Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Feb 1956

Vol. 154 No. 2

Local Government (Superannuation) Bill, 1955—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

As I said last night, it might appear from the discussion on this Bill that the House gave very little consideration to it, but I am well aware that is not so and I would like to pay a tribute to Deputies on all sides of the House who have consulted me since the Bill was first introduced.

I have gone over the Bill in detail with small committees of all Parties and I must thank them for the most helpful advice which I have received from them. I would like particularly to refer to the Labour Party Deputies. They did not contribute at any great length to the discussion on the Bill, but I can assure the House that they did give me considerable help in discussing the very many sections with which they were concerned. I should like to pay particular tribute also to the Deputies from Cork City. I received deputations from Deputies of all sides from Cork City and they were most helpful and made some very useful suggestions, all of which will be considered by me between now and the Committee Stage.

Deputy Lynch yesterday referred to the hardship which might be caused to men who took part in the struggle for national independence and who were debarred from entering into the local authority service as a result of their activities.

Certainly I have a lot of sympathy with the men who took part in the national struggle, but I do not think it is my duty to provide pensions for them. That is a matter for the Minister for Defence. I think that successive Governments have already— I will not say liberally—done their best to compensate them for any losses they may have sustained for any services they gave. It should not be any part of a Superannuation Bill to intervene in this matter.

Deputy Lynch also referred to what is solely a Cork problem—the refund of contributions paid by the servants of the Cork Corporation. He set out in detail the circumstances under which these contributions were paid. I, for the first time, under this Bill propose refunding to these contributors the amount they contributed, but I also endeavoured to cushion the impact of this refund on the ratepayers of Cork. The amount involved will be somewhere between £23,000 and £30,000 and were the refund to be made immediately on this Bill becoming an Act, I understand that the impact on the rates would be 2/6 in the £. It was to prevent that impact on the ratepayers that I suggested the refund should be deferred until these workers retired from the service of the corporation when the refund would be spread over a number of years and would not have the same impact on the ratepayers. However, these are matters which we can discuss in more detail on the Committee Stage of the Bill and I would welcome any suggestions which Deputies might wish to make on the matter.

I had a chance of discussing with Cork Deputies last night various matters which they raised—added years for national service for legal assistants and exemptions from contributions in certain cases. I have given an undertaking that I will go into these matters between now and the Committee Stage and that undertaking I will certainly keep.

The Cork Deputies also raised the matter to which I have already referred—the refund of the contributions paid by the servants of the Cork Corporation. We can discuss that matter in greater detail on the Committee Stage and I would welcome suggestions from the Cork Deputies, particularly, if we can get those representing the servants and those representing the ratepayers, when it might be possible to strike a happy medium in the matter. I also received several deputations on the question of admission to the contribution free categories of various servants. There is one principle which I must bear in mind, that is, the principle in the 1948 Act. It is one from which I should not like to depart. It is that free pensions cannot be entertained after a certain date and that date is 1st April, 1948. The exemptions given prior to that were intended only to apply to those who had been appointed as pensionable officers before the benefits of the 1948 Act applied. The deputation pointed out that certain hardships might be incurred and I am prepared to look into that matter between now and the Committee Stage.

Deputy Colley also referred to another category which sought exemption, the vocational teachers That is also a matter into which I will look between now and the Committee Stage. He also referred to the retired pensioners and asked me to make some provision for the increase to which they are allegedly entitled. I purposely referred to that in my opening speech on the Second Reading, and I refer the Deputy to what I said on that occasion. A number of my colleagues are concerned in this matter and I could not possibly undertake to introduce in a Local Government Superannuation Bill principles which might govern my colleagues in the other Departments, but I did say in my Second Reading speech that the Minister for Finance had promised to look into this matter and make a statement thereon in his Budget speech this year. Further than that I am afraid I cannot go.

At the outset, Deputy Jack Lynch, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, said that this Bill was a technical Bill —merely a Committee Stage Bill. I am in full agreement with that and on that account I do not wish to speak at too great a length, but I must crave the co-operation of the House. If I am to have this Bill enacted by the 1st April next, I will require to get all the stages next week to enable me to bring the Bill into the Seanad before 1st March and so give the Seanad the month of March for consideration of the Bill. Unless the Bill becomes law on or before 1st April, the provisions will be postponed for 12 months and I am sure that no side of the House would wish to see that occur. I thank the House for the co-operation I received and I crave their indulgence in regard to the remaining stages of the Bill.

Might I make one observation on the Minister's statement?

Only by way of question.

In connection with the Committee Stage, we think it would be necessary to have two weeks.

I was going to suggest two days.

Two weeks for the Committee Stage.

Very good. If the Deputy insists upon two weeks, he will bear in mind that if I cannot get the Bill through before 1st April, the benefits which may be derived under the Bill will be postponed for 12 months. If the Deputy, speaking on behalf of his Party, wants two weeks for consideration of the Committee Stage, I must meet him.

I do not want to have it suggested that we are depriving any people of benefits to which they are entitled, but surely the Minister will recognise that for a Bill of this nature we never had less than two weeks, as far as I can recall.

Perhaps the Deputy is unaware that the leader of his Party said he would facilitate me in every way to enable me to have the Bill enacted before 1st April. The Bill must be before some House of the Oireachtas every week between now and 1st April. If the Deputy insists on two weeks, perhaps he might consider having the two days first and see what happens, and if a second week is necessary, then we can have it.

All right.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage?

What I was referring to was that the Committee Stage be fixed two weeks from now.

I am sorry. I did not realise that. I thought the Deputy wanted two weeks for discussion.

No. I am sorry. I must not have made myself clear. I meant we should have two weeks.

Surely this is an unreasonable attitude. This Bill has been brought in now as a result of suggestions made from all sides of the House and if it is held up until after the 1st April, it will mean a further 12 months before the benefits will be forthcoming. Surely the matter can be dealt with expeditiously. I understand there was agreement that we should get it next week.

I should mention to Deputy Childers that Deputy Jack Lynch was the principal spokesman for the Opposition on this Bill last night; and, after the Adjournment, I discussed the matter with him and I arranged not only to see him but to see Deputies from both sides of the House between now and the Committee Stage in order to facilitate the Committee Stage by hearing their points of view in advance. If Deputy Childers still insists that we should not have the Committee Stage until next Wednesday week, his insistence will make it most embarrassing for everyone.

I think there is much more justification than we thought at first for Deputy Childers' view; the Committee Stage will take at least two weeks. At the same time, I do not think we should lose parliamentary time by putting off the Committee Stage until Wednesday week, since we may not get through the Committee Stage in two days.

That is understood.

I take it the Committee Stage is fixed for next Wednesday?

Ordered: That the Committee Stage be taken on Wednesday, 15th February, 1956.
Top
Share