Local Government (Superannuation) Bill, 1947—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 5, line 47, after the word "practitioner" to insert the words "or a qualified veterinary surgeon".
I am not going to occupy much time with this amendment. In order that the position might be made clear I want to say that representations have been made to me by some veterinary surgeons employed by local authorities who claimed that they are excluded from the provisions of this Bill as far as superannuation for officers is concerned. I am not speaking of Dublin, I am speaking of country areas, and in many of these places I understand that the veterinary surgeon is in much the same position as the dispensary doctor. He is a part-time officer, having a private practice of his own in precisely the same way as a dispensary doctor is a part-time officer with a private practice of his own, the difference being, I understand, that the dispensary doctor is a pensionable officer while the veterinary surgeon is not. I am not aware of any good reason why he should be excluded, and, therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to bring him in.
The trouble about this amendment is that if it were accepted it would mean that we should have to consider the position of quite a number of other part-time officers as well as the fundamental principle in drafting the Bill. As we have imposed additional burdens on local authorities, particularly in relation to servants of local authorities, we should not at this stage extend the classes of pensionable officers. For that reason, we have not brought in others who, perhaps, have as good a claim to be brought under the Bill as veterinary surgeons. I could not accept this amendment at this stage and I think it will have to wait until we see how the Bill will go. As I said before, this is not the last Bill and probably as a result of the discussions here and in the Dáil an amending Bill will be brought in to deal with a number of small matters which have been raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, in respect of the definition of a permanent servant, I want to be quite certain that the position is properly safeguarded in respect of any persons who served in the Army during the emergency and that that period of service will be taken into account in computations of service. Of course that was done in most cases, but I came across a case last night where it was not done in respect of a particular branch of the Civil Service, the Customs and Excise Department. In that case the Minister was not responsible but the fact that I found that a proper regard was not taken in respect of that service makes me wonder whether it is absolutely certain that every claim of a local authority official who joined the Army during the emergency in pursuance of the national call is fully covered and that every class is fully covered.
I was quite appalled last night in respect of this one branch of the Revenue Commissioners to find that everyone was not covered, and having found that in that section of the Department of Finance everyone was not covered, I would like to get an assurance from the Minister that, as far as he is aware, all servants of local authorities are covered, and the House would like to have this on its records. Any person who served in the Army during the emergency should have that period counted for his pension and any person who came in under the demobilisation plan should, in my view, enter the service at the point where, but for his emergency service in the Army, he would have entered if there had not been a call to the Army. He should be in a position of being able to take credit with the local authority for the service which he gave to the nation in the time of emergency.
There is a point which I should like to raise on the section. It will be observed that on page five the expression "local authority" is extended to include certain bodies covered by the Local Government Acts, 1925 to 1946, and that one of the bodies which for the purpose of this Act becomes a local authority is the Cork Fever Hospital Board. It has been represented to me that there are in fact two fever hospital boards in Cork, and I have been unable to distinguish from the definition in the Bill which of the boards is intended to be a local authority. One of those fever hospitals is efficient; the board is efficient and in general the institution is regarded as satisfactory and as performing a meritorious service. The same enthusiasm does not prevail in relation to the other one. It is run by a committee, the members of which are very concerned to promote their own interests and the interests of their families in providing jobs and appointments under the board. So I would like to know from the Minister which of the Cork fever hospital boards is meant in this definition. I would like to get an assurance before this Bill leaves the House that we will be satisfied that the hospital concerned is the hospital which, in the opinion of the people of Cork, is properly managed.
I did not exactly grasp Senator Sweetman's point. Is it his contention that an officer who joined the Defence Forces during the emergency should have his period with the Defence Forces regarded as pensionable by the local authority?
Not only as pensionable but as incremental.
There are really two points to be considered. Are we to say that persons who leave the service of a local authority against its will sometimes and enter the Army——
I challenge that at once.
Even during the emergency local authorities took regard to that service. I have no knowledge of the case of the customs officer to whom Senator Sweetman referred, but I do know that cases did arise in the early stages, perhaps, where civil servants who could not be spared from their duties joined the Army and were recalled. In some cases they may not have been recalled but may have been allowed to serve. They took the course which they regarded as being in the best national interests, no doubt, but in defiance, in some cases, of their superior authority who thought they should have remained at their post and done the duty which it was considered would be most serviceable to the nation at the time. I think these people may not have received full incremental value for the time they spent in the Army. I am not sure what the position is.
In relation to this question of regarding service with the Army during the emergency period as pensionable from the point of view of the local authority and of considering it as service with the local authority I think we must consider that upon their demobilisation from the Army these officers and men, officers in particular, received very substantial gratuities based upon their service with the Army. They can, therefore, hardly expect to be rewarded twice over.
It was done in respect of some classes. Surely it should be universal when it is done for some.
We were talking here in a rather general way. I am not prepared to commit myself to the view- I do not know what another Minister might say—that, irrespective of the circumstances under which local officers left the service of a local authority and entered the forces, they should be given the equivalent of direct service under a local authority when it comes to computing their pension and their increment. As I have said, I think we would have to consider and lay down general principles which would apply to the generality of officers who had left the service of the local authority and joined the forces with the approval of the local authority. There is in the Bill—it does not cover, I think, the case the Senator has in mind—a provision dealing with established servants and officers of local authorities who, as members of the Reserve of the Defence Forces, were absent from their employment for a period for the purpose of attending to and performing their duties as members of these forces, providing that they shall be entitled to reckon as service the period of such absence.
To the extent of that provision, of course, the right of a person who has obligations to the Defence Forces to have his service with the Defence Forces recognised as pensionable service is accepted. I am not prepared, however, to go so far as to say that if a person has left the service of a local authority and joined the Defence Forces, served there, drew the emoluments attached to the post which he held in the Defence Forces and then received a gratuity for that period of service, he is entitled to get anything more than that from a local authority. As I have already indicated we shall probably have an amending Bill to follow this Bill and I will look into the position then.
If the hospital to which Senator Duffy refers is a local authority hospital or is regarded as a local authority hospital no doubt the staff of that institution will be covered by the provisions of this Act. The Cork Fever Hospital Board which is mentioned in the definition section of this Bill has not, in fact, come into existence yet. It is a board which it is anticipated will come into existence when the new fever hospital is built. Therefore, the Bill is designed to cover that contingency but otherwise so far as I know there is no local authority fever hospital in Cork.
Am I to understand that neither of the existing fever hospitals in Cork will be brought within the Bill for the purpose of providing superannuation for the staffs?
No. This matter was raised previously in the other House. They are not covered by this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 6 to delete sub-section (2).
Section 5 deals with the manner in which Part III of the Bill will become operative in the case of the registered servants of local authorities. So far as the officers are concerned the Bill is automatic once it becomes law. The officers of all the local authorities within the definition will be entitled to the pensions and the gratuities and they will be subject to the obligations imposed in this Bill. However, in relation to the servants of the local authorities a different procedure is followed. In other words, so far as the servants are concerned the Bill is adoptive. Nothing happens until the local authority passes a resolution adopting Part III of the Bill. It is the part that is concerned with the provision of pensions for the servants of local authorities. Sub-section (2) is a provision which baffles me. Sub-section (2) reads:
"A resolution under this section —that is a resolution adopting Part III of the Bill—shall contain a declaration of the maximum number of persons to be at any one time in the employment of the local authority as permanent servants."
The Dublin Corporation, or the Dublin County Council, or the Mayo County Council, or the Skibbereen Urban Council can employ as many officers as they like and all of these officers are automatically pensionable—they come under the provisions of this Bill. But the county council or the local authority adopting Part III for the purpose of making their servants pensionable must include in the resolution a provision fixing a maximum number of persons who are to be regarded as permanent pensionable servants. Personally I do not know what effect that resolution will have. I do not know what it is intended to achieve. Let us take this case. Dublin County Council may, and probably does, employ 1,500 servants. So far as I know there is nothing in the Bill which requires the county council to say the number of permanent servants who will come within the scope of the Bill is 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000.
In other words, it does not appear to me that there is any restriction on the number of persons who may be mentioned in the resolution but, once the resolution is adopted, it restricts the number of persons who may be added to the register of pensionable servants for five years. I think that will work out very unfairly. If a county council takes the view that their maximum number of permanent servants is 1,000 that figure will be inserted in the resolution; but in the subsequent two or three years the number of persons eligible for admission to the scheme might jump to 3,000. The council is debarred from adding one more name to the register and they cannot amend the resolution for five years. At the end of five years they can fix the figure at 3,000 or 5,000 but, having amended the resolution to that extent, they are tied for the following five years. I cannot see any advantage to be derived from the inclusion of this provision. It seems to me merely a temptation, for one reason or another or in one set of circumstances or another, to limit unduly the number of persons who may be designated pensionable officers. I urge upon the Minister the deletion of this sub-section.
In considering this Bill we must have some regard to the position of the local authority. As I pointed out on the Committee Stage, we are not here imposing burdens upon the State. We are imposing burdens upon other people. We think it wiser in the interests of those who we hope will become beneficiaries under this measure not to make the provisions mandatory or obligatory upon the local authorities. Therefore, that portion of the Bill which proposes to bring in a very large number of public employees into a pension scheme has been made permissive.
It may not be a very easy matter to get a local authority to adopt Part III of this Act. It would certainly be much more difficult to get them to adopt it if they were not in a position at the outset, at any rate, to fix some limit to their responsibilities. That is why we have stated that the resolution should in the first instance contain a declaration as to the maximum number of persons who would be at any one time in the employment of the local authority so that the elected members of the local authority, upon whom the responsibility for adopting this Act will rest, will know exactly where they are and what is the full extent of their obligations.
It is necessary also to put in that provision for another reason. Under Part III it is anticipated that a very large number of persons who would not in the strict interpretation of the word "permanent" be regarded as permanent, are being brought in. Under that Part of the Act we shall be able to bring in a very large number of road workers whose period of service with a local authority is periodically interrupted for fairly prolonged periods of time at a stretch. We have, again, to assist the local authority in dealing with their problem by allowing the local authority to fix a limit. If that limit happens to be exceeded we shall simply have to say to the servants concerned that they will have to wait until a vacancy occurs in the register and that then they will be regarded as established and permanent servants according as vacancies arise. If we did not do that I think a very large number of local authorities would not adopt Part III of this measure at all. It is really to induce them to accept the obligations which Part III imposes upon them that we have included this provision under Section 5. On the whole I think it is not an unreasonable provision. If the local authority is going to accept obligations it should itself be in a position to specify the extent of these obligations in the first place. I think it will be found, as time goes on and people adopt it, that the figure will be increased to cover any increase in the numbers of persons who might be regarded as being in reasonably permanent employment under the local authorities.
Would the Minister agree that the sub-section does not impose any obligation on the local authority to limit the number of persons mentioned in the resolution in any particular respect? Let me take a case. Assuming there are 500 servants employed by the Cork Corporation is it not open to the corporation under the section to mention a figure of 1,500 in the resolution? Is there anything to prohibit them from doing that? If there is not the sub-section is meaningless.
It is not meaningless. They can mention 1,500 if they wish to do so, but I do not think that the members of local authorities will behave in that ridiculous fashion. I think they will ask their officers to say how many people would be regarded as being in permanent employment—road workers and everyone else—and they will arrive at a figure, put that into the resolution and let it stand as the limit of their responsibilities for the time being. At the end of five years they can amend the figure if they wish. This, again, is very like some of the provisions of the Housing Bill. Part III is highly experimental. We tried to draft it so that it would cover the problem of the servants of local authorities who have more or less broken time. Until the local authorities themselves see how this is going to work I think it is better for us to leave them the power of fixing a limit to their ultimate labilities under the Bill.
I only want to clear up one point. It seems to me the Minister is making a case for imposing a limit on the number of persons to whom the local authority will extend the benefits of this Bill. As I understand it, the sub-section does not impose any limitation.
It does not impose a limitation.
If I can get an assurance that that is so——
It does not impose any limitation.
Very good. Then I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
The question of providing pensions for the servants or workmen employed by local authorities has been under discussion for a number of years. The Minister and his predecessors on previous occasions undertook that a scheme would be introduced to provide these pensions. This scheme does not fulfil that undertaking. The scheme in the Bill is purely permissive. It enables a local authority to adopt, by resolution, Part III of the Bill, which, once adopted, becomes the groundwork of their pension scheme for workmen. But, if it is the intention of the Minister that there should be a universal pension scheme, then he has got to do something more than give us this Bill, because, if any particular local authority fails or refuses to pass the necessary resolution to make Part III of the Bill operative, there is no pension scheme so far as the employees of the local authority are concerned. We ought to be clear on that. Therefore, if the Minister is suggesting to us that this is a measure to provide a pension scheme, I want him to examine it again because I think he will admit readily that it does not provide a pension scheme. It provides a local authority with the power to have a pension scheme.
What I am anxious about is this. Should a number of local authorities ignore the Bill and fail or refuse to pass the necessary resolution to bring Part III into operation, is the Minister satisfied then that he has no further duty in the matter, no further function; in other words does he intend to do anything by encouragement or any other method open to him to ensure that a pension scheme for the workmen employed by local authorities will be universally applied?
I do not think it is necessary for the Minister to do anything more than is provided for in this Bill. We have provided the scheme. We have given the local authorities every inducement to adopt it, and I am sure the local authorities will act in conformity with the general spirit of the times under this Bill. I am not going to coerce them to adopt it, because, if I did, I should be told that I was imposing a burden on the local authorities which should be shouldered by the State. That is a very common cry now. When the central authority takes responsibility for enacting measures dealing, say, with public health, with the housing of the people, with the provision of water supplies, roads, and so on, we are told that, having given the local authority power to do all these things and, in some instances, compelling them to do them, we ought to accept financial responsibility for them. I have no doubt that if we were to say to every county council: "You must pension all your servants," we would be told that it was the Government which was compelling the local authorities to do this, that the members of the local authorities would never have dreamed of giving these men pensions if it were not for the Government measure and that the Government must bear the responsibility. I am not going to put myself in that position. We have given the local authorities a lead. They are manned by responsible men who are quite as capable as I am of assessing what are their obligations to their servants.
The Minister must accept this position. We are dealing here with two separate bodies. In the first place, we are dealing with the body entitled to pass the resolution. That body is composed of the elected members of the county council, the borough council or one of the other councils concerned. Side by side with that body, there is the body of managers and the functions of these two bodies are very distinct.
The manager has nothing to do with it.
The County Council of Cork, for instance, may say: "We want to adopt the scheme. We prefer that the men should work as long as they like." They may not want to retire men at 65 or 70 years of age. They may think that there is no reason why a road worker should not continue to be a road worker as long as he likes. But the manager may take a different view. The county council has adopted no pension scheme. That will not prevent the manager from saying that a man is too old and that he will be sacked. That is what I am asking the Minister to address himself to—the problem that will arise where a local authority does not pass the resolution, where there is no pension scheme, and where the manager, irrespective of what the county council may think, dismisses all the older men who are then thrown on the road.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—
18.—Where for the purpose of enabling a vocational educational committee to implement Parts V or VI of the Vocational Education Act of 1930 on an experimental basis officers were employed on a whole-time temporary basis and on the completion of the experimental stage of such work such officers were employed on a whole-time permanent and pensionable basis and became eligible for admission to the register of established officers in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of this Act each officer concerned shall be entitled to reckon as part of his pensionable service the whole period of his temporary whole-time service.
There is an element of unreality about the whole of our proceedings regarding these amendments, because it would appear that, no matter how strong a case is made, there is no chance of any of these amendments being seriously considered. All I can hope for in moving this amendment is to induce the Minister to say something which would ease the minds of the officers affected by this particular amendment. When Part V of the Vocational Education Act was being put into operation in Cork, the first city where that part of the Act was implemented, there was an element of doubt as to whether the scheme would be successful. It was experimental. The Minister has on several occasions this evening mentioned the fact that this Bill is of an experimental character. This was an extremely important development of technical education, perhaps the most important development for 40 years. Cork City had the honour of initiating this experiment and classes were put into operation for the benefit of young people between 14 and 16 years of age who had ceased to attend primary or any other schools. It was a tremendous educational experiment. It was a great social experiment too. In addition to its educational aspects, its social aspects are of fundamental importance. As time went on a difference of opinion was expressed as to whether the experiment was successful or not but, at present, it can be said that it has been a complete success.
As a result of the successful termination of the experimental stage the officers who carried on the work during that period—a period extending over eight years—were made permanent and pensionable officers in general. Similar remarks apply to the persons described as servants in this Bill. The position that arises, then, under this Bill is that unless the Minister and the officers who will have charge of the administration of the Bill give an assurance that these officers will get full credit for their eight years' work, the Bill would appear only to provide for a period of four years. I know that Section 21 of the Bill can be interpreted to cover perhaps the whole of the service. So far as I am concerned, I would be satisfied if the Minister would give an assurance that Section 21 would cover the cases of the officers concerned. If the Minister is satisfied and can assure me that that is so, then, with the permission of the House, I would be prepared to withdraw this amendment in order to save time.
So far as I am personally concerned, I think it can be made quite clear that the officers of the City Vocational Education Committee who were temporarily employed can be considered under paragraph (b), sub-section (2) of Section 21 but, in the first instance, the matter rests with the local authority and then the Minister must be a consenting party. Beyond agreeing that the case of these officers can be considered by the Minister under that sub-section, I cannot go any further. You cannot expect me to bind, say, a successor of mine, some ten or 15 years hence.
I hope the Minister will construe sub-section (2) rather liberally.
The officers concerned seem to think that the Bill does not protect their interests. That is the reason I put down the amendment. They are very unhappy about their existing position. It would appear to me—and the Minister seems to agree— that sub-section (2) can be made to cover their case.
The Senator has argued that these officers are in a special position. I want to be clear that I am not accepting that on the basis of the discussion that has taken place but the Senator has argued that these officers are in a special position and that there are special reasons to be taken into consideration in their regard. If the local authority are of that view, I suppose the Minister would have to consider it very carefully but, on the other hand, it is only right to say that the Minister would also have to have regard to the provisions of Section 78 of the Act of 1941 because, after all, that is the more comprehensive provision. However, I think I cannot go any further than I have gone. I should like the Senator to withdraw the amendment but, as I have said, I am not prepared to accept without some reservation what the Senator has asked me to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 18, 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the first sub-section where in line 40, on page 10, the word "Minister" appears. It is not clear to me what is meant there, whether it is the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for some other Department concerned with the affairs of the local authority involved. Sub-section (1) says:
"Where an established officer of a local authority has not less than ten years of pensionable local service and—
(a) he is removed from his office for a cause other than misconduct or unfitness,
(b) his office is abolished, or
(c) his position has, in the opinion of the appropriate Minister, been materially altered to his detriment by changes in its condition made without reasonable cause and he resigns his office with the consent of the appropriate Minister,
the local authority shall add to his pensionable local service such number of additional years as may be sanctioned by the Minister...."
What I want to know is: who is to have the sanction? Is it the Minister for Education, the Minister for Health, or the Minister for Local Government? The words used here are "the Minister" and these words are defined as meaning the Minister for Local Government, so that as the Bill stands, sanction must come, not from the Minister for Health or the Minister for Education in the case of a vocational education committee, but from the Minister for Local Government. I wonder is that the intention.
The definition says that the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government.
The intention is that the Minister for Local Government, for the present at any rate, shall continue to deal with certain matters under this Bill, such as the addition of years and a number of other matters that may arise.
May I draw attention to the fact that that is the only instance in which the Minister for Local Government intervenes under Section 21? In any other activity in relation to a vocational education committee, the Minister involved is the Minister for Education. He is the person who takes the decision involving the resignation of an officer whose conditions of employment have been worsened. The Minister says that, for the purposes of added years, it is the Minister for Local Government shall give sanction but when we come to sub-section (2) we have another case of a somewhat different character and again the word used is "the Minister" but, with all respect, I think the expression that should be used there is "the appropriate Minister". It seems obvious that in the case of officers of a vocational education committee the decision should lie with the Minister for Education and that in the case of officers of an agricultural committee, the decision should lie with the Minister for Agriculture. If not, a most Gilbertian situation is being created. Everything that happens in relation to the employment of officers of the agricultural committee is governed by the actions, the decisions and the orders of the Minister for Agriculture. But if for some reason an officer is adversely affected by some decision of the Minister for Agriculture and decides to resign, then the agricultural committee does not apply to the Minister for Agriculture for permission to add years to his service but to the Minister for Local Government. I suggest that that is a thing that was not adverted to when the Bill was being drafted and that it is being put across now as a brilliant idea.
I would like to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that when we were passing the Vocational Education Bill here some time ago the Minister for Education said he would take into account the question of adding years and he gave the impression that he would be rather liberal in adding years in cases where people were compelled to resign because of the age limit. Now that the Minister has power to add years, I hope he will consider what the Minister for Education said.
That statement by the Minister for Education was made after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and the Senator may assume that we shall jointly give effect to the expressed intention of the Minister for Education. With regard to the point Senator Duffy has raised, there is nothing unusual in this. It is, in fact, part of the existing procedure. As regards officers of a vocational education committee or officers of county committees of agriculture or other subsidiary bodies of the local authorities, the final and determining Minister in relation to certain matters is the Minister for Local Government. As regards matters relating to superannuation, the determining Minister is the appropriate Minister, whoever he may be; that is, the Minister who is responsible for the general activities of the subsidiary body.
Under this Bill the functions of the appropriate Minister extend to such questions as deciding appeals on failure to inscribe a name on the register, appeals against removing a name from the register and other such matters. The Minister defined in the definition section, the Minister for Local Government, is the only Minister who can entertain appeals against failure to grant superannuation, the amount of the superannuation and the failure of the local authority to return contributions. The Minister is also the appropriate Minister to deal with this question of added years. There are reasons why that should be the position. These are all subsidiary bodies of the revenue raising authority. The local authorities are under the general supervision of the Minister for Local Government and, therefore, he is more concerned than all the other Ministers with a matter of this sort. He is the most appropriate Minister for dealing with these questions.
In that case, I suggest that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 21 ought to be altered. If the Minister to deal with added years is the Minister for Local Government, he ought also to be responsible for giving consent to an official of an agricultural committee who wishes to resign. An officer claims that his position has been altered to his detriment. Some Minister is appealed to and he forms the opinion that the claim of the official in question is well founded. In other words, some Minister takes the view that the official's position has been altered to his detriment and the Minister concerned consents to the resignation of the official.
There are two functions of the Minister, whoever the Minister may be. He is the person who hears the complaint of the official and who forms a judgment as to whether the position of the official was altered to his detriment. If he forms that opinion, and the official desires to resign the Minister consents to his resignation. Take the case of an official of a committee of agriculture. Let us say that an official of the county committee of agriculture in Galway complains that some decision of his committee, some alteration in the status of the office, has disimproved his position, that he is unfairly treated and he wants to resign.
Immediately he makes the complaint, not to the Minister for Local Government, but to the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Agriculture agrees that something has been done which prejudices the official's position and he then consents to the official resigning his position; the official resigns and the question arises as to whether he is entitled to have years of service added to those years which he worked. Say he has worked 25 years and he says: "If you give me five or ten years I will be satisfied." The person who will decide will perhaps be a new Minister, a Minister who knows nothing of the facts and who does not know whether the officer's position was altered to his detriment. Yet he is the Minister who will decide whether there should be added years.
Surely the Minister in the Department controlling his activities will be in a position to know; he will be aware whether the conditions of service of the officer are worsened or otherwise.
The Minister will be aware of the terms of the officer's appointment. It is very difficult to appreciate what Senator Duffy is getting at. He must realise that these are subsidiary bodies, that there are certain things in relation to which there must be general uniformity of treatment. If that is so, there must be one administering Minister. In this case it has been decided that the most appropriate Minister is the Minister for Local Government who exercises supervision over the principal bodies, the local authorities, the primary bodies to which these other bodies are merely subsidiary.
As Senator O'Dea has pointed out, if a vocational teacher is removed from office or if his status is altered or if his hours of duty are in any way altered, the Minister who is familiar with all the circumstances is the Minister who, in the first instance, sanctioned the terms of his appointment and in whose Department there is a full record of that officer's services, not merely the terms of his appointment, but the various inspections that have been made and a record of the officer's professional competency, and other matters. Therefore, if the officer's position is changed, the only Minister who can really determine whether it has been changed to his detriment, without reasonable cause or not, is the appropriate Minister, that is, the Minister who has charge of that particular service; but, when we get outside that narrow sphere and come to consider these officers as merely a section of the general body of officers of local authorities, but a section which must be treated more or less in the same way as any other section of this composite body is treated, then the Minister who should do that, I think, is, as I have said, the Minister who is charged with the responsibility of supervising the work of the primary or principal bodies and that happens to be the Minister for Local Government.
I think Senator Duffy has plenty of experience of something comparable with this arrangement between Departments. Several Bills indicate that such and such a thing is subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. In this case, as far as I can see, the Minister for Local Government is the last appeal. He is the correlating officer for various sections. I am not enamoured of it but I think it is a feasible and workable arrangement at present and I think Senator Duffy should see that. The same principle applies in Civil Service matters where the Minister for Finance has the last word. The Minister for Local Government in this case will have the last word in correlating matters between the various local authorities and the various committees of local authorities. That is understandable. Whether it might be objectionable or not is another matter.
I agree with Senator O'Donovan's view that this arrangement is similar to the control exercised by the Minister for Finance but there is this defence for the position taken up by the Minister for Finance that, wherever money is expended, he has to find it and, consequently, he must have an over-all supervision over the spending Departments. I think that is a bad arrangement. I think in fact it has become an excuse for the Department of Finance to interfere in everything, from dog-licensing up. But now we are getting into a similar arrangement in relation to the Department of Local Government. The Minister for Local Government now is claiming in this Bill that he and he alone shall decide whether a fellow down in Ballina who was dismissed or who was forced to resign his position by some change in his status and who the Minister for Education decided was entitled to resign, should get added years. The Minister for Local Government has no official knowledge of the officer's conduct.
The Senator has said all that already.
Still, it has not percolated through the Senator's mind.
If you waste too much time you will never get into a position to alter it.
Probably, and I would not like to have the job of altering all the mess that is hanging around now. My trouble is that there are too many Ministers, too many Ministries and too much chaos.
The Minister is quite right in this particular matter because it is in accordance with the usual custom and in the case of, say, agriculture and vocational education, there is a sort of mixed fund involved. Part of the fund comes from the local rates and part from the Central Fund. It is the part that comes from the local rates, I think, about which the Minister for Local Government has the final say. That is the reason, I think, that as regards pensions he has the final say in the matter. In cases such as those visualised in sub-section (2), it is my experience that it is the usual practice. As regards the point that the Minister would have no official knowledge there is constant communication between the two Departments. I know that when a particular case arises the Department of Education communicates all the facts to the Department of Local Government and I should say that in 99 cases out of 100 it is the view of the Department of Education that prevails with the Department of Local Government. I accept that as being correct. I do not think it would be worth while to waste much more time in regard to it.
Is there not the added consideration that, whether it is the Minister for Education or the Minister for Agriculture who may have to deal with the altered status of a particular official, in fact, no committee of agriculture can alter the status of any of its officials without the sanction of the Minister? Any decision in that regard has to go to the Minister for Education or the Minister for Agriculture and must have his sanction before there is any change. So that whatever decision is taken has the approval of the Minister, whether it is an alteration of the status or the functions of a particular officer.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), line 12, to delete the word "and"; and to delete also paragraph (b).
If we imagine these deletions made, in what would remain of the section, the cases in which an officer would be entitled to pension would be specified with sufficient clearness. Very considerable objection has been made to the provision regarding diligence and fidelity. That matter has been debated in the other House. I know the officers concerned feel a certain amount of uneasiness about it. In all services there are personal factors and it might easily happen that an officer or servant, as the case may be, might fall foul of his superior officer for the time being and that a record might be made which would not be brought to the notice of the officer or, at any rate, would not be brought to his notice with sufficient clearness and he might know nothing about it until the time would arrive to give him a pension and then the record might be produced. I may be in error about that. There may be regulations requiring that an officer would be notified immediately.
But, as has been stated by many others in the course of the debates on this Bill, if there is any reason to suspect that an officer is incompetent or inefficient in any way, he should not be retained, normally, in the service. There should be some disciplinary action taken. I say that as an administrative officer. That is what ought to be done generally in the interests of the public service as a whole and, I would say, in the interests of the officer concerned because an officer may be allowed to drift and get into bad ways and the errors on his part may accumulate until eventually breaking point is reached and he has to go. If prompt action were taken and if there were some reduction in his status in order to indicate that his conduct does not conform to what would be expected of him, it would meet the case, rather than to reserve the punishment until the end of a long period. A case has been put up to me of a record being made in the case of an officer having two or three years' service and a similar record being made in the case of an officer having 30 or 40 years' service and the disparity between the losses involved in the respective cases. The punishment in these cases does not fit the crime. That is the reason for suggesting the deletion of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 and the deletion of the word "and".
In this case I am sure the Minister will be able to say something. The unreality of the whole thing is apparent and the uselessness of moving the amendment, even if we had the power to carry it, if the Minister himself is not convinced about it. There seems to be great reluctance to incur the expense of summoning the Dáil to consider amendments but I take it that the discussion on this Bill and the official record of the debates will be of some service. When these clauses come to be interpreted, I hope that the statements made in the course of this debate will get due consideration and weight, and that nothing very hasty will be done in their implementation. I would say to the Minister that very considerable uneasiness exists on the part of officers generally regarding this particular form of wording.
I assume that the uneasiness arises out of paragraph (b) (1). Well, we are not asking for anything unusual there. The general purpose of this Bill is to bring, so far as it can be done, having regard to the special circumstances attaching to the service of local authorities, the superannuation code of the officers and servants of local authorities into conformity with the existing Civil Service superannuation code. In the Civil Service, a pension is not given unless a certificate is forthcoming that the officer has served with diligence and fidelity. That is essential in the Civil Service, and I do not see that there is any reason why we should not ask that the same condition should be fulfilled in the case of officers of local authorities.
It was suggested that the section, as originally drafted, was perhaps too rigid in that the fear was expressed that an officer who had given satisfactory service over a long period, and had one record against him, would lose his whole pensionable service by reason of that record. To meet that point, and to allay those fears, I accepted an amendment to insert the words "in general" in paragraph (b) (1). I think that covers the case fully. It will provide that, if a man served day in and day out with the same sort of diligence and fidelity as the generality of his fellow officers, he will then be entitled to full pension. I do not think that you can go further than that. We cannot go to the extent that you can make a man's entitlement to pension depend entirely on years of service, irrespective of whether he has been a generally satisfactory officer or not. I think that if we are going to ask the local authority to bear the greater part of the cost of these pensions, we will have to ask their officers to give them something in return. What we are asking here is that they should serve with general diligence and fidelity. We are not asking for anything more than would normally be given by a conscientious employee to a good employer.
Now, the other provision of this section is to enable us to deal with cases which have caused me and my predecessors a great deal of worry. We know what the tradition in the local service is. I suppose it is the same as the tradition in the Civil Service. Officers are generally treated with a great deal of consideration and with a certain amount of leniency, and the approach in matters of this sort is a very human and sympathetic one. It might happen that you would go on treating an officer, as Senator O'Reilly has suggested, with a great deal of consideration—giving him a certain amount of latitude. In fact, I am afraid that is the position—you give latitude because there is no other alternative to that except dismissal. I expect that the service of local authorities will continue to carry a few lame dogs until a point is reached when it is felt that in the interests of everybody it would be far better if this lame dog were given a rest for a prolonged period. This enables me to meet the case where we will give him something, something which will enable him to maintain himself, and which will enable, I suppose, the local authority to extend to him the same sort of consideration as a considerate employer would give to a man whom he has permitted to remain in his service for a long time even though he was not securing full value for it. That is the purpose of that part of the provision. It is not to penalise the officer but to enable the officer to be treated with compassion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Sections 23 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), page 16, to delete all the words after the word "authority" in line 11 down to and including the words "sixty years" in line 15.
The effect of the section, as it stands, is to exclude officers who are over 60 years of age. There does not appear to be any special justification for such exclusion because, even if the lump sum is to be paid, the fact is that such lump sum might be regarded as something in the nature of an insurance policy, if you like. The payment of it would not be a burden on the community. The fact is overlooked that if there is a lump sum payment there would also be an accompanying reduction in the rate of pension. Without the lump sum, the ordinary pension is fixed at one-sixtieth for each completed year of service. With a lump sum payment, the pension is fixed at one-eightieth for each completed year of service. It is really a toss-up as to which of the two methods would be the more economical one for the State. Very often officers, after retirement, live to a ripe old age. If their pension is at the rate of one-sixtieth for each completed year of service they may actually draw more from the State than if they were given a lump sum payment, thereby taking the pension at the rate of one-eightieth.
The length of time this Bill has been on the stocks was mentioned by, I think, Senator O'Donovan on the Second Reading. I think he said it was on the stocks for a period of 15 years. I am not able to say the exact time, but I do know that a number of officers who took part in the propaganda for this Bill have since died, so that the benefits under it which they visualised cannot be given to them. This 60-year limit has been put in. I understand that a similar rule obtains in the case of the Civil Service. The fact that that is so is not, in my opinion, any justification for its insertion in this Bill because the conditions which apply in the Civil Service and in the case of officers and servants of local authorities are widely different. I do not see any justification for it myself.
Further down on the list of amendments I have another amendment which, unless this is accepted by the Minister will have no effect, because the officers who would benefit by it would be cut out by this limit of 60 years. It is a matter for the Minister to say whether, in the event of an amending Bill being brought in, he will consider this proposal seriously. I quite realise the difficulties at the moment in securing approval for an amendment of this kind, but I should like the Minister to give his views on the subject and to state clearly why the limit of 60 years is put into the Bill at all and why these officers are excluded, particularly when they have waited so long for this provision.
I had intended raising this point on the section. It appears that, under the Civil Service regulations, officers may retire at 60 and get the benefit of superannuation provisions, but local authority officers may not retire until they reach the age of 65 and if they happen unfortunately to be over the prescribed age of 60, six months after the 1st January, 1947, they will not derive any benefit, notwithstanding the fact that in one case I have in mind the officer concerned has over 40 years' service. Surely that should be a recommendation instead of a bar in the matter of securing the benefits. It could be prescribed without any injustice to anybody that anybody with at least 40 years' service should come under the provisions of the measure, and I am sure that if the Minister does bring in an amending Bill, he will take that into consideration. It is very unfair that just because a man who has served faithfully for over 40 years is a year or a year and a half over the prescribed age, he should be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. The Minister, I am sure, will agree that such a man should come within the provisions of the Bill as soon as he has attained the age of 65 at which point he is bound to retire.
The wording of this section is precisely what I discussed on the Second Reading and Senator O'Reilly supported my remarks then. I support his remarks now, but I am afraid that, as I failed to convince the Minister on the last occasion, all we can do is to appeal to him in the hope that in this amending Bill—I hope the Minister will be here again to bring it in for us—we will get this matter redressed. We have made as strong a case as could be made and I hope the Minister will take cognisance of the remarks made from both sides of the House.
That is as far as I can go—to say that I will take cognisance of them. I must remind the House that this is not by any means a simple measure. It is an attempt to bring all the superannuation code of the local authorities into conformity with the Civil Service code and that has conferred many benefits on the officers of local authorities. I cannot go further. I cannot start by means of this Bill to bring them within the Civil Service superannuation code and I would not be allowed to do it. An important measure of this sort requires the assent of every Minister of the Government, and, apart altogether from the fact that I think the Bill is a liberal Bill in which we have tried to improve the position of the officers of local authorities fairly, there are some things that one simply cannot do.
It is not right to lose sight of the fact that this Bill, even in regard to the right of option given under it, represents a concession to the officers of local authorities which the members of the Civil Service have not got. Under the 1909 Act, it is true that an option was given to the serving officers of the time to avail of the provisions of that Act, but it was subject to the condition that they must undergo a medical examination, and, unless they passed that examination, they would not be allowed to opt to come under the 1909 Act. The fact that we are not asking for any medical examination in this case is a substantial concession. While saying all that, I am not closing my mind rigidly, but I do not see much hope of changing it. As I have said, however, there will probably be an amending Bill—shortly, I think—because there are certain things we should like to look into again and an opportunity may arise to consider that matter further. I do not want to go further than that and do not want to be taken as going further for the reasons I have already given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (9), paragraph (a), page 17, line 7, to delete the figures "1947" and insert in lieu thereof the figures "1945".
The reasons for this amendment were explained in the debate on a previous occasion. The Minister has recognised the principle underlying the amendment when he provides for the case of a person who died on or before the 1st day of January, 1947. There the principle of going back is accepted, and, as Senator O'Donovan, other Senators and I pointed out, if we could induce the Minister to go back to 1945, we would let in a considerable number of cases—not a very large number—who would be beneficially affected. As the previous amendment was not accepted, one of these cases will be automatically excluded because the particular officer was over 60 when he died and hence would not have been eligible for admission to the register of established officers. That is the reason I was anxious that the Minister would accept that amendment. The Minister may scarcely believe it, but I can tell him that I am genuinely more interested in the cases of the dependents of officers who die than in the case of officers who are alive, because living officers can defend themselves and do something, but those who are dead cannot. In the case of officers who have died, the source of livelihood of their dependents has gone and in many cases their condition is pathetic indeed.
The same thing applies as to a previous amendment. We quite understand the Minister's difficulty in the matter and we hope our remarks will tend to increase that sympathy which he has already displayed in connection with many parts of this Bill and that the sympathy will eventually result in a change in the people in the Government who are opposed to provisions of this kind.
We are supposed to be a great Catholic and Christian State, but if a report were read of our proceedings, when the Minister is defending economy of this particular type, people would find it hard to believe that we are really so very Christian as we claim to be. We seem to be more coldly mathematical and to forget the human elements concerned. These are of great importance, and if we destroy that human spirit of Christianity we will destroy a whole lot of other things far more important and of much more value than any financial considerations could ever hope to be. In fact, financial considerations themselves are very largely governed by these human considerations.
I would like the Minister to keep this particular year in mind and go back at least to that year, if he is bringing in his amending Bill. That would be a great source of consolation to the people whose breadwinners have been taken from them during the past two or three years.
I have explained to the House the circumstances in which I am asking to have this Bill without amendment. I persuaded the Dáil to give me this Bill without any amendment, except the Government amendments, all of which were designed to make further concessions to meet the points of view expressed by the officers of local authorities. Whatever we are doing here will be considered anew without prejudice to any decisions taken here, in order that we may get the Bill law at the earliest opportunity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 37 agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
SECTION 38.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (2), page 17, line 31, to delete the word "three" and substitute the word "two".
This is related to the first of the sections which govern the conditions under which the servants, as distinct from the employees, of the local authorities are brought under the scheme. The section provides that the local authority shall maintain a register of its established servants and then goes on in sub-section (2) to provide that a person under the age of 60 years who has been a permanent servant of a local authority for a continuous period of three years shall have his name entered on the register. It seems to me that a period of three years is unduly long.
Standing by itself, if we were to take a figure of three years as representing a waiting period, it might be reasonable enough but it does not stand by itself. The person concerned may have been a temporary employee of the local authority for ten years or more before becoming a permanent servant, but for the purpose of having his name entered on the register he must be able to show that he has been a permanent servant for three years. I did not attempt to delete the waiting period in its entirety, but the amendment which I have submitted proposes that it be reduced to two years. The sub-section would then read:—
"Where a person under the age of 60 years of age has been a permanent servant of a local authority for a continuous period of two years, the local authority shall enter his name on the register."
It is not a very big concession, but one which the Minister might accept. I have submitted it as a compromise. The case that was made to me was that the permanent servant should have his name registered right away. After some discussion, I found agreement on a suggestion that after a year of continuous permanent service he should automatically go on to the register of permanent service. I have been trying here to compromise between the Minister's proposal for three years and the demand which has been made by the representatives in Dublin of the workers employed by the corporation.
I cannot accept this amendment. We are seeking here to give a person who enters the employment of a local authority, without any stipulation or specification as to whether that service will be permanent or purely temporary, an opportunity to prove that for the purposes of this Bill it may be considered to be permanent. The servant concerned may be absent in each of those three years for as many as 60 days; he may cease to be in the employment of the local authority during that period; he may take advantage of the rainy season to go into some other employment and he can then come back to the local authority when the climatic conditions become more favourable to him. If he is allowed to do that for a period of three years, he qualifies to be entered on the register of established servants. We can scarcely go further than that, bearing in mind what our problem is. I suggest that we should not hold up the Bill for the sake of further expanding what are, in fact, fairly liberal terms.
The waiting period is important in calculating benefits subsequently under the Bill and it is much longer than it might appear at first sight. For instance, under this Bill any period for which a workman is employed by the local authority before the age of 18 will not count at all.
After he reaches the age of 18, any period which he works in a temporary capacity will not count, and mind you, the word "temporary" in the case of a local authority, as in the case of the Civil Service, has a meaning which is peculiar to itself. One often comes across a civil servant who has 25 years continuous service under the State and who is still "temporary." In the case of local authorities, you have people who have been in continuous employment for five or ten years and who are still "temporary." I think that in the case of Dublin Corporation, it is common knowledge that a considerable section of the workmen who have been there day after day for the last ten or 12 years are still "temporary." When they are put on the permanent staff, that itself is a distinctive thing. It is not only a question of giving a man a new status or new employment, but he is put on the "permanent" staff and he must remain for three years on that permanent staff before his name is entered on the register of pensionable servants. So when we come to calculate, for the purpose of a pension or gratuity, the period of service which is to be reckoned by the pensionable servant, we have got to disregard the whole period in which he was in the employment of the local authority before becoming a permanent servant; we have got to disregard his whole period of temporary or quasi-permanent employment; and we have got to disregard his first three years on the permanent staff. We find, therefore, men with 25 years employment who can reckon only five or ten years of pensionable permanent service.
I am informed by employees of Dublin Corporation that for many of them this Bill has no attractions at all. As a matter of fact, their present status is much preferable to what is provided for them in the Bill. Many of them who would not be regarded as permanent servants under the Bill are very apprehensive lest the Bill should become operative, because it would worsen their position rather than improve it.
The Senator himself has admitted that servants of the Dublin Corporation who have been ten or 12 years or even longer, on the nonpermanent staff are regarded as temporary and do not get any benefit.
They do, in fact, benefit under the present system.
If they are put on the permanent staff they do. I think that the Senator said that they may serve for ten or 15 years as temporary servants, but they will be in a much better position under this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (3), line 35, after the word "becoming" to insert the words "an officer or", and after the word "become" in line 36 to insert the words "an officer or".
This is to cover a possibility which, I think, does not often occur, but which may occur in such circumstances as to place a servant of a local authority in a very awkward position. The section provides that where an established servant of a local authority gives up his job with the consent of the local authority and becomes the permanent servant of another local authority, his name automatically goes on the list of the second local authority for pension purposes. But what happens if he leaves the service of one local authority to become the officer of another? That is not provided for. I have made some inquiries and I gather that some posts in the case of, say, the Dublin Corporation, where the holders are classified as officers, are being filled almost exclusively by people who are described for the purposes of the Bill as servants.
We had a discussion earlier on the position of rate collectors and I understand that rate collectors in the case of Dublin Corporation are graded as officers of the corporation, but they are invariably recruited from the ranks of the servants, the workmen's group in the corporation—or outside the corporation for that matter. If for instance, somebody who is being employed in that capacity worked for Dublin County Council or for Kildare County Council and has a status in County Dublin or County Kildare as a pensionable servant, that status is lost to him when he takes up a position as rate collector, because he then becomes an officer and has no credit for the period during which he worked as a pensionable servant of a county council. I think, Sir, that that case should be met.
I am not certain that that case is not already fully covered by Section 19. Section 19 provides that:—
"an established officer shall be entitled to reckon as service any continuous period ending when he first became an established officer of any local authority during which he was an established servant of any local authority."
Now it is perhaps possible that the amendment which Senator Duffy has suggested might be better. We have got to consider it when we have had an opportunity of trying out the Act and as we will probably have an amending Bill then, this matter which Senator Duffy's amendment seeks to raise can be dealt with.
I think that Section 19 deals only with the case of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire.
No, no; it refers to an established officer without a distinction of any local authority.
Amendment No. 11, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:—
To delete sub-section (6).
An Leas - Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 12, I think, has the same principle as amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
The amendments which we dealt with earlier were all on Section 5. The amendment to sub-section (2), Section 5 was concerned with the character of the resolution which should be passed by a local authority purporting to adopt Part III of the Bill. When we come to Section 38, we are dealing with the register which would be maintained by a local authority which adopted Part III. We had a discussion earlier regarding the reasons for sub-section (2), the Minister then contending that the local authority must have some assurance that in adopting Part III of the Bill, there would be a limit to the number of persons who would be regarded as permanent servants. I think we agreed eventually that the resolution placed no such limitation as suggested on the discretion of the local authority in regard to the number of servants that they may employ.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again on Thursday, January 8th.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, January 8th, 1948.
