SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924. THIRD STAGE (RESUMED). – Seanad Éireann (1922 Seanad) – Wednesday, 4 Feb 1925

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924. THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).

Sir JOHN KEANE

Would my amendment 71a come under consideration at this stage? I submit it as an amendment that does not impose any charge on the Central Fund and is not governed by the same considerations as were connected with a previous amendment of mine.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think your amendment could be considered now. Its consideration was left over. The idea was that if provision is to be made, as suggested by your previous amendment to an earlier section, as to the distribution of this fund, then this amendment would probably not be in order or not be required.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I agree that would be so if the other amendment were carried.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Therefore it would be a mistake to discuss it now I stated I would give you full liberty to deal with the matter on the Report Stage. You see it would conflict with your previous amendment, if accepted.

SECTION 31.

(1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing:—

(a) the nature and quality of the materials which may be used in the maintenance and construe, on of roads;

(b) the size, shape, colour, and character of the signs to be erected on roads for the purpose of—

(i) indicating the places to which the road leads, and the distances to such places;

(ii) indicating the distances on the road;

(iii) warning persons using the road of dangerous portions thereof;

(iv) guiding traffic on the road with a view to minimising the risk of accidents;

(d) the conditions upon which such signs as aforesaid may be erected or retained on land adjoining any road by the owner or occupier thereof;

(e) the signals by which persons using roads can indicate their intentions to other such persons.

(2) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after the regulation is laid before it annulling the regulation, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.

(3) The council entrusted by this Act with the maintenance of any road—

(a) shall not use in the maintenance of such road any material of a nature or quality contrary to regulations made under this section, and

(b) shall erect and maintain on such road such and so many of the signs prescribed by the regulations made under this section and in such places as shall be necessary to comply with such regulations, and

(4) The expenses of a council in erecting any sign in accordance with such regulations as aforesaid on any road and of maintaining such sign shall be part of the expenses of the maintenance of that road.

(5) If it appears to a Justice of the District Court that any sign such as is referred to in this section is erected or retained on land adjoining any road contrary to any regulation made under this section, he may on the application of any police officer or of any officer of the council to whom the maintenance of such road is entrusted by this Act, order the removal of such sign, and, if he thinks it advisable, by such order authorise such officer to enter on such land for the purpose of removing such sign.

(6) If any person without lawful authority, removes, defaces, or otherwise injures any such sign as is mentioned in this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move:—

"Section 31, sub-section (1). To delete paragraph (d)."

It seems to me the meaning of this paragraph is very doubtful. Can the Minister say if it means that the local authority has power to enter on land to erect signs and is the owner compelled to keep them in order, or does it mean the local authority has power to remove any signs erected by the owner?

Mr. BURKE

The object of the section is that if the owner of property wishes to erect any signs, he can only do so if he fulfils those conditions. It is not intended to place any obligation on the owner to put up signs. It is merely a restrictive clause.

Mr. BUTLER

I take it the owner is not allowed to put up any signs without authority, including advertisements or anything of that kind?

Mr. BURKE

Not signs of that kind?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Clause (d) only relates to such signs as are enumerated or described in the previous sub-section.

Mr. BUTLER

In that case I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I beg to move amendment 70:—

Section 31. Page 18, line 40.

After sub-section (1) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) The Minister shall have power to prescribe, by regulations made under this section, conditions under which any such sign as hereinbefore mentioned may be erected on land adjoining a public road without the consent of the owner or occupier when erection on such adjoining land and not on any part of the road itself is reasonably necessary or desirable for the purposes of any such sign."

The purpose of this amendment is to give the Minister power over the erection of signs on land adjacent to the main road, when it is not possible to erect such signs on the main road. There is no power taken to erect signs without the consent of the owner of the land. I think the Minister should have power to erect such signs when it is not feasible to have them erected on the road. We all recognise nowadays, with a big amount of motor traffic on the roads, it is absolutely necessary that signs warning users of the roads of the danger points, and that sort of thing, should be erected. If it is necessary to erect these signs on the lands adjacent to the main road, I think the Minister should have power to erect them.

Mr. BUTLER

In cases like this, I think the owner of the land should not be liable for any damage to the signs. Now, suppose you take a case where a sign was erected, and that sign was damaged by the cattle, I do not see how it can be said that the owner should be liable.

Mr. BURKE

I have not got any decided objection to this amendment. It is a matter entirely for the opinion of the Seanad. I do not think that an occasion will very often arise where it will be necessary to avail of this. It is just possible that the occasion might arise when it would be good to have this power. I am not very particular about it.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I quite appreciate that the occasion will not often arise, but I think that it is just as well the Minister should have this power.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That seems to be the Minister's own view. He has no objection to the amendment, and he thinks it might be useful in isolated cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LINEHAN

I beg to move amendment 73 to Section 31, sub-section (6). It reads:—

After this sub-section to insert a new sub-section (7) as follows:—

"(7) The council entrusted by this Act with the maintenance of any road may, with the approval of the Minister, make a by-law regulating the maximum speed of mechanically propelled vehicles travelling on the road, and fix different maximum speeds for vehicles of different weights, and if any owner or driver of a vehicle acts in contravention of such by-law, such owner and driver shall be guilty of an offence under this section, and each shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds."

In the papers every day, we read of accidents having occurred, deaths taking place, and sometimes serious injuries inflicted, by the speed at which motor cars pass over the country. In my opinion it is very desirable that the body having charge of the roads should have power to make these by-laws. Now, these by-laws will not be effective unless they have the concurrence of the Minister. I cannot see that there should be any objection to that. It is a reasonable section to have inserted in the Bill, and I therefore move it.

Mr. BARRINGTON

I very much doubt whether it would be desirable to give each county council in the country the power of fixing the speed at which the various vehicles are to travel. I am rather of opinion that the Ministry or some Department of the Ministry has the power to define these things. If you leave it to each county council you will have one speed limit in County Dublin and another speed limit in the County Kildare, and the motorist may not know exactly, when he is crossing the border from one county into another, what is the different speed limit fixed, and where it has to be observed. It seems to me undesirable that power should be given to each separate county council to fix the speed limit. It would be very much more desirable if the power were retained in the hands of the Ministry.

Mr. BURKE

I think there is a great deal in what Senator Barrington has said. I think it would be well to have general rules issued with regard to this matter of speed. At the present time we have very ample powers in this respect. We have power to prevent various kinds of traffic on particular roads. We have power to regulate the speed of motor-propelled vehicles on particular roads, and we also have power to lay down regulations as to the speed limits of all vehicles of over two tons. The code is distributed over different Statutes, and it is not very easy at the present time to get at the full implication of the code. No doubt an amendment would be very desirable to the present code, but I think it would be very much better to leave control in the hands of the Ministry rather than in the hands of the local authorities. Perhaps, if an amendment were brought in on the Report Stage we might be able to meet the views of all parties in this matter.

Mr. LINEHAN

This sub-section which I propose makes it practically impossible for counties to have different speed limits, because none of them can make a bye-law unless with the consent of the Ministry. The Minister can see that the rates of speed in each county will be the same. The Minister says that power already exists for regulating speed. That power exists in the Ministry, but it does not seem to me to have been effectively put into force. If it were, so many serious accidents would not have occurred all over the country. If this new section is inserted it will empower the county councils to initiate bye-laws which may, afterwards, be considered by the Minister and amended, or approved of, as he may think fit. I think the initiative in the matter of making bye-laws ought to be left with the county councils.

Mr. BURKE

As the amendment is drafted, it will mean a considerable overlapping in the present law, and for that reason alone it would be well to leave it over to the Report Stage, when some amendment might be agreed upon with a view to co-ordinating traffic speed.

Mr. LINEHAN

I am quite satisfied with the Minister's undertaking, and the matter can be left over to the RePort Stage.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

In any event you ought to alter the wording of the proposed sub-section. It should read "make by-laws" instead of "make a by-law." It will be very difficult to put all this into one by-law. However, the matter is now being held over until the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That Section 31 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That Section 32 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 33.

(1) Every direct labour scheme which was or is deemed by virtue of this Act to have been legally in force in any rural district on the 31st day of December, 1923, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, continue in force up to such date as the Minister shall appoint.

(2) Every direct labour scheme which shall be approved of by the Minister after the passing of this Act shall, subject to the provisions of this section, continue in force for such period as the Minister shall appoint.

(3) Any period appointed by the Minister under this section for the duration of a direct labour scheme may at any time and from time to time be extended by the Minister for such further period or periods as he shall think proper, and any period so appointed or any extension thereof under this section may at any time be curtailed by the Minister by such amount as he shall think proper.

(4) Every such direct labour scheme as is mentioned in this section shall expire at the end of the period or of the extended or curtailed period (as the case may be) appointed by the Minister under this section for the duration thereof.

Mr. LINEHAN

I beg to move:—

"Section 33, sub-section (3), line 39. After the word "may" to insert the words "on the request of the county council."

The sub-section, if it stands, will give power to the Minister to terminate a direct labour scheme any time he likes or to continue it for ever. I think that if any change has to be made it should be made with the consent of the county council. That is the object of the amendment.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I support the amendment. I think the principle involved in the section is most dangerous, and I would ask Senators who have not read the section to do so very carefully. It gives power to the Minister to continue any scheme in force on the 23rd December to any date he likes. That seems to say that all control of the local authority over direct labour schemes is taken away from them, and, furthermore, as regards any direct labour scheme introduced after the 23rd December, as I read the section, it can be continued in force until such a period as the Minister wishes. Thus, if a new county council comes into power and finds a direct labour scheme which it considered unduly extravagant, it will not have power, except with the consent of the Minister, to put an end to it. It seems to me to be a most arbitrary provision, and it takes away from the local authority control over matters for which it has been elected by the ratepayers.

Mr. FARREN

I would like to put the contrary position to that just put forward. I do not think that it is fair to put into the Minister's hands power to dictate to the county council as to what methods they should adopt in making or maintaining roads. I suggest that the county council in each area will be the best judge as to the best methods. I object to the clause as it stands, and I believe that the county council, on the advice of the surveyors, ought to be the best judge as to whether the roads should be made and maintained by direct labour or by contract.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You are not quite in order, and you are, in fact, a little late. The sub-section with which the amendment deals is sub-section 3, and that assumes that sub-sections 1 and 2 have been passed. If they are passed, the section would sanction the proposal that every direct labour scheme is subject to the approval of the Minister. If you want to raise that point your proper course would be to propose the deletion of the section. We are dealing with sub-section 3, which only deals with the Minister exercising such powers, whereas you are objecting to giving him such powers. That should be challenged in sub-section 1.

Mr. BURKE

I am not very particular about the wording of this section. If Senators Farren and Sir John Keane are in agreement with the amendment, I am willing to accept it. I am not seeking arbitrary powers. In the ordinary course of events I would consult with the councils as to how long such schemes should be kept in force.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

If the amendment is to be adopted I think it will need alteration. It provides that the period appointed by the Minister under the Section may be extended. The amendment is that extension is to be made at the request of a county council. The concluding words of the sub-section gives the Minister power to curtail it. I think the Senator intended to put in the same thing, so that the concluding words would be "any extension thereof under this section may at any time on the like request." The amendment otherwise would be a halting one.

Mr. LINEHAN

I adopt your suggestion.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Question—"That Section 33, as amended, and Sections 34 and 35 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 36.

In this part of this Act,

the expression "local body" means and includes every local authority except a committee of management of a district lunatic asylum;

the expression "pensionable officer" means any permanent officer who either—

(a) devotes the whole of his time to the service of one or more local bodies, or

(b) is required by virtue of his office to be a registered medical practitioner, nurse, or midwife,

and the said expression also includes the following persons, that is to say—

(i) any person who, as an officer, has devoted the whole of his time to the service of one or more committees or joint committees, appointed for the purpose of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, for a continuous period of not less than ten years upon terms which do not expressly preclude him from receiving a pension and notwithstanding that his appointment was or is renewable periodically, and

(ii) any person duly appointed standing solicitor of a local body before the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919, and

(iii) any person permanently appointed before the passing of this Act to be a compounder of medicine for the purposes of any Act relating to the relief of the poor,

and the expression "pensionable office" shall be construed accordingly;

the expression "emoluments" includes all fees, poundage, and other payments made to an officer as such for his own use, and also the money value of any apartments, rations or other allowances in kind appertaining to his office;

the expression "yearly salary and emoluments" means in relation to an officer who has served for not less than three years, the average amount of his salary and emoluments during the three years ending on the quarter day which immediately precedes the day on which he ceases to hold his office, and in relation to an officer who has served for less than three years, the average amount of his salary and emoluments during each completed year of his service.

Mr. FARREN

On behalf of Senator O'Farrell, I move:—

In line 66, after the word "means" to insert the words "a School Attendance Committee."

The object of the amendment is to give power to local authorities to pension school attendance officers. On a previous occasion this matter was referred to here, and it was pointed out that school attendance officers were being unfairly treated in comparison with other employees of public bodies. I am not familiar with the position in the country, but I am familiar with the position in Dublin, where the school attendance officers are whole-time officers. Some of them have up to 25 years' service, but, as the law stands, there is no power given to the local authority to pension these officers. The local authority pays their salaries but has no power to pension them. I think it is grossly unfair to these officials not to put them in the same position as other employees of the local authorities. Under the 1905 Act, the Dublin Corporation got powers to pension every employee, no matter what his occupation, after a certain number of years' service. Under the special Act dealing with the school attendance officers local authorities have not that power. Their case has been mentioned on several occasions, and we are now taking advantage of the Bill to try and right a wrong. It is wrong that any section of employees should be debarred from receiving superannuation when others are entitled to receive it. In England under an Act of 1922 these officers are made pensionable, and under the Education Act of Northern Ireland they are also made pensionable. I think the same treatment should be meted out to the school attendance officers in this country as in England. So far as I know, there are only thirty people affected by this amendment, and I say that it is unfair to make this invidious distinction between one employee and another.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You are dealing with clause 36, line 66. As it stands at present, the only local body that is excluded is the committee of management of a district lunatic asylum.

Mr. FARREN

It says "except."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes, that is the only body excluded.

Mr. FARREN

Yes, but school attendance officers are employed under a special Act and they have been debarred from receiving pensions. Their salaries, as I have said, are payable by the local authorities who have not power to pension them, and the object of the amendment is to give them power to do so.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I think it would be well that the Seanad would understand that these officers are not employees of local authorities in the same sense as others are. They are appointed by the Schools Committees, composed of different people, some of whom are members of the local authority. They are not really under the local authority. When the School Attendance Act was set up and these positions were made available for men and women, there was no medical or competitive examination attached to the post and there was no age limit. Some of them have been there for 25 years, but there were no pensionable rights attached to the office when they were elected. It may be hard or it may be soft, but there it is; they are entirely different to employees under the local authorities. I think if you begin to pension these people you will have to set up a proper scheme whereby future applicants will be elected, and in that future scheme you will have to have an age limit as well as competitive and medical examinations. So far as Dublin is concerned these little posts have been in the main kept for widows who have fallen on hard times. If you set up a scheme of examination some of these widows would not be eligible for these posts. In my opinion they are the best people for this class of work, and are better probably than people who would pass an examination. For that reason I am anxious that this service should be allowed free to the widows of employees of local authorities and others for whom these posts are a god-send by enabling them to rear their children.

Mr. KENNY

This proposal is, I think, worthy of some consideration. The argument that these appointments when made were not hampered by any conditions as to a medical or competitive examination may be very sound, but there are instances in which other appointments were not pensionable at the time they were made and were made pensionable afterwards by legislation. We have done so ourselves. I understand that there are many truant officers, or school attendance officers, who are part-time officials, and I understand from the proposer that these are not included in his amendment.

Mr. FARREN

That is so.

Mr. KENNY

Senator Farren says that there would be only about thirty people affected. I understand that seventeen of these are functioning in the City and County of Dublin. Although these officers are not appointed by the Corporation they are paid out of Corporation funds. It is generally admitted, especially in the country, that school attendance officers are paid a poor salary. I think £2 a week would be the outside. Most of these officers have large families, and if they were deprived of their position, or if they died, their wives and children would be left destitute. These officers comply in every way with the conditions imposed on civil servants and are whole-time officials. If an investigation was made I think it would be found that they should be brought within the category of officers whose cases deserve consideration for pensions.

The general practice of not allowing public bodies to make some pension provision for their officials is not, I think, to be commended. We have no pension scheme in Waterford, so that the Corporation has to give employees with forty or fifty years' service, and who are physically unfit for work, a broom and tell them to hide themselves in the park and to return with the broom in the evening. That has a very bad moral effect on all the other employees. We cannot discharge all these old officials, or send them out on the streets, and at the same time we have no power to pension them. We tried to keep them on half time or on half pay. It is a humiliating position, both for the Corporation and the employees, whereas if we had the right to give them pensions we could make some provision for them. As only thirty-one existing officers are whole-time officers and will be affected by the amendment I think it deserves consideration by the Minister.

Mr. BENNETT

Senator Kenny has drawn a very harrowing picture of these officers. We are told that there are only thirty-one of them who would be pensionable.

Mr. BROWN

They are not all whole-time officers.

Mr. BENNETT

I would like to know if they were appointed as whole-time officers, or is it the exigencies of their work that makes them whole-time officers. If that is the case every officer who is appointed a half-time officer will say that his duties will require him for the full time. After a while the amendment would include every school attendance officer. I would like to be informed whether these people were appointed as full-time officers, and if they were not satisfied to go into the position when it did not carry the advantages of superannuation. I agree that superannuation should be given in nearly every case, but these people went into the position with their eyes open and without a pension.

Mr. McKEAN

I desire to support the amendment. School attendance officers perform very onerous and responsible public duties. They are engaged on practically the same terms as every public official who is pensionable. They do not understand why they should not receive superannuation allowance. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power said that these officials had not to pass an examination. That is not my information. I have it from some of these officials that they had to go before a medical officer and get a certificate from him. They had also to get testimonials as to character.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

They are easily got.

Mr. McKEAN

They also have to have some literary ability. Some of the duties that they perform include surprise visits to the homes of the children, visits to the schools, investigation of absentees, preparation of a census of children eligible for attendance at school, serving warning notices on parents, serving summonses on parents to appear before the School Attendance Committee, issuing and applying for summonses to police courts and proving them without any legal assistance whatever, filling up warrants for fines, and attending Children's Street Trading Courts.

These people are full-time officers, and this Bill is only to apply to whole-time officers. Their work in Dublin lasts from 10 in the morning until 5 in the evening, except Saturday, when the hours are from 10 to 1. They perform their duties in very uncongenial surroundings, and unfortunately are brought very much into the slums of Dublin. They have to visit homes where there is squalor and possibly disease. There is no reason, as far as I can see, why these people should not get some pensionable allowance. I agree with Senator Mrs. Wyse Power that the school attendance committees provide this employment for people who would otherwise be destitute. I think that is a blot in the scheme. I think that no person should be appointed to any particular office without that person's qualifications being properly studied. The public service should not be carried on on philanthropic lines. From time to time the school attendance committees have recommended that these officials should receive pensions. The Dublin Corporation made such a recommendation in 1907.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Did it pass?

Mr. McKEAN

No, as it was mixed up in a Bill in which there was some contentious question. The Bill was not turned down because they were going to give pensions to these officers. School attendance officers go into the slums and look after the children of the poor to see if they are attending school. They also go before benevolent societies in order to obtain clothes for poor children and in some cases supply clothing, so that school will not be missed. In 1900 the average school attendance of those of school age was 60 per cent. It is now 80 per cent. While these officers may not claim that they were responsible for the improvement in school attendance it is only fair that they should claim portion of the credit. I think the recommendations of the various committees should be considered and that suitable superannuation should be provided for these officers.

Dr. GOGARTY

If there was a prospect of creating very many potential pensioners I would not support the amendment. As only a limited number of men are involved, men who have been led to consider themselves to some extent part of the machinery of education, inasmuch as they have to pursue small boys who do not go to school and on whose reports prosecutions ensue, I will support it. I think we might leave the matter to the discretion of the Minister. This is an ad miseri-cordiam appeal and it prevents these men having a grievance when grievances should not exist. A man cannot say that he gave his life's work to the duties if he did not do so. I do not think the Minister will object to including these men in a scheme for pensions.

The EARL of KERRY

The intention of the amendment, I understand, is to make school attendance officers eligible for pensions, but if it is passed in its present form will it not do a great deal more? It makes school attendance committees local bodies within the meaning of the Bill. I submit that the amendment might do more than is intended by the mover, if school attendance committees were made local bodies.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That seems to be so, but the Minister will probably be able to tell us how the matter stands.

Mr. BURKE

As Senator the Earl of Kerry has pointed out, school attendance committees do not come under the heading of local authorities at all. If there was any question of accepting the amendment it would have to be very carefully considered as to what its effect would be on subsequent and on preceding sections. I have a very strong objection to accepting the amendment. It creates a new type of pensionable officer and brings in those who are not officers of local authorities at all. It is really a matter that ought be dealt with by the Ministry of Education. That Ministry is bringing in a new Bill, I understand, dealing with the whole question of compulsory education, and these officers may become unnecessary under it. As Senator Mrs. Wyse Power pointed out, these are people who, if they had to pass medical and written examinations in the ordinary way, as well as the usual tests that officials of local authorities have to pass before being appointed, would probably have to go out on the day they were accepted owing to old age and infirmity. I consider it would be a very unwise thing to pass this amendment and create a precedent for including other people under it who were never included before. All along I have held out against allowing any new class of pensionable officers to be brought into this Bill. This would be the first breach in that standard that I have taken up, and I would be very sorry if the Senator were to press the amendment.

Mr. FARREN

Some statements have been made that are not correct. The statement has been deliberately made that these people are not whole-time officers. I want to say that the school-attendance officers in Dublin are whole-time officers.

Mr. BROWN

In Dublin.

Mr. FARREN

In reply to the statements of Mrs. Wyse Power and the Minister, to the effect that old people were employed in this particular work, I want to say that at present there are people with twenty-five years' service, so that they could not have been tremendously old when they were appointed. The point I want to put forward is this: The people who were employed are not responsible for the fact that there was no examination. They were employed as a result of a public advertisement, and old people have not been employed. One or two may have been, but the majority of the people in Dublin have up to twenty-five years' service. They got their positions in reply to public advertisements and through worth, and they had to be within a certain age limit. As a matter of fact, on one occasion a person was appointed, and because he was not able to produce a certificate as being under thirty-five years of age, he was disqualified. I believe you are doing a gross injustice to those people. It has been stated that the Corporation has not control of these; that there are other people on the committees. But the Corporation appoints a certain number of its own members, and also appoints the other members, and the Corporation pays the whole of the salaries. Every other employee of the Corporation after serving a certain number of years is entitled under Act of Parliament to a pension, and the citizens of Dublin pay the whole salaries of these people. They are in the same position as any of the other employees, and I think it is a gross injustice to these people to debar them from the same benefits as every other employee.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I move:—

After the word "asylum" to insert the following words: "the expressions ‘office' and ‘officer' have the same meaning as in section 109 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898."

An office is described as "any office, situation or employment, and ‘officers' shall include such." What I hope to achieve by this amendment is to bring workmen under this definition of an officer, and I do not think it is anything new. I only want this definition in the Local Government Act inserted. Senator Kenny, in dealing with the last amendment, has made my case. I think it is a lamentable thing for local authorities when they have employees who have served them faithfully—such cases have come under my notice and under Senator Kenny's—who have given practically their whole lives to the service, that such local authorities have no power to superannuate them when they are no longer able to work. We have had several cases of that in the Kilkenny Corporation, and from what I have heard I take it that it is general throughout Ireland. It is a humiliating thing. Of course we can give such people some nominal position and tell them, as Senator Kenny said, to go and hide themselves. I do not think that that should be. Local bodies will not dismiss men who have given faithful service, and they should not be expected to do so simply because these men have reached an age when they can no longer work. They will pay them their wages and let them idle their time away when they cannot give them a pension. It is a great mistake to keep these men and give them nominal positions—keepers of parks, or something like that—so as to legalise the payments. I take it that if this definition is inserted the ordinary workman will come in, and that is what I want to achieve.

Mr. BROWN

I am very strongly opposed to this amendment. It would enormously increase the number of pensioners, and it would be an absolutely intolerable burden on the rates. The mover puts it on the ground that that is the definition which is given of an officer in the Local Government Act of 1898, and that therefore, to be consistent and logical, we should carry it on to this Bill. At the time that the Local Government Act of 1898 was passed nobody had any right to a pension. Certain bodies had a right to give a pension at their discretion, but no officer of any local body had a right to a pension; they were all at the discretion of the local body. That being so, there was no harm in putting a definition into the Act of 1898, which included in the definition of the word "officer" a person who is in the employment or has a situation under the local body, because the legislature thought that they might trust the commonsense of the public body, and that in the exercise of their discretion they would not pension a man on the road, or a charwoman.

Mr. FARREN

They do not want anything in their old age!

Mr. BROWN

But it was carried so far that a case was taken to the Court of Appeal. I think they actually pensioned or gave a gratuity, if she was not long enough in the service to earn a pension, to a charwoman. That would put an enormous burden on the rates. Therefore, I very strongly oppose the amendment. It would mean that everybody who was paid a weekly wage would get a pension.

Mr. FARREN

Why not?

Mr. KENNY

The Senator has spoken of putting an enormous burden on the rates. Does he consider that the ratepayer has to pay in any case, whether in the form of a pension, or in the form of relief? If an ordinary employee of a public body falls sick he at once falls on the rates. That is a very serious burden, possibly a greater burden than by allotting a scaled pension to such a man. You cannot get rid of the ratepayer's liability. We are trying to put public bodies in a position to conduct their own affairs with dignity and not to be put into an anomalous and false and invidious position by having to discharge their employees and cast them upon the charity of the public, or on home assistance. Public bodies are not in the same position, as it were, to do these things as a private employer is, because they have to conduct their business in the open and under the very strong light of public opinion. All their proceedings are reported by the Press, and most of their meetings are open to the public. The private employer is in a better position if he should feel so disposed—I may say that he is generally not so disposed—to be so inhuman as to sacrifice his humanity to his profit, and he can, when an employee is no longer a profit to him, tell him to leave.

A public body cannot do that, and under the existing conditions you force them, as Senator Gogarty has very well described it, to connive at—it is really a form of connivance—some means by which they may not be forced to the necessity of openly discharging these people and casting them on the public charge or on home assistance. From the economic point of view—to the ratepayer—it does not really matter. There is scarcely any difference, certainly not any material difference, to the ratepayer as to how that employee who is no longer able physically to carry on his work, and his family, if he has a wife and children, are to be supported for the rest of their lives. A pension preserves a man's dignity and feeling of independence to some extent, because a pension is supposed to be deferred pay. He is supposed during his working period to have given service that was slightly underpaid in consideration of the pension that will ultimately be due to him. It is really immaterial, from the ratepayer's point of view, how that man is to be provided for in the event of sickness or old age. The ratepayers are affected in exactly the same manner.

Mr. FARREN

This amendment would give the local authorities power to put an end to these class distinctions that have been a cause of difference for so many centuries. Under the existing law, and under this Bill, you have power to give pensions to people who, while they are employed, have sufficient salaries to enable them to put by something for a rainy day. But the unfortunate workman, the bottom dog, merely gets a subsistence wage and, if his health breaks down, does not get a pension. Senator Brown thinks it is a horrible thing for any of these people to get pensions. One would imagine that they were made of different clay from the officers. A man who works in a sewer for seven or eight or nine hours in the day and is liable at any moment to lose his life with the foul air, and who does that for thirty or forty years, is not to get a pension. You hold up your hands in holy horror if that is suggested, but the fellow who is sitting with his toes on the mantelpiece in the office with his warm fire may have a thousand a year, and he will get a pension, of course. I suggest to you that if you want to have good citizens you will not have them by continuing this class war—citizens who will respect the Constitution and the State. It is no use trying to make out that the working man is not made of the same clay as anybody else. If he and his wife and children, after he has given forty or fifty years' service, have to go to the workhouse, do not think you are done with him. I tell you that you are making a mistake if you think they will stand it any longer. I am not going to make use of any threats, but I tell you that the working-class people will not stand it any longer. If they do not get fair play they will take the means of getting it for themselves.

Mr. BARRINGTON

A good deal of quite unnecessary heat has been introduced into this question, and probably the real issues have, to a certain extent, been obscured. Senator Farren talked about the man who spends thirty or forty years in the service of a local authority. If these were the people that were to be pensioned, and the only people that were to be pensioned, there probably would not be a word against it. But when you turn to the terms of the Bill, what do you find? As far as I can read, it says: "the expression ‘yearly salary and emoluments' means in relation to an officer who has served for not less than three years." It goes on in the next clause to state how these pensions are to be calculated, and it alludes to a local body that may, with the consent of the Minister, grant a pension to an officer in their employment who has at least ten years' service. So that ten years is apparently the maximum and three years the minimum. I could appreciate Senator Farren's argument if he really put the absolute facts before us. Nobody wants to treat people hardly who have been working for a long time.

It is all very well to talk about the purity of the manner in which things are administered. We all know well that they are not administered purely. We know thousands of cases in which corruption has entered into appointments. We know men who have been appointed simply to be retired in a very short time with pensions, and as this Bill is proposed to be amended, I believe pensions would be given in such a way. Recently while I was at home a man came to see me. He was a fine, strong, hefty man, about twenty-eight or thirty years of age. He had lately got married, and he had a great grievance. In some of the numerous shiftings of positions that have taken place, he had lost his job and he had got a pension. It was not quite as much as he would like to have, and he wanted me to see various people to have it increased. The gravamen of his complaint was that his wife had not got a pension also. I asked him how old his wife was, and he said she was about twenty-four. She had been in the employment of some local authority for a few years and her office was done away with. Because she had not got a pension when she married him, and he had got a pension that was not quite sufficient, his complaint was that it was very hard lines. A very moody picture has been drawn of the poor people who are unable to work and have to be given a sweeping brush to go and hide themselves in a dark corner. But we have not heard one word about the poor ratepayers, and I assure you there are greater cases of hardship among the poor ratepayers, who are billed every day for rates that they cannot afford to pay. These rates arise largely from the extravagance with which these things are administered, and I think if somebody stood up and advocated their case it would do a great deal more good.

Mr. BENNETT

With many of the arguments advanced I am in complete accord. I think every man has a right to live and the right to expect reasonable provision in his old age and for infirmity. All men are equal in person and dignity, and by the law of nature and God they are entitled to that. I am afraid this amendment may go further than we intend to go. I would like if I could be assured that the few men employed by local bodies to do various jobs about courthouses and places of that sort, if they are men who have been in regular employment for a number of years, should be entitled to a pension, but what I fear is that men will be employed by local bodies in a more or less temporary capacity and perhaps get a very high wage for a temporary job. They may be employed temporarily for a period extending over three or four years, and it might possibly be argued, under this particular section, that these men would be pensionable. If that could be argued it would be a very grave thing for the community, and I think for that reason we should approach this amendment with great caution. I think it is an amendment that would require to be studied very closely, and for my part I would not like to be asked to vote on this amendment at all, because what I am afraid is that it will possibly be argued that temporary employees are entitled to pensions. I can visualise cases where a number of men are employed by a county council, possibly on roads, temporarily, and it may be argued that these men are servants of the county, and as such are liable to be pensioned. If there were some people who had given whole years of their lives to the service of the Council on roads I would pension them, but many of these men merely give some occasional service, and if they give such service for a period of three or four years then I think it would not be just to the community at large that they should enjoy pensionable rights. They get an extra wage on account of having no pensionable rights and because of occasional employment, and if there is the least danger that any change of this sort would admit people of that character to pensionable rights I think it should be opposed. I am against it.

Mr. IRWIN

Like Senator Bennett, I would like more information as to what the probable cost will be if this amendment is carried. I would say in favour of it that I think in very many cases it would make for economy in administration. Very often men are kept in the service of public bodies because these bodies know they cannot pension them. They cannot throw such a man out of employment, and they have to keep him on doing some work which, because of his old age and infirmity, he cannot do in an efficient manner. You cannot blame a public body for doing that. I do not agree with Senator Barrington when he speaks of the inefficient and corrupt manner in which public bodies have carried on their administration. I have a good many years' experience of public bodies in different parts of the country, and with very few exceptions I have never heard of cases of corruption. When these things do occur the newspapers and men like Senator Barrington take good care that they are well known.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I hope the Seanad realises that the effect of this amendment will be to make pensions mandatory for every employee of a local authority. That is a most staggering proposal, and more especially as we have no idea of what it is going to cost. I think the House would be stultifying itself in passing anything like that without the most careful investigation. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I have very much sympathy with the employees who are excluded simply by virtue of their lower grade or their remuneration from pension, but I cannot see how they can be dealt with satisfactorily in a measure of this kind. The whole method of pensioning requires to be carefully reviewed, and any changes should be introduced gradually. It cannot very well affect these with statutory rights, but it does seem unreasonable that a salaried official should get a pension and a wage-earner should not. I would like to see the whole question reconsidered on the basis of having pensions contributory on all classes of employees. I hope we will have some scheme of that kind, but that cannot fructify except very slowly. It can only be introduced, I think, in the case of new entrants into the service. It will take a generation probably before any arrangement of that kind can take effect. In the meantime, we are dealing with practical realities, and I submit this amendment is not one.

Mr. LOVE

I cannot take the gloomy view of our public bodies put forward by one Senator, nor have I had the happy experience of another, but I agree with Senator Sir John Keane that this is a matter on which we require fuller information. The principle enunciated by Senator Farren is a good sound one, and makes an appeal to our reason. There are some glaring cases. I know of one or two where men were discharged after 30 years' service without pension. I think in such cases if they were put before the Minister there might be some clause introduced which would give public bodies an opportunity of giving such men an ex gratia grant, if not a pension. I welcome the statements of Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Bennett, and also agree with Senator Farren. Perhaps the Minister would bring in himself on Report some provision whereby in future we might be able to deal with this very momentous question.

Mr. NESBITT

I would suggest to Senator De Loughry that he should withdraw this amendment for the reason that I think we are all humanitarians in the Seanad. I am one myself in any case. I do not believe in the class distinction Senator Farren speaks of. I do not know whether Senator Farren's threat is a warning or his warning is a threat.

Mr. FARREN

I protested against injustice.

Mr. NESBITT

I do not think he intended it to be either a warning or a threat. I think I heard Senator Sir John Keane speaking before about co-ordination of public charitable organisations and public funds, and that there seemed to be waste and overlapping. We have the dole, the poor rate and all these charitable societies. We have the old age pension, too, and all these things require a certain amount of overhead charges and it appears a great deal of waste occurs in the running of these different organisations, in collecting and in other work. I think that the Minister should look into the whole matter to see what could be done to bring about a certain amount of co-ordination between all these activities, and to see that justice should be done to the people for whom Senator De Loughry speaks.

Mr. BURKE

I think the principal objection to this amendment was stressed by Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Barrington. No estimate has been made of what the cost will be to the country or whether the ratepayers, who are at present burdened to the very utmost limit of their capacity, can bear it or not. I believe at present it would be impossible to put this burden on the ratepayers. Senator Farren seems to take exception to the fact that distinction appears to be made between officials of local authorities and employees, but I think there is a very apparent reason for that. The ordinary officers of local authorities are generally men of very high capacity and ability, and when they took up office it was an understood thing that their pensionable rights were more or less arranged on a contributory basis. If they were not given a pension they would have a much higher salary. In addition to what they would get in the ordinary course of events, the pension is left as an inducement to continue on. It would place local authorities in a very difficult position if trained, skilled, experienced and highly capable officers were leaving their employment every couple of months and if they had to substitute officers of very high ability. An ordinary employee is a man for whom a substitute can be got at a moment's notice. I am not at all adverse to bringing in at a later stage some system of superannuation on a contributory basis, but it will have to be a contributory basis just as the superannuation of officers is really on a contributory basis. The whole matter will have to be worked out carefully. It is almost impossible to go into it without an actuary. You cannot deal with this in a slipshod haphazard way without working it out to see what it is going to cost the ratepayers ultimately and what would be a fair proportion for the employee to contribute, and what would be a fair proportion for the local authority. It is a matter that will have to be dealt with very fully, and I ask the Senator not to press the amendment at this stage.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

If I get some information as to when the Bill which the Minister foreshadows will be brought in, I may consider withdrawal of the amendment. I would like now to refer to some of the remarks made. You are always at a disadvantage when you have a man like Senator Brown making a case against you. He argues the case of some isolated authority pensioning a charwoman. I do not stand for that at all. I have 20 years' experience of public bodies, and I have been struck with the amount of attention, care and time which men in Ireland devote to the work of local government. I deprecate some of the remarks made here about local authorities. I know in my own area the councillors have a high civic standard, and they ought to get credit for it. When anything comes up here and there is a chance of telling a funny story at the expense of the local authorities it is told.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The point of Senator Brown's observation was that your amendment was mandatory and that, therefore, everyone would come under the definition. He was making a charge against nobody.

Mr. De LOUGHRY

I was not referring to Senator Brown. I am seeking to put the employees of public bodies in the same category as officers. I do not see why they should be segregated and why in 1925 there should be a definition of an officer and another definition of employee. I cannot understand why they should be segregated, and I do not think anyone who has given any attention to public bodies can understand it either. It was said that it would put an enormous burden on the rates. I hold the burden is greater as it is. I have no use for the public body that pensions an employee after three or four years, but public bodies who have men 20 or 30 years in their employment will not let them go if they cannot give them pensions. They will keep them on and the expense is greater on the rates. Senator Brown made it clear that at the time of the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898 there was no intention to give a pension to anyone. Therefore the definition did not make so much difference. I think there is a section of that Act imposing a 40/- fine per day for any neglect of duty on the part of an officer. I am sure that would apply to a workman. If an employee neglects his duty I am sure he would come under the category of an officer. I do not see why he should not be an officer when the plums are going.

There is one other point. It struck me during the debate that under the board of guardians we were empowered to superannuate men like masons, carpenters, and so on. I cannot understand, if a board of guardians can pension workmen who do not contribute to their pension, why the Corporation cannot do it. The whole administration of this Act is inconsistent. As I say, if the Minister could tell us when he intends to bring in this Bill dealing with the question of superannuation, we would know where we are.

Mr. BURKE

It is difficult for me to give any promise as to the date of the introduction of this new Bill. There are about a dozen Bills on the tapis, if I could get time to bring them forward. I cannot give a promise for any definite time, but as soon as I get the opportunity I will endeavour to go into the matter and to bring forward a Bill that will meet with Senators' wishes.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 26.

Tá

Peter De Loughry.
Michael Duffy.
Thomas Farren.
Thomas Foran.
Cornelius Joseph Irwin.
Patrick Williams Kenny.
James McKean.
James J. Parkinson.

Níl

William Barrington.
Thomas Westropp Bennett.
Samuel L. Brown.
Richard A. Butler.
Mrs. Eileen Costello.
John C. Counihan.
Ellen Odette, Dowager Countess of
Desart.
J.C. Dowdall.
Sir Nugent Talbot Everard, Bart.
Sir John Purser Griffith.
Benjamin Haughton.
Marquess of Headfort, D.L.
Arthur Jackson.
Sir John Keane.
Earl of Kerry.
Thomas Linehan.
Joseph Clayton Love.
Edward MacEvoy.
Earl of Mayo.
Colonel Maurice Moore.
James Moran.
George Nesbitt.
Michael O'Dea.
Bernard O'Rourke.
William O'Sullivan.
Mrs. Jane Wyse Power.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. BROWN

Before you come to the next amendment, A Chathaoirligh, might I suggest to the Minister a slight alteration in line 3 of Section 36:—

"The expression ‘pensionable officer' means any permanent officer who either (a) devotes the whole of his time to the service of one or more local bodies, or (b) is required by virtue of his office to be a registered medical practitioner, nurse or midwife."

It is very difficult to know what is meant by "permanent." It is not so difficult to know what is meant by "temporary." I would suggest that a better definition would be: "The expression pensionable officer means any officer other than a temporary officer."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Have you ever found it easier yourself to explain the difference in that way?

Mr. BROWN

I have.

Mr. BURKE

I would like to consider the suggested definition between now and the Report Stage.

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

I have been asked to move Amendment 76a:

Section 36, page 20, line 8, after the word "practitioner" to insert the words "qualified civil engineer."

The section would then read: "... is required by virtue of his office to be a registered medical practitioner, qualified civil engineer, nurse or midwife."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Are you not bringing him into very curious company? Had you not better put it this way: "is required by virtue of his office to be a qualified civil engineer, a registered medical practitioner, nurse or midwife?

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

That is what I had in my own draft, but I find it was altered.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it is better to put it as you originally intended.

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

I am agreeable.

Mr. O'ROURKE

I oppose this amendment. It is getting in the thin end of the wedge in favour of pensions to part-time officers. We have enough pensioners in this country, without creating another army of them. There are a great number of engineers paid for looking after pumps one day in a fortnight or one day in a month by the rural district councils. Are we going to give pensions to men of that kind? The thing is intolerable.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I wanted to have some idea of what this amendment meant and what it covered. I do not know whether those officials to whom Senator Sir John Griffith alludes are at liberty to engage in private practice or not.

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

They take private practice.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Then they are not whole-time officers?

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

Their whole time is available to the authorities.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I only desire that the Seanad should have the facts. I am not suggesting that the House should not make the amendment you desire, but I am putting these questions that Senators may know what they are voting for.

Sir JOHN GRIFFITH

These engineers are in the same position as doctors and nurses. They have got freedom of action when their time is not being availed of by the sanitary authorities.

Mr. BURKE

Mr. O'ROURKE

I would like to press this upon the Seanad. The Seanad is an important body, and I think we should decide whether we are satisfied to give these officials such enormous pensions. There is an outcry all over the country as to the immense amount of money county councils have to spend by way of pensions. In my county it amounts to about £3,000 a year, and this provision will add another £1,000 to it. To give a pension of £1,200 a year to one man, while you cannot give a pension to a charwoman or a labourer, seems altogether absurd. I desire to have the amendment put to the Seanad.

Mr. DOWDALL

I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. It is clear to me that the position of a secretary of a county council is not prejudiced by any extra duties put upon him by new legislation, because the new emoluments given to him necessarily must be expended in the payment of salaries to persons who will have to do that extra work. I have been told that some secretaries to county councils who get the fees say they cannot do the work and they get clerical assistance to do it. I have a great deal of sympathy with the outbursts of feeling from the Labour Benches with regard to relatively small things, when hundreds of pounds are added on to the salaries of well-paid officials for things which it was not really intended they should benefit by. I ask the Minister to give us some undertaking, if he cannot accept the amendment, that he will go into the matter before the Report Stage. Otherwise the amendment should be pressed and carried.

Mr. BURKE

I prefer to leave it to the Seanad. I do not wish to take responsibility by accepting the amendment.

Amendment put and declared carried.

(1) If any officer of a local body who is in office at the date of the passing of this Act and at that date has more than ten years' service as an officer of such local body signifies in writing to such local body or if that body has been abolished then to a local body to which its powers and duties have been transferred within three months after the passing of this Act his intention not to avail himself of the provisions of this Part of this Act, this Part of this Act shall not apply to such officer.

(2) Any officer of a local body to whom by virtue of this section this Part of this Act does not apply shall remain and be subject to such of the enactments repealed by this Act as relate to the granting of superannuation or compensation for loss of office to officers of local bodies as if this Act had not been passed, save that in the application of Section 8 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919, to the granting of an allowance to such officer by a local body the expression "case of dispute" in that section shall include a dispute of the right to or amount of an allowance granted after the passing of this Act raised by an auditor of the Minister duly appointed to audit the accounts of such local body, which dispute such auditor is hereby authorised to raise on the occasion of the audit of the accounts for the period in which the allowance is first paid but not afterwards.

Mr. FARREN

On behalf of Senator O'Farrell I beg to move:

Section 37, sub-section (1). Lines 40-41. To delete all after the word "Act," in line 40, down to and including the word "body" in line 41.

The object of the amendment is to endeavour to get the same terms for the employees of local boards who may lose their employment as was given to the employees of railway companies under the Railways Act.

Mr. BURKE

I take it the object is to enable those officers to get gratuities. Under the 1919 Act, which was calculated on a very unfair basis an officer with less than ten years' service could get a gratuity equal to the amount of his salary for half the number of years he served. That was grossly unfair. We have refused to concede that right under the present Bill. It would be a very unfair burden on local authorities if it were granted, and I ask the Seanad not to agree to it.

Amendment put and negatived.

Mr. KENNY

I move:—

Section 37, sub-section (1), line 42. After the word "writing" to insert the words "within three months after the passing of this Act," and in line 44 to delete the words "within three months after the passing of this Act."

This is merely a drafting amendment, and I hope it will be accepted by the Minister.

Mr. BURKE

I accept that amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. BROWN

I move:—

Section 37, sub-section (1), line 44. To delete the word "three" and to substitute therefor the word "six."

This section gives the right to contract out of the Act, and instead of giving only three months the amendment gives six. I think that seems reasonable, and I expect the Minister will not object to it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Are you quite sure that is the effect of the amendment?

Mr. BROWN

The section says:—

"If any officer of a local body who is in office at the date of the passing of this Act and at that date has more than ten years' service as an officer of such local body signifies in writing to such local body or if that body has been abolished then to a local body to which its powers and duties have been transferred within three months after the passing of this Act his intention not to avail himself of the provisions of this Part of this Act, this Part of this Act shall not apply to such officer."

This part of the Act deals only with superannuation, and this is to give the option to a man who would rather have section 8 of the Local Government Act of 1919 instead of this.

Mr. BURKE

The object of the amendment is to give six rather than three months' to officers who may transfer under the Act. The only objection to giving six months is, as Senator Brown is very well aware—he has been moving a number of amendments about the appointed day—that the day for transferring these officers to the county councils from rural district councils will be the 1st October. I would like these officers to make up their minds a fair length of time before that day so that the local authorities would have time to decide on which officers to pension or to take on under the board of health. I think six months too much. Perhaps the Senator will agree to four months?

Mr. BROWN

Very well.

Mr. DUFFY

Are not these words in line 44 already deleted by the previous amendment?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

No, they have not been deleted at all.

Mr. DUFFY

They are not in line 44 now.

Mr. BROWN

They occur in the next line.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

We will not trouble about the line. The proposal is to alter the word "three" to "four."

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I move:—

Section 37, sub-section (1), line 45. Before the words "the provisions" to insert the word "all," and in line 46, before the words "shall not apply," to insert the words and figures "with the exception of Sections 37, 40, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49 and 50."

Mr. BURKE

I would be willing to accept the amendment. Under the Bill as it stands an officer is permitted to contract out of all the sections dealing with superannuation, and if the Senators will look at the sections excluded under this amendment, it will appear that several of them are of a kind that would be unsuitable both for the officer contracting out and the local authorities to have him contract out. Accordingly these particular exceptions have been made.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Is the Minister satisfied with this amendment?

Mr. BURKE

Yes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I move: In Section 37, sub-section (2), before the word "apply" to insert the word "wholly."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That follows as a result of the change already made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I move:— Section 37, sub-section (2), after the words "this Act" to insert the words "with the exception of the sections specified in sub-section (1) of this section."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FARREN

On behalf of Senator O'Farrell, I move amendment 84:— Section 37, sub-section (2), to delete all after the word "passed" to the end of the sub-section.

I am not quite clear upon the amendment which was put down by Senator O'Farrell, but I think the object is to prevent disputes arising in regard to pensions already passed.

Mr. BURKE

I cannot agree to accept this amendment. It is another one of the amendments dealing with Section 8 of the 1919 Act. Under that Act the local authority was entitled to pay a pension to an officer, and if the officer was not satisfied with the pension he received he could appeal to the Minister. The Minister had no function in the matter unless a question was raised, and the only person who could raise a question was the officer of the local authority. If the officer was paid an excessive pension the Minister had no power to intervene; but, on the other hand, if the officer was paid too small a pension he could appeal to the Minister and the Minister could adjust the pension so as to be equitable to the officer. It is quite obvious that this was a one-sided arrangement. It is not fair to the local authority that if an officer be dissatisfied with his pension he should be able to raise the matter with the Minister, but if the local authority is dissatisfied it has no power to have the matter submitted to another jurisdiction. This section gives power to the auditor to raise the question, which is a much more equitable arrangement. Senator Farren's amendment would undo all that, and for that reason I think it would be most unjust to accept it.

Colonel MOORE

I do not think it is desirable in the public interest that there should be public objectors in these matters to raise objections that otherwise would not be made.

Mr. KENNY

Under the 1919 Act the auditor had no right to intervene. The matter was left between the parties concerned and the existing officer was held to have his right. Now a third party is introduced and the matter can be raised by the auditor. I think that is an infringement of our already existing rights as I understand them. Of course existing rights are, as the Minister said, sacred things. When discussing this question, the Minister seemed to throw a halo round existing rights, and we were told that it would be a very serious thing to infringe upon them. Here, clearly, this sub-section does interfere with existing rights.

Mr. BROWN

The necessity for this sub-section arises owing to a rather peculiar condition of the law. Under Section 8 of the Local Government Act of 1919 a local body could give pensions which were only limited by a maximum. They could give up to two-thirds of the salary of the officer who had a right to a pension, but in the case of a gratuity they could add a certain number of years to his salary and make it the maximum.

They may give a sum altogether out of proportion to the services and the merits of the man pensioned. If they do that, there is no way of stopping it, because they have the absolute right to fix the pension within these maximum limits. This provision is really to prevent that kind of thing happening. It is to give the local government auditor, if he thinks on finding out the full circumstances of the case—because the payment of a pension would be one of the matters to come before him—that this was an extravagant pension or an extravagant gratuity, the right to object. The matter would then come before the Local Government Department. That is the whole object of the sub-section. It is to prevent what has happened very frequently: an extravagant pension being given. There is a maximum up to which a local authority may go without being obliged to limit it by the number of years that the servant has served.

Mr. LINEHAN

I think that this is a most valuable provision in the sub-section, because it enables the auditor to protect the ratepayers of a county. Under this sub-section the auditor will be able to raise a matter of this kind, and without it, in the case of an excessive pension being granted, there would be no means of reducing it to its proper amount. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will retain this sub-section in the Bill.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. BROWN

I beg to move the following amendment:—

Section 37. After sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) In this section the expression ‘officer' includes any person duly appointed standing solicitor of a local body before the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919."

This is really consequential. A standing solicitor to a local body is included in the definition of a pensionable officer in the preceding section. If you look at the preceding section (b) (ii) you find that the said expression "pensionable officer" also includes "any person duly appointed standing solicitor of a local body before the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919." It only applies to a standing solicitor of a local body who was such prior to the date of the passing of the Local Government Act of 1919. He is, therefore, an existing officer under this Act. All this amendment does is, that it gives him the right, which all other existing officers have got under Section 37, to contract out. You see that the definition of pensionable officers in Section 37 only applies to that section, and the amendment is, therefore, necessary in this section. It is necessary that the word "officer" in this section shall include solicitor.

Colonel MOORE

I cannot allow this to pass without referring to the question of solicitors. It seems to me to be giving special privileges to law officers and solicitors. I had a motion down which was overruled on account of the persons concerned not being full-time officers. It was argued that under this Bill a person must be a full-time officer, and that if they were not full-time officers it was not proper to bring them in under this Bill. Solicitors as a rule— I know there are some exceptions—do nearly all the work of the public body which employs them in their own office along with their own private work, so that, therefore, they are not full-time officers. In fact their position is enhanced by being a solicitor to a county council or some other public body. The county council work does not interfere very much with their private practice. As a matter of fact, their employment as the county solicitor gives them a certain amount of credit, and helps them along a good deal as far as their private practice is concerned. I do not see why other people, who do not give their full time to the work, should be refused pensions if you are going to give pensions to solicitors for doing some little county council work in their capacity as county solicitors in their own offices.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You see Senator, this is consequential on the assumption that the previous section, to which you objected, remains in the Bill. If the previous section, to which you objected, remained in the Bill this would be purely consequential, but I have reserved liberty to you to move to strike that out on the Report Stage. Therefore, I think it is better that this amendment, moved now by Senator Brown, should also stand over for the Report Stage, because if sub-section (2) to the previous section is struck out then this amendment of Senator Brown's will never arise.

Amendment ordered to be considered on Report.

Question—"That Section 37, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.

SECTION 38.

(1) A local body may with the consent of the Minister grant to a pensionable officer in their employment, who either—

(a) has attained the age of sixtyfive years and has at least twenty years' service, or

(b) becomes incapable of discharging the duties of his office with efficiency by reason of permanent infirmity of mind or body, or of old age, and has not less than ten years' service,

upon his resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold his office an annual allowance for his life not greater than two-thirds of his yearly salary and emoluments.

(2) A local body may, with the consent of the Minister, grant to a pensionable officer in their employment who has at least ten years' service, and

(a) who is removed from his office for a cause other than misconduct or incapacity, or

(b) whose office is abolished, or

(c) whose position has, in the opinion of the Minister, been materially altered to his detriment owing to changes in the conditions of his employment made without reasonable cause, and who resigns his office with the consent of the Minister,

an annual allowance for his life not greater than two-thirds of his yearly salary and emoluments.

(3) A local body may, with the consent of the Minister, grant to a pensionable officer in their employment, whose service is less than ten years and who ceases to hold his office in such circumstances that if his service were not less than ten years an allowance could have been granted to him under the foregoing sub-section, a gratuity not greater than one-sixth of his yearly salary and emoluments for each completed year of his service.

(4) Where a female pensionable officer in the employment of a local body elects or is compelled by the terms of her appointment to retire on account of her marriage or intended marriage, such local body may with the consent of the Minister, grant to such officer on her retirement or, where her retirement takes place before her marriage, upon her marriage a gratuity not greater than either a sum calculated at the rate of one-twelfth of her yearly salary and emoluments for each completed year of her service or than a sum equal to her yearly salary and emoluments whichever of these sums is the lesser.

(5) Subject as hereinafter provided in ascertaining for the purposes of this part of this Act, the service of an officer at the date when he ceases to hold his office, the whole of the period during which on such date such officer has held a pensionable office or offices continuously under any local body or bodies shall be reckoned;

Provided that—

(a) no period of service shall be reckoned in respect of which the officer has received an allowance or gratuity under this or any other enactment; and

(b) in the case of an officer of a committee, or joint committee, appointed for the purposes of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, who has become pensionable by reason of his having devoted the whole of his time to the service of one or more such committees or joint committees for a continuous period of not less than ten years, his service shall be deemed to have commenced at the beginning of such continuous period.

(6) If an officer of a local body is aggrieved by the neglect or refusal of the local body to grant him an allowance or gratuity under this section, or with the amount of any allowance or gratuity granted him by the local body, he may within six months of his ceasing to hold his office appeal to the Minister who may thereupon grant to such officer any allowance or gratuity which in his opinion should have been granted to such officer by the local body under this section and such officer shall thereupon be entitled to receive such allowance or gratuity from the local body.

Mr. FARREN

On behalf of Senator O'Farrell, I beg to move the following amendment:—

In Section 38, sub-section (1), line 62, to delete the word "may" and to substitute therefor the word "shall."

The Minister brings up the case of the civil servants. We presume that the Minister will not act unfairly. He is trusted with a certain amount of discretionary power in that matter. But is it quite the same thing to give the discretion to a local body which is subject to passion and prejudice to a certain extent? We are all subject to those things. We are carried away, from time to time, by the most extraordinary prejudices. I think that an officer who has done his work efficiently should get the security that this amendment would give him.

With great respect, I say that is not the case at all. The position is that if the Minister, on appeal, thinks that the officer should get a pension of a certain amount he "may," as the Bill stands at present, give it to him. If the word is altered to "shall," then, if he thinks he ought to get the pension, he is bound to give it to him. That is a difference. and it is a very important difference.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 15.

Tá

William Barrington.
Mrs. Costello.
J.C. Counihan.
Dowager Countess of Desart.
Michael Duffy.
Sir Thomas Esmonde.
Thomas Farren.
Thomas Foran.
Sir John Griffith.
Marquis of Headford.
C.J. Irwin.
P.W. Kenny.
James McKean.
The Earl of Mayo.
Colonel Moore.
George Nesbitt.
Doctor O'Sullivan.
Mrs. Wyse Power.

Níl

T.W. Bennett.
S.L. Brown.
R.A. Butler.
P. De Loughry.
J.C. Dowdall.
Dr. Oliver Gogarty.
B. Haughton.
Sir John Keane.
The Earl of Kerry.
P. Linehan.
J.C. Love.
E. MacEvoy.
James Moran.
Michael O'Dea.
Bernard O'Rourke.

Amendment declared carried.

Mr. O'ROURKE

I move:—

In sub-section (1), line 65, to delete the word "twenty" and to substitute therefor the word "thirty."

The amendment provides that every man getting a pension from a public body shall have given thirty years' service. As it stands, the clause provides that a man who joins a local authority at 45 years of age shall remain in employment until he is 65. I do not think that it is proper that a man who has spent a good deal of his life at other employment and who becomes an employee of a local authority at 45 should get a pension at 65. I think the Bill is too liberal. The clause as it stands would mean collecting a large sum of money from the ratepayers, who are unable to pay it. I am in favour of men getting pensions, but they should give long service.

Mr. BURKE

I think the Senator's amendment goes a bit too far, but there is justification for some change, in so far as the age limit has been extended from 60 to 65 years. In practice, I do not think that it will amount to much. When a man comes to the age of 65 he can always be passed by a doctor as being incapable for further work. I would be willing to accept 25 years instead of 30.

Mr. O'ROURKE

I will accept that alteration.

It would be impossible to carry out such a proposal. In one case it would be offending the Medes and in the other case the Persians.

Mr. FARREN

I suggest that leave be given to withdraw the amendment, and if Senator O'Farrell desires he can bring it forward on the Report Stage.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that is prudent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The next amendment is as follows:—

Section 38, sub-section (2), line 7.

To delete the word "may" and to substitute therefor the word "shall."

This amendment is the same as one we have just passed.

Amendment put and agreed to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The next amendment, No. 90, goes out. Amendment No. 91 is as follows:—

Section 38, sub-section (3), line 20.

To delete the word "may" and substitute therefor the word "shall."

That would be a very sad result of our philanthropic efforts. It is not a matter of any importance, and if the Minister likes to look into it before Report it could be moved again. Anyhow, it leaves full power to Senator the Earl of Wicklow to proceed in any way he considers best.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BROWN (for Senator Douglas)

I move:—

Immediately before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) If any person to whom an allowance is granted by a local body in pursuance of sub-section (2) of this section, makes within three months from the date of the granting of such allowance an application for a gratuity in lieu of such allowance, such local body may, with the consent of the Minister, grant to such person a gratuity not greater than one-sixth of his yearly salary and emoluments for each completed year of his service and if such person accepts such gratuity his right to receive such allowance shall cease.

This amendment is practically the same as the last. It is to give a person who is entitled to a pension the right to say: "I would rather have a gratuity," and the same objection applies to it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I suppose the Government is objecting to this too?

Mr. BURKE

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HAUGHTON

I move:—

You may put it, sir.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. HAUGHTON

It will be open to me to raise it on Report?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

No, you have taken your chance now. In view of that decision I would not allow you to bring it up on Report.

Mr. BROWN (for Senator Douglas)

I beg to move:—

Section 38. After sub-section (6), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(7) The provision of a gratuity by a local body under this section shall be a purpose for which such local body may borrow in accordance with the enactments relating to borrowing by such local body."

This seems necessary to give local bodies power to borrow. Their borrowing powers are strictly limited and this will give them power to borrow, in the case of an office which has been abolished. It may be an office with a very considerable salary. If the officer has less than ten years' service he is entitled to a gratuity, which is to be measured by so many years of his salary and might mean a very considerable sum. This amendment is to give a local body the power of borrowing a sum like that instead of putting it on the rates for a single year.

Mr. BURKE

I accept that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. KENNY

I beg to move:—

Section 38, after sub-section (6) to add the following new sub-sections:—

(7) It shall be lawful for a local body with the consent of the Minister to grant an employee (who is not a pensionable officer as defined in this Act) who either

(a) has attained the age of 65 years and has at least twenty years' service, or

(b) becomes incapable of discharging the duties of his office with efficiency by reason of permanent infirmity of mind or body or of old age and has not less than ten years' service,

an annual allowance for his life calculated in accordance with the provision of a scheme to be approved by the Minister.

(8) Schemes under this section shall include provision for contributions towards the cost of such allowances from the employees who would benefit thereby.

I think this amendment is in line with the Minister's promise, A Chathaoirligh.

Mr. BURKE

It is the very opposite.

Mr. KENNY

It is generally admitted that some new way of dealing with manual workers under public bodies is needed other than the present way, which is most unsatisfactory.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Have you not received an assurance from the Minister, Senator, that when he gets an opportunity of doing it, he intends to bring in a Bill to deal with this whole question, and in consequence of that assurance I think the other amendment was not pressed. Your amendment is precisely on the same lines. If you look at the end of it, it suggests that pensions should be based on a contributory scale. It seems to me to fall in with the Minister's suggestion that this would be more appropriate in a separate Bill.

Mr. KENNY

It is proposed to include in the Bill power to local authorities to draw up schemes and submit them to the Minister for approval. These schemes would not come into operation until they had his approval. The Dublin Corporation has that power by special Act. The Limerick Corporation has that power. Other Corporations and other bodies would follow suit and in time the present anomalies would be met. It would not impose any undue burden on the Minister to deal with these schemes in his own way in his own time, revise them as he thought best, and only approve of such schemes as he thought applicable. That is the only difference, so that the thing may be put into operation at once. The Minister's Bill can deal with all remaining bodies, those bodies who do not put forward schemes. This amendment gives power to other corporations to draw up a scheme for the Minister's consideration and approval.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I do not think this is the right way to attack this problem at all. It must be dealt with by the central authority. The foundation factor, after all, providing pensions for employees, is one common to the whole country, and it is not affected by local conditions. It would only prejudice the success of any scheme, any valuable scheme, if it is initiated piecemeal and without any concerted plan by the various bodies all over the country. I think something of this kind is most necessary to deal with the whole chaotic condition of public assistance generally, of which pensions form part, and it should form the subject of a special Commission of Inquiry and, following on that, legislation. To deal with it in this manner would be, I submit, impracticable and unbusinesslike, and it would only make any subsequent legislation much more difficult.

Mr. FARREN

This amendment is not open to any of the arguments that were used against the former amendment because it lays down that a person to qualify for a pension must have attained the age of 65 years or have at least twenty years' service. In dealing with the last amendment some Senator referred to the case of people who were only three or four years employed. I think it will have to be admitted by everybody that there is an injustice inflicted on certain sections of the community. People in the same service, after giving a certain number of years' service, are entitled to get pensions and other people are not. The argument of the Minister for giving pensions to officials in the higher grades, professional people or the medical staff, was that they accepted these positions and remained on because they believed that portion of the salaries was being stopped for pensionable purposes. We who have experience of public boards know that is not the case. Anybody who is a member of a public board knows that when an appointment takes place to any of these positions, relations to the fortieth and fiftieth degree are canvassed to bring their influence to bear to get these jobs. Instead of running away from them they are anxious to run into them. I think that statement cannot be contradicted, so the argument of these people being asked to contribute out of their wages to a superannuation fund falls to the ground.

Now, the position at the moment is that certain public authorities in Ireland, by special Act of Parliament, have been given powers to grant pensions to their employees irrespective of whether they are officers or workmen. The Dublin Corporation, by special Act in the British Parliament, got power to pension their employees. I understand from Senator Kenny's remarks that the Limerick Corporation has similar power. The position at present is that in Dublin City a man working in the sewer department or on the roads is entitled to a pension after a certain number of years' service. While I am arguing this question of pensions. I do not want any Senator to think that I am in favour of people being paid pensions who are not entitled to them. I am simply asking for fair play all round. An employee of the Dublin Corporation is entitled, after twenty or thirty years' service, to a pension, while the employee of Dublin County Council, just across the bridge, may be performing the same work for 40 years and not be entitled to a pension. Whatever is done in one case should be done in the other. I agree with Senator Sir John Keane that pensions should be based on a contributory scheme, and if the Minister will undertake to introduce, within a reasonable time, a Bill dealing with that aspect of the case, I will be satisfied.

Mr. BURKE

I have not much more to say on this amendment than I said on the last amendment of a similar kind. I am in favour of dealing with this question of pensions to employees on a contributory basis, but I think raising the matter in a haphazard way like this is not the right way to go about it and, as Senator Sir John Keane pointed out, it would prejudice any scheme that may be proposed later. If local authorities were allowed to put up schemes of their own they would oppose a new scheme when brought into being. The employees might oppose it, and it would create great difficulties in any future scheme. I am altogether in favour of superannuation of employees under a proper superannuation scheme, but I believe if we were to bring in such a scheme it would be of very little service to existing employees, because a local authority taking in employees of that kind who would become pensionable would have to insist on a medical examination. There should also be a rule as to the length of time an officer should serve before becoming pensionable. That would be based on the amount he would contribute towards his own pension. The mere fact of having twenty years' service, if he were not contributing during those twenty years, would not entitle him to a pension. I do not think existing officers have anything to complain about in that respect. I will, at the earliest opportunity, bring forward a Bill of this kind, but I am not in a position to fix a specific date.

Mr. KENNY

I recognise that many matters will have to be gone into before an equitable and proper scheme can be formulated. I quite appreciate the Minister's viewpoint and, having regard to the assurance given, I take the responsibility of withdrawing the amendment, which was suggested by the General Council of County Councils.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That Section 38, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Sections 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 agreed to and added to the Bill.

SECTION 44.

(1) The amount of any allowance or gratuity granted to an officer of a committee of a county council, an urban district council, or a borough council, or to an officer of a joint committee of any two or more of such councils under this Part of this Act, shall be paid to such officer by such council or councils out of the county, district, or borough fund, as the case may be, and in the case of an officer of a joint committee in such proportions as may be agreed upon or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by the Minister.

(2) Any sum payable under this section by a local body to an officer of a committee of that local body or of a joint committee of that and any other local body or bodies on account of any allowance or gratuity granted to him shall be raised by means of the same rate and shall be charged upon the same area as the expenses of such committee or joint committee and such sum shall not be reckoned for the purpose of any enactment limiting the amount of such rate.

Mr. BROWN

I move:—

Section 44, sub-section 1, line 16. To delete all from the words "out of" to the words "may be" in line 17.

Perhaps the Seanad would allow me to explain the necessity for this and the next amendment, which reads:—

Amendment 98.—Section 44, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) Any sum payable under this part of this Act by a local body in respect of an allowance or gratuity granted to a person who was previously an officer or employee of that local body or of a committee thereof or of a joint committee of that and any other local body shall be raised by means of the same rate and be paid out of the same funds and be charged on the same area as the salary or wages of such person would have been raised by means of and paid out of and charged upon if he had continued to hold the same office or employment under the said local body, committee or joint committee as the case may be, and such sum shall not be reckoned for the purpose of any enactment limiting the amount of such rate."

The necessity for the first amendment is due to the striking out of sub-section (2) and the substitution of another clause for it. The whole of this clause deals with the pensions or gratuities granted to officers of committees of local bodies, and with them only. Sub-section (1) provides that those pensions allowances or gratuities should be paid out of the county, district or borough fund, as the case may be. Proper provision is made for the proper payment of those gratuities and pensions out of a certain fund. As this Bill stands at present, there is no right to strike a rate for the pensions and gratuities that are granted under it. Therefore, what is proposed to be done by the new sub-section (2) is to strike out the existing sub-section (2) and introduce another sub-section which gives the local bodies the necessary right to strike a rate and to make those gratuities payable. (Proposed new sub-section quoted.) That is an absolutely and necessary provision, because under the Bill they had not the power to do this. It is proposed to insert this as a new sub-section of clause 44. That would necessitate striking out in lines 16 and 17 of clause 1 the words "out of the county or district borough fund as the case may be," because those words were inserted to give the local body the power of paying out of those funds an allowance or gratuity to the officer of a committee.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Would the effect of this be that the pension, say, of the clerk of a district council would be charged on the area to which he previously belonged?

Mr. BROWN

Yes.

Sir JOHN KEANE

That is not quite equitable, because the county council have collared all the assets and the property of these bodies and yet they are charging the pension on the old area. I do not think in actual point of money or relief it would mean very much, but it is not consistent. I do not know whether the Minister has considered the point.

Mr. LINEHAN

I would like to know whether the pensions provided by this Bill will be paid out of the same funds from which were paid the salaries of the officers previously. Take the case of a public health officer belonging to a district council. Part of his salary was refunded from, I think, the local taxation account, and I would like to know whether any portion of the pension he is entitled to will come out of that fund in future. The same thing will apply to other officers. There are technical and agricultural instructors whose salary was also partly provided from another source. Will any part of their pension be paid out of the same fund that was paying portion of their salaries?

Mr. BURKE

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There is nothing in it to alter the position.

Amendment 97 put and agreed to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Amendment 98 is a complicated matter, and I strongly recommend the suggestion that the Minister should look into it.

Mr. BROWN

My present impression is that it is wrong and that the section should be left as it was.

Mr. KENNY

Section 19, sub-section (3), says: "the salary of a county medical officer of health shall be paid by the county council and shall be charged on the area for which he acts." If I have the assurance of the Minister that being a sanitary area under the definition here the old rule regarding contribution shall apply it is all right. It does not say so specifically in the Bill.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is an important point, and I hope you will call attention to it again on the Report Stage.

Amendment 98, as amended, put and agreed to.

Question—"That Section 44, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 45.

(1) This part of this Act shall apply to any officer of a local body with not less than ten years' service who is or was after the 6th day of December, 1922, appointed to a permanent situation in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann, the duties of which relate to the same matters as the duties of his office under such local body, and who thereupon resigns or resigned such office, as if such officer had resigned such office after attaining the age of sixty-five years and having at least twenty years' service; but any allowance granted to such an officer by virtue of this section shall not be paid unless and until such officer is removed from the said Civil Service for a cause other than misconduct or incapacity or resigns from the said Civil Service with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

(2) The powers of a local body to grant an allowance by virtue of this section to an officer who resigned his office before the passing of this Act may be exercised at any time not more than three months from the passing of this Act.

Colonel MOORE

I move:—

Section 45. Immediately before sub-section (2), insert a new sub-section (2) as follows:—

(2) This part of this Act shall apply to any officer of a local body who before the 6th day of December, 1922, resigned his office under such local body for the purpose of taking up any employment under the control of Dáil Eireann, as if such officer had resigned such office after attaining the age of sixty-five years, and having at least 20 years' service, but if such officer is or has been appointed to a permanent situation in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann any allowance granted to him by virtue of this section shall not be payable to such officer during the period when he holds such situation.

I do not know why the 6th December, 1922, is put down because people who were complying with all the rest of this Bill are excluded by that. I know one particular case of an official who was for many years eligible. He served the County Council somewhere in Tipperary and he was brought up from that to the headquarters here. He is now put on to another job. That particular date excludes him, while if he remained in Tipperary he would have been eligible. He was taken up by the Ministry and put on a job here and he is not eligible under the new rule. There may be other people in the same position. This particular person is doing work for the Minister for Defence and he is excluded even though he was eligible and was constantly employed.

Mr. BURKE

As well as I can make out, the Senator wants two new provisions in the section. He wants it to be retrospective beyond the 6th December and he wishes it to apply to officers who have taken on different employment from what they had under the local authority. This section is intended only to apply to men doing the same kind of work as they were doing under the local authority. We have fixed on the 6th December as it is the date on which the Constitution came into operation. We feel we are not responsible for any actions that took place before that date. We have entered into contractual relations with officers taken over by the Central Government from the local authorities after that date and they received an undertaking to the effect that their services under the local authorities would receive consideration when they were taken over by the Central Government.

It is clearly a question for the Minister for Lands and Agriculture.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. FARREN

I move:—

"Section 45. Immediately before sub-section. (2) to insert a new sub-section (2) as follows":—

There is some similarity between this amendment and the amendment moved by Senator Colonel Moore. The Minister in dealing with Senator Moore's amendment said the Government only took responsibility for employees of local bodies who transferred their services from the local boards to the Government, when they became a Government in December, 1922. I suggest that that is not treating fairly the men who left their positions as employees in public boards, and went into the service of Dáil Eireann. They are making it all right for those who left when it was safe, but they are cutting out the men who took the risk when it was not safe, and became servants of what was called a rabble organisation at the time. I think it is unfair to cut these people out who went into the service of what they believed was the Government of the people. I think this amendment should be accepted.

Mr. BURKE

I think the same arguments apply against this as against Senator Colonel Moore's amendment. It broadens the whole basis of the section, and enables people to get pensions who are performing duties altogether different to what they were performing under the local authorities. I do not know how many people would be included under this, and if we were to put it in it might be a very heavy additional burden on the ratepayers.

Mr. FARREN

I understand that this applies to about three people altogether.

Mr. IRWIN

Would the Minister undertake to consider this particular amendment, in view of the fact that Senator Farren says that it applies only to two or three people.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

What the Senator overlooks is that a precisely similar amendment was discussed in the Dáil, so that it does not come by surprise on the Minister.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 8.

Tá

William Barrington.
Peter De Loughry.
J.C. Dowdall.
Michael Duffy.
Thomas Farren.
Thomas Foran.
C.J. Irwin.
P.W. Kenny.
J.C. Love.
Edward MacEvoy.
James MacKean.
Colonel Moore.

Níl

S.L. Brown.
Mrs. Costello.
J.C. Counihan.
Dr. Gogarty.
Marquess of Headfort.
Sir John Keane.
Earl of Kerry.
Thomas Linehan.

Amendment declared carried.

Section, as amended, put and agreed to.

Debate adjourned, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.7 p.m. until Thursday, 5th February.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Feb 1925