men who are serving under existing legislation which in effect is their contractual relationship with the State and the local authority will now be in a much worse position than they were before the passage of this Bill. But at least it raises a moral issue, so far as this House and its different members are concerned. Men who had been serving for years under legislation which could provide them with benefits that they might reasonably have looked forward to at the end of their service with local authorities are now, under the terms of this Bill, precluded from qualifying even for consideration for the bestowal of these benefits. If necessary, on the Committee Stage, I shall be able to give more details of how these men are affected and the particular technical issues involved, but at this stage I would suggest to the Minister and his advisers on the Bill that they should take cognisance of the matter raised, if by any chance it has escaped the Minister's attention.
I do know that a case has been put up on more than one occasion, but, unfortunately, it was claimed that these were new appointments—what the term "new apointments" implies, I do not know—and that in so far as these law assistants or law officers' appointments were new appointments, they failed to merit consideration under this Bill and the officers could not relate their position back to existing legislation in order to prove that their condition or prospects had worsened. If that is the case, if their prospects have worsened as a result of new legislation being introduced, I feel there is at least a moral obligation on us to ensure that these men who enter the local government service with professional and technical knowledge of a high degree and whose service we, in our different corporations and county councils, are glad to avail of will not be adversely affected by new legislation.
The Minister knows personally that a good law clerk in any solicitor's office is a tremendous asset and I am sure it is obvious to everyone that those appointed to county council law agents' offices in recent years were chosen from among the best. Some of them have been serving for upwards of ten years and many of them who served happily, in the belief that the special circumstances under which their superannuation would be increased and added years of service be given them for superannuation purposes now feel they are completely precluded from this benefit. I shall not put it beyond that, except to say I hope I have made the point sufficiently clear and, if I have not, I shall do so on the Committee Stage.
This Bill very properly rectifies an unfortunate situation that arose as a result of a recent case law. The 1948 Act imposed on officers appointed after 1st April, 1948, the obligation of paying, for superannuation purposes, 5 per cent. of their annual salaries by way of contribution. Somewhere in that Act, it was provided that officers whose names were entered in a register of permanent employees would be considered to be permanent officers, provided that register was in existence on 1st April, 1948.
In the Cork Corporation, there were very many local authority servants who had been serving for many years themselves as permanent employees, but, when it came to deciding whether or not this 5 per cent. of their salary should be demanded from them, the manager decided that they were not permanent employees, because their names were not entered on a permanent register. These employees took their case, in the names of one or two of their members, to the Circuit Court. It was appealed to the High Court and, I think, was taken on a case stated to the Supreme Court. As concisely as I can say it, the decision of the Supreme Court was that, in so far as the Cork city manager did not maintain a register of permanent employees, these men were, therefore, not permanent employees and were subject to the obligation of paying 5 per cent. of their salaries for superannuation purposes, even though their employment extended in many cases up to 15, 20 and even 30 years before 1st April, 1948.
This Bill happily rectifies that position and special provision is made to exclude these employees from the obligation to pay 5 per cent. of their salaries for superannuation purposes. The trouble is that, while this Bill now recognises the existing legislation was rightly interpreted, I suppose, in such a manner as to impose an unfair burden on these men and acknowledge their rights to be relieved from the payment of 5 per cent. of their salaries for superannuation purposes, nevertheless, it does not restore these payments to these men until such time as they will retire or, in the case of retired men, as soon as the Bill becomes law.
That is a matter largely for the convenience of the local authority, I would say. These men are paid entirely out of rates—local funds. Nevertheless in so far as it has been admitted—I suggest to the Minister it is admitted in the Bill—that a wrong was done these men by the strict interpretation of the law, as it now stands and as it then stood, I suggest that the refund of those superannuation payments should be made not on retirement but as soon as the local authority can find it possible and convenient to make them.
I have no doubt that other Deputies will speak on this topic from different aspects, but in so far as the admission is there that the 1948 Bill intended to preclude these men from the obligation of these payments, in so far as its terms did not carry out that expressed purpose, and in so far as this Bill now seeks to carry out that purpose, there is a moral obligation on us to ensure that to the extent to which local funds can meet the demand, the demands will be met at a much earlier date.
There are a few other particular cases to which I will refer the Minister. Some of my colleagues will also have no doubt similar cases, but I will put one hardship very broadly to the Minister. There are in Cork appointed water inspectors. Many of them were recruited as a result of an advertisement which appeared in the Cork Examiner on 20th January, 1948. That was before the passage of the Superannuation Act, 1948, and certainly before the Act became operative. They replied to that advertisement, dated 20th January, 1948, and were interviewed by a selection board on 18th February, 1948, but for one reason or another, their appointments were not sanctioned for a considerable period afterwards.
Their permanent appointment was sanctioned as from a date subsequent to 1st April, 1948, and for that reason they find themselves obliged to pay 5 per cent. of their salaries towards superannuation at the end of their service. It must be admitted that, when they took this matter up with two of the Minister's predecessors— Mr. T. J. Murphy and the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs— some attempt to alleviate their position was made and £13 was added to their basic salaries in order in some way to compensate for the 5 per cent. they had to pay. Nevertheless, it only compensated them to a limited extent. At the time, I think the compensation came almost to 75 per cent., but, in the intervening years, that compensation gradually decreased. I may as well add that the 5 per cent. was also deducted from the £13 as well.
I feel that as the advertisement appeared on 20th January, 1948, as the interviews took place on 19th February, 1948, as sanction for their appointments was sought on 15th March, 1948, and as the contractual relationship between them and the local authority was complete they were entitled to receive the benefit of preclusion from the obligation to pay 5 per cent. of their salaries for superannuation purposes.
It is significant that, in the case of other appointments advertised by the Cork Corporation on the same day— interviews for the filling of appointments of rent collectors were held on or about the same date—their permanent appointments were post-dated to a date prior to 1st April, 1948, and these rent collectors were precluded from the obligation of paying 5 per cent. of their salaries for superannuation. It is also significant, and I think this practically stops the Minister from denying their claim, that they were given increments during their temporary service, increments based on their permanent appointment, dated from a date prior to 1st April, 1948. In that respect I suggest their contractual relationship was complete before 1st April, 1948, in so far as acknowledgment of their service was given prior to 1st April, 1948. I suggest their case is complete from that point of view and they should be relieved from the obligation of paying these superannuation contributions.
I do not wish to hog the whole debate to myself, but I suggest to the Minister that, so far as the three categories I have mentioned are concerned, inasmuch as they have a good case in law, possibly, and certainly morally, they should be given whatever benefits they seek under this current legislation. I have been reminded that there is still another category. I refer to the men employed by the South Cork Board of Assistance. Here, again, I sympathise with the Minister, since he is not the final authority; even if he should sanction increases in salary, he still has to deal with the Minister for Finance. There are in St. Finbarr's Hospital a number of men whose length of service ranges from 10 to 20 years; their formal appointments were delayed to April, 1950. If men are employed in a temporary capacity for 20 years, it is a reasonable assumption that their service must have been satisfactory. If they fell short in any of their duties while serving in a temporary capacity, their dismissal is made all the easier for their superiors; evidently, they gave satisfactory service in that temporary capacity. I am sure they gave such service as warranted whatever salaries they enjoyed.
Nevertheless, as soon as the Superannuation Act was passed it was thought fit then, and only then, to sanction their appointment as permanent employees. I suggest to the Minister that if 20 years' temporary service is not sufficient to judge the merits of a man's capabilities, there is something wrong in the standards whereby local authority services are measured. For that reason, I would ask the Minister to take cognisance of the remarks I have made in relation to these men as well.
I will not delay the House any longer, but the Minister can rest assured that he will have to face up to many of the problems I have mentioned and many other problems to which my colleagues on both sides will advert in the course of this debate. I sympathise with him in so far as it may be very difficult for him to estimate the weight any amendments he may be disposed to accept will carry. He does not know whether he will open a floodgate of demands. That is beside the point, if there is justice and merit in the applications; and cases should be treated in justice and on their merits.
I hope that, before the Bill leaves the House, as much hardship as possible will be alleviated and that there will be fewer disgruntled officers serving local authorities throughout the country as a result of the introduction of this Bill, the deliberations on it here and the amendments we all hope to see effected to it.
