When the House adjourned last night we were discussing this amendment, to delete sub-section (6) of Section 38. I was then drawing attention to the fact that Section 5 already provides that the resolution adopted by the local authority for the purpose of bringing into effect Part III of the Bill requires the local authority to place a limit on the number of pensionable servants who would become subject to the provisions of this Bill and inquired as to whether there was any need for sub-section (6) which relates to the register. You will observe, Sir, that sub-section (6) provides that the register shall show the maximum number for the time being of the persons to be at any one time in the employment of the local authority as permanent servants. The sub-section is capable of two interpretations. It is capable of meaning that the maximum number set out in the resolution adopted under Section 5 will appear on the register or it is capable of meaning that the actual persons who are pensionable servants of the local authority will have their names inscribed on the register. If the latter meaning is the correct one then I have no objection to this sub-section. If the latter meaning is not the correct one then I think the sub-section is entirely unnecessary and should not be in the Bill.
Local Government (Superannuation) Bill, 1947—Committee (Resumed). and Final Stages.
The latter meaning is, in fact, the correct one. Apart altogether from that, as the register is to be an authoritative record, it ought to contain on its face proof of that authority. It is an authoritative record and it must show on its face every relevant fact governing the right of persons to appear on the register and one of these facts is that the number prescribed in the resolution has not been exceeded.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (3), page 18, line 28, to delete the word "five" and substitute the word "three".
This amendment is intended to substitute in sub-section (3) the word "three" for the word "five". This is the section dealing with removal from the register of a pensionable servant who ceases to be entitled to pensionable status. The sub-section with which we are now concerned provides that where, as respects an established servant of a local authority having less than five years' pensionable service, it is ascertained after a particular year that he has less than five years his name shall be removed from the register. I am endeavouring to protect the interests of a servant who has more than three years' pensionable service. Last night we had some reference to the period of absence before a permanent servant becomes a pensionable servant. This, again, is merely an attempt to safeguard the interests of those who had a long waiting period before attaining pensionable status. In my submission such persons should not be removed from the register in a light or easy manner. I would urge upon the Minister that consideration should be given to that suggestion.
I think the Senator must be aware of the fact that in the Bill, as originally introduced, the prescribed term was ten years. Deputy Larkin submitted an amendment in the Dáil to reduce the period to five years. I accepted that amendment. I think in all the circumstances I have gone as far as I can to meet the point raised by the Senator.
On the section, I would like to draw attention to a point which is not quite clear. Sub-section (2) provides that where it is the practice of a local authority to take from time to time any particular person into their employment as a permanent servant after a period during which he is not so employed his name can be inscribed on the register. I draw attention to the fact that the total number of persons who are entitled to be on the register is laid down under the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 38 and the terms of the resolution adopted under Section 5. How then can this sub-section be implemented if the total permitted number is already laid down? Is it not a physical impossibility to add an additional name? In that case I cannot see how the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 40 can be implemented.
I think the Senator has misconstrued the section. This does not give authority to insert. That authority is given by the resolution and by the provisions with which we have just dealt in relation to the keeping of the register. Paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) deals with the removal of a name. It stipulates that the local authority shall not remove the name of such and such a person. Once the name has gone on the register it cannot be removed except in certain circumstances. That is the purpose of sub-section (2) (a).
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 18, line 53, after the word "authority" to insert the words "entitled to a pension or gratuity under this Act".
This section seems to me to go further than the Minister intended. It provides that:—
"The provisions of any public or local Act (other than this Act) whereby a local authority is empowered to grant to any person in their service an allowance or gratuity on his ceasing to hold his position shall not apply in relation to any established servant of such local authority."
There will be established servants of local authorities who will have no pension rights under this Bill and who, in certain circumstances, will not be entitled to a gratuity. It may happen, for instance, that a person who has been 20 years in the service of a local authority and who has just got on the register as a pensionable servant will find himself removed because of redundancy, or for some other reason, before he has had five years' service as a pensionable servant. In that case he is debarred from any advantages accruing to him under the existing law. Take, for instance, the Dublin Corporation. I think it will be found there that persons who have had long service are entitled to superannuation or to a gratuity in these circumstances. It seems to me that the purpose of this section is to prohibit the payment of a gratuity or a pension to such persons even though they will not be entitled to a pension under this Act. I take it that is going further than the Minister intended.
I think the Senator has again misconstrued the words "established servant" here. An established servant means only a servant of a local authority whose name is entered on the register of established servants maintained by the local authority under Section 38 of this Act. It only applies to those who opt to take this Act or to those servants who, not yet being in the employment of a local authority, enter the employment of a local authority after it adopts this Act.
Will not the Minister agree that a servant of the Dublin Corporation who is removed from his position without a pension under this Act is likely to be in a worse position than if the Act were not passed inasmuch as the corporation can now exercise a discretion to give him some gratuity or some allowance under the existing law? I think that has happened in certain cases where servants have contracted disease. Men working in sewers and in the fire brigade may, after a very short period of pensionable service, contract disease or be injured in the course of their employment. They may contract poisoning or tuberculosis, for instance. If the corporation decides that it is undesirable to keep such servants in their service they simply dismiss them or, as they say themselves, place them on pension. That cannot be done if Section 41 stands as it is so far as the permanent servants of the corporation are concerned.
I must say I cannot understand the point the Senator is trying to make. So far as existing pensionable servants are concerned, it appears to me that they are fully covered by their existing Acts. They have the further right to opt to come under this Bill when it becomes an Act if the corporation adopts the Act. The general purpose, naturally, would be to try to have a uniform superannuation system for all the local authorities, but we are not compelling local authorities to adopt it. If the corporation does not adopt the Act, then these people will have their existing rights preserved to them. On the other hand, if the corporation adopts the Act then, so far as existing pensionable officers and servants are concerned, they have the right to opt one way or the other.
I take it we can shorten the discussion if the Minister is in agreement with me that people should not be prejudiced because of the Act and, if it is found that that is so, the matter will be examined again?
I will do that. Of course we cannot allow them a double option.
I am not asking for that. I am perfectly satisfied.
Very well, I will have it looked into.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 19, sub-section (1), to delete paragraph (b).
This is to remove the age limit. I am wondering why there should be an age limit, why a person who is recruited to the service of a local authority should not become entitled to qualify right away, why he should only qualify at 18 years of age if he starts his service at 16 years.
If he qualifies right away, you have to remember that they will start to collect contributions from him. We decided that perhaps a number of people entering the service of the corporation might not remain in the service very long and that it was not worth while taking money from them and giving it back to them. I am not, however, tied precisely to 18 years and, in connection with a possible amending Bill, I will look into this point. I do not think I will make it 15; I might make is 16 years. It is not a matter of very great importance one way or the other.
I am satisfied.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (2), line 31, to delete the words, brackets and figure "having regard to paragraph (g) of sub-section (1) of this section".
This amendment is of more substance, but probably will be more contentious than some of the others. Sub-section (2) provides that where a period of service of a servant of a local authority has become forfeited there will be a right to appeal to the appropriate Minister, with one exception, and that is where the continuity of service has been forfeited by reason of the absence of the servant concerned in any period in which he is involved in a strike or dispute. All I am claiming here is that the words in sub-section (2): "having regard to paragraph (g) of sub-section (1) of this section" should be deleted. That does not alter the status of the worker, but it does leave him free to make an appeal to the Minister as in any other case, and it leaves the Minister free to review the facts and to decide whether or not, in all the circumstances of the case, the period of service already credited to the workman should be forfeited. I think the Minister is going too far in prohibiting the making of an appeal or prohibiting the consideration by the Minister of an appeal from a workman who has lost years of service because of a trade dispute. I am not making any case in relation to trade disputes in the public service. I am simply asking that the workman be free to make his appeal, that the Minister be free to consider the appeal, and that this restrictive phrase which prohibits the making of an appeal or its consideration by the Minister should be removed.
I ask the Senator not to press the amendment. The Senator has perhaps overlooked the fact that a general right of appeal is given under Section 73 in relation to retiring allowances and under Section 78 an officer is given the right to get particulars of benefits within 12 months before retirement. I do not think it is necessary for us to go further than that.
Having regard to the fact that all that is being done here is leaving it open to a man to make an appeal, leaving the Minister free to consider the appeal, will the Minister review the situation and consider whether or not that proposal should be accepted? It goes no further and does not commit anybody to anything.
I think that perhaps the effect of the amendment would be that the Minister would be empowered to waive limitations of service on matters (a), (b) and (h). It would be perhaps ridiculous to lay down precise conditions governing the granting of pensions and, at the same time, to give the widest Ministerial power to waive those conditions. In some circumstances, the proposal might, for instance, allow duplicated pensions to be granted, or periods not worked to be included or periods for which contributions have been returned to be included. Therefore, while I will look into the amendment, it certainly would want a good deal of consideration before I would accept it or anything like it, because, as I said, it would simply remove any value that the restrictive conditions might have and would leave everything to the full discretion of the Minister, which, I think, would not be fair to the local authority or the Minister.
I take it that the Minister is agreeing that the matter will be re-examined?
I have said, in general, in relation to this Bill that, in view of the fact that I have asked both Houses to give it a speedy passage and to accept only Government amendments to it, I think the Bill will call for further consideration after it has been enacted and that when we have had some little experience of the manner in which it works we will certainly have an amending Bill to give perhaps an opportunity for discussing some of these matters further.
The principle contained in amendment No. 18, which proposes to insert a new section before Section 44, was discussed in another connection on amendment No. 4. May I take it that amendment will not be moved?
I was about to make that explanation. We have already discussed the principle on amendment No. 4. I am not moving amendment No. 18.
I move amendment No. 19:—
Before Section 49 to insert the following new section:—
49.—(1) Where an established servant of a local authority has not less than ten years of pensionable local service and—
(a) he is removed from his employment for a cause other than misconduct or unfitness,
(b) his position is abolished, or
(c) his position has, in the opinion of the appropriate Minister, been materially altered to his detriment by changes in its conditions made without reasonable cause and he resigns from his employment 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, but not exceeding—
(i) if his pensionable local service is 20 years or more—ten additional years,
(ii) if his pensionable local service is an even number of years less than 20—half that number of additional years, or
(iii) if his pensionable local service is an odd number of years less than 20—half the next lower whole number of additional years.
(2) Where—
(a) an established servant of a local authority who has not less than ten years of pensionable local service ceases to hold his appointment otherwise than by removal for his misconduct or unfitness and in circumstances such that sub-section (1) of this section does not apply, and
(b) in the opinion of the local authority there are special reasons which justify the addition of years to his pensionable local service,
the local authority, if they so think fit, may with the consent of the appropriate Minister, add to his pensionable local service a number of additional years not exceeding ten.
This amendment seeks to do for established servants what the Bill already does for established officers, that is, to enable the local authority to add a certain number of years to the actual number served by servants of the local authority. The proposed new section is, in fact, a reproduction of the section elsewhere in the Bill providing for added years in the case of officers of a local authority. I need not, therefore, deal with the provisions in the amendment itself, because they are identical with the provisions already agreed to by the House in relation to officers. The only question which arises is this: shall we authorise the addition of a number of years in the case of a retired or a retiring workman in the same way that we authorise the addition of a number of years in the case of a retiring officer of a local authority? Actually there is power at the moment, in the case of the Dublin Corporation, to add years of service in the case of a retiring workman. I have been asking for some particulars of what is the practice. One case was brought to my notice a few days ago where a farrier, who was a weekly wage-earner, was removed from his position by reason of the fact that the forge was shut down. There was no other suitable employment in the service of the corporation which could be offered to this man. They retired him and added a certain number of years to his service. The information supplied to me is that the man in question was an employee of the cleansing department of the Dublin Corporation where he worked as a farrier. The corporation decided, for purposes of reconstruction, to close down the forge, and the man concerned was, therefore, rendered redundant. There was no other work of a similar character to which he could be transferred. He was 60 years of age and had 33 years' service. There was a recommendation made that he would be given added service, and I think that the Department of Local Government, and the Minister now in charge of the Bill, sanctioned five added years in his case.
Under this Bill there is no power as the Bill stands to add any years of service to the period worked by workmen. Consequently, the person to whom I have just referred if retired under the Bill, would be given credit for 33 years' service, assuming that the 33 years covered pensionable permanent service which might not be the case. The man concerned might have only 20 years' pensionable permanent service. I therefore think that the Minister must agree that the corporation should not be required to treat less reasonably permanent workmen who will come under this Bill than they would workmen in their employment in respect of whom they can make a reasonably generous provision on their retirement under the existing laws. Apart from that, there is a principle of equity involved. Why should the corporation be entitled to add 10 years to the service of a clerk and be prohibited from adding one hour to the service of a workman who has spent most of his time working down in the sewers or working in the Fire Brigade, who is probably injured, or who may contract disease and who is, as many men in the cleansing department are, laid off permanently at a youthful age, because of the nature of the work or of some disease which he contracted in the course of his work?
I think the Senator in putting down this amendment has not adverted to the fact that the conditions under which a servant may become pensionable are quite different from those under which an officer becomes pensionable and that the advantage is on the side of the servant because we only require that he should work 200 days a year in order to qualify to be on the register whereas the officer has to be in continuous whole-time employment. I think when we are trying to equate all the other benefits which are given to servants under the Bill to those given to officers, we cannot overlook the fact that if there is a difference between what it is proposed to accord to servants and what is the existing practice in regard to officers, there is very good reason for it and the reason is the one I mentioned. There may be a case here for some consideration. At the same time, I think we ought to bear in mind that, even so far as officers are concerned, the power to add years to their service is a power which is very rarely resorted to and is only exercised in particular cases. Therefore it is comparatively easy to deal with the case of officers but it might be a very different matter if we were dealing with servants whose numbers would run into thousands. A decision given in one case might apply to a very large category of persons whose conditions might not be exactly similar but yet would be sufficiently alike to justify a charge being brought by some uninformed person that there had been favouritism shown towards one or that there had been prejudice shown towards another. There again I should like to advert to the fact that we are not giving this Bill the detailed sort of discussion that we might give it under different circumstances. Perhaps, if we were able to argue this matter at greater length, I might be able to meet the Senator to some extent. I think, therefore, that we should let this matter stand over to see how the provisions in the measure relating to servants work and, if it is found possible to do so, we may be in a position to concede added years in certain conditions. That is as far as I can go. I think we could take amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 together. I shall look into the three amendments and see whether there is any possibility of meeting them later.
I do not want to press amendment No. 19 in its present form, because I accept the view that it may require certain modifications in practice. If the Minister will say now that after this Bill becomes law he will be prepared to discuss the problems raised by these three amendments with the organisation that represents the workmen, I will be satisfied.
Certainly.
I have considerable sympathy with some of these amendments, but I see very little use at the present moment in discussing them in detail. As the Minister has said, the position we are in is that we cannot really discuss these amendments adequately. Indeed, there is a certain amount of unreality in the whole business. The Bill is not a Party Bill; it is to a great extent a Departmental measure. To some extent it involves a number of new principles which will have to be operated for some time before they can be adequately judged and, whatever may be the result of the general election—whether the present Minister or someone else will have charge of the Department—this matter must be discussed in the light of experience. I have considerable sympathy with some of Senator Duffy's amendments, but I think the promise that they will be considered Departmentally when this Bill has become an Act should be sufficient in the circumstances.
It has been represented to me by a number of people that they are anxious that this Bill should be passed now rather than that it should be held up and, looking at it from the point of view of the greater good of the greater number, perhaps it would be better if the Bill were passed. It is most emphatically a Bill of such a nature that it must be reconsidered and the Minister has given a promise that when it is being reconsidered all the interested parties, including the Dublin Corporation workmen, will be met, and they will find among members of the Oireachtas people prepared to consider their case. In these circumstances, I am not intervening in the discussion, although I have considerable sympathy with some of the amendments. The proposal that they should be left over and reconsidered is, in the circumstances, a reasonable one.
In certain circumstances this Bill may, perhaps, worsen the conditions of established servants. Under these circumstances, it is surely desirable that the Minister, in addition to saying that he is prepared to consider the representations of the ordinary workers concerned, should if at all possible promise to do something to lessen any feeling of dissatisfaction that may exist as a result of the enactment of this measure. In the particular case on which Senator Duffy made such an excellent statement, it appears that when this Bill becomes an Act the employees of certain local authorities will be in a worse position than they occupy now.
While I agree with Senator Hayes that it is desirable that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment, and it is in the main a non-Party measure, I think it would be advisable to bring about, without much trouble, a maintenance of the status quo in connection with certain local authorities. Surely it is desirable that that should be done now so that we will not worsen the position of any of the servants of the local authorities.
I think it is only fair to say that I am influenced very largely by the fact that there is a demand on the part of the officers to get this Bill through rapidly and, so far as the servants are concerned, they are not immediately affected. They do not become affected until the local authority passes a resolution.
And they must opt in.
Yes; having adopted the resolution, the servants actually concerned will not be obliged to come under the Bill at all; the new servants will, but the existing servants need not come in. It is better to make that clear for the people outside, that there is no obligation on them to come in if they consider their position will be worsened. My main consideration is that the position is being worsened for the people who must come in, the new servants who will have no option once the resolution is passed. It is desirable to make it clear that there is no compulsion on existing servants.
I am glad that Senator Duffy made that point. This Bill leaves existing servants who have pension rights in exactly the same position as they now occupy. If the local authority which hitherto had not a pension scheme adopts one, then the terms of this measure will apply and, if the employees get pensions, surely the position will not be worsened? It is recognised that this is not a final measure. We are giving the right of option in the Bill and, if another Bill comes in, I suppose I can say, on behalf of myself or my successor, whoever the succeeding Minister may be, that the new Bill will contain a similar right of option, so that no person's position will be worsened.
There will be continuing Departmental policy in the matter.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 21, line 21, to delete the words "one-twelfth" and substitute the words "one-sixth".
May I take it that this is one of the matters that will be reviewed?
Do not ask me to say that in relation to this amendment, because this is rather different. Section 52 contains a new provision, one which hitherto has not appeared in any local Superannuation Act. We are proposing to grant to local servants exactly the same terms as are given in the Civil Service, I do not think I would be prepared to depart from that and I cannot see any successor departing from it either, because of the fact that we are assimilating the position of local servants and officers to the position that obtains in relation to civil servants. I think that will be a principle which will be maintained irrespective of who may be presenting the new Bill.
I think there are cases in which the one-sixth has been taken. I do not want to go into this matter in view of the fact that the whole measure will be under review later, but I take it that if the Minister gets information to satisfy him that the practice of one-sixth has been accepted under other conditions—in certain railway and other cases—that will be examined in relation to the Bill.
I put it this way— that the Senator, in relation to an amending Bill, can put down an amendment and it will be considered without prejudice.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (1), page 22, line 12, to delete the words "four and one-sixth" and substitute the words "two and one-half".
I take it this is the really difficult amendment of the day. Originally, the Minister provided that workmen coming under the Bill would pay a contribution equal to 5 per cent. of their weekly wages to maintain or, at least, to sustain the fund out of which the pensions and gratuities would be paid eventually. In the course of discussion in the Dáil when amendments were being considered, the Minister altered that provision slightly and made the figure the rather fantastic one of 4? per cent. I think the basis on which he was working is that this contribution is ½d. in the 1/-. That is a simple way of expressing it. It rather suggests to me that the figure has been arrived at mathematically as being the precise sum that is necessary. I do not pretend that a contribution of 4? or 5 per cent. will provide a fund that will meet all the claims upon it under this Bill. I do not think that is so but I make two observations in relation to that contribution.
In the first place, it is in fact a substantial contribution in the case of a workman with a small weekly wage. Let us take, for instance, the case of a road worker in County Cavan. His wages, I think, are 50/- a week. His contribution under the Bill will be 2/1 a week. In addition, he will have to pay contributions under the National Health Insurance Act, the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act — roughly another 2/5 a week. That means a total contribution of 4/6 a week out of an income of 50/-. Then he has to pay for his cottage. Senator Baxter will tell us what the rent of a cottage is in County Cavan but I suspect that it is about 5/- a week.
No. It is 2/- and the Senator is not right about the 50/-, either.
I am merely giving a figure. The Taoiseach the other day quoted 45/- as the ideal figure at which one might aim——
Oh no.
——in building up the New Jerusalem but I am taking 50/- as being a figure about which it is easy to make a calculation. At any rate, a contribution of 4/6 a week out of a weekly wage of 50/- is very substantial. If the wage is more than 50/-, if it is £3 a week, the combined contribution for pension purposes will be 5/-. I am prepared to admit that the benefits which are provided under all these schemes cannot be bought on an actuarial basis for these contributions but I am merely drawing attention to the fact that so far as the wage earner with a small income is concerned the contribution is onerous. There is a real danger that all our time in putting this measure through Parliament will be wasted because of the hostility that will be created in many counties on the part of road workers and other wage earners against the Bill which will be sufficiently vocal to prevent its adoption by the local authority. It would be a pity if this scheme were frustrated because of the hostility of workmen who feel that for some future gain they have to pay a very onerous present contribution.
The second point I would like to make in regard to the matter is that the practice of providing pensions for industrial workers is becoming quite common in this country and in other countries. A considerable number of commercial and industrial films in Dublin and other parts of the country have provided schemes under which their workmen are retired at, say, 65, 68, 70 years of age, whatever it may be. and receive a pension on retirement without contribution. Therefore, while the local authorities led the way in these matters in an earlier generation, they are likely to fall behind in the next generation if commercial and industrial firms provide pensions at least as good as those provided by the local authorities but provide them without contribution. That matter ought to be taken into account.
Another matter that must be taken into account is that the operation of the means test in respect of old age pensions nullifies a considerable proportion of the pension provided under this scheme. In other words, a person who is entitled to an old age pension of 12/6 a week will have calculated as part of his means the superannuation which he will receive under this Bill and, if he is to receive 30/- a week under this Bill, he will get no old age pension. Therefore, he is paying contributions, for the superannuation provided under this Bill but he will be deprived of his old age pension because it will be absorbed in the payment under this Bill.
I do not propose to press this amendment at this stage. The whole scheme, obviously, will be reconsidered in the light of statements made by the Minister and in the light of arguments used here and elsewhere. I will content myself by urging the Minister to have regard to the three points I have now brought to his notice. If he says that the benefits provided under this Bill could not be bought, on an actuarial basis, for the contribution prescribed, I accept that at once, but I say that that is not the real argument, that is not the argument that will weigh with the road worker, carter, fitter or the man in the cleansing department of the local authorities. I would strongly urge that the matter should be reviewed from that angle.
I am glad the Senator is not going to press the amendment, but there are one or two things I would like to say in regard to it and I think the Senator would have to take them into consideration if he puts down an amendment in similar terms to a subsequent measure. We must not lose sight of the fact, apart altogether from the retiring allowance granted under this Bill, that the established servant is given other substantial benefits. We have the grant of a short-service gratuity to an established servant, the grant of a gratuity to the legal personal representative of a deceased established servant amounting, I think, up to one-twelfth of his pensionable remuneration, the grant of a gratuity to a female established servant, unmarried, and a number of other things, including the return of contributions, all of which we are providing for here. We can make the case, of course—the Senator has made it—that an established servant is asked to contribute a half-penny per 1/- per week out of his earnings. On the other hand, we must remember that this Bill may impose a fairly substantial burden upon some of our local authorities who may be hard pushed to meet their liabilities in respect of this measure. We know that in the case of many local authorities 1d. in the £ on the rates does not bring in more than £40 or £50.
The number would be very few and they would not have many pensionable servants.
The number would not be so very few as the Senator thinks. Another thing which, I think, the Senator will have to bear in mind is that there is no real comparison between the position of a public utility undertaking or a profit-earning concern of any sort, particularly a large profit-earning concern, and the position of the local authority. The profit-earning concern may adjust the cost of its commodities or services to its liabilities. It can do that, more or less voluntarily, but the local authority has to go around and assess the ratepayers, many of whom would say that they were getting very little benefit from the local services.
I have the following amendment down to this section:—
In sub-section (4), page 23, line 8, to delete the words "in respect of that year".
I do not know if this amendment is strictly necessary. My idea in putting it down was to protect the position of the man who may not work 200 days in the year because, let us say, he has been ill. In the case of most local authorities the total number of working days is in or about 285. One can see that the workman engaged in some dangerous occupations, such as I have already mentioned—a man say working in sewers, on drainage work or in the fire brigade—or because of an accident or of the unhealthy conditions under which he is employed, may lose more than 85 days in the year. If that should happen, then the time that he has lost will cease to count as part of his pensionable service and his contributions in respect of that year will be refunded. I wonder whether the intention is that all the contributions paid up that year will be refunded or merely the contributions in respect of that particular year?
In respect of that one year.
In that case, the amendment is unnecessary.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to delete sub-paragraph (i).
Under this amendment, I am asking the Minister to examine the proposal in regard to overtime. I asked the organisation catering for workmen employed by the Dublin Corporation to get me some information as to its experience of what is happening in relation to payment for overtime at present. I have been informed by the union that they have already submitted information to the officers of the Department concerning their experience in the corporation. They say that overtime is worked by certain sections of the corporations staffs on a rotational basis. The men in the cleansing department, for example, work overtime on Sundays and on holidays. The work rotates amongst a number of men. This is an important consideration if men have, as part of their income, a regular payment, let us say for a month, in respect of working overtime. If that goes on for years it surely is part of their remuneration and should be taken into account when calculating their income for pension purposes. They say that this practice arises in the cleansing department of the corporation on Sunday mornings and on bank holidays. The position is similar in the waterworks department and in the paying department. They say that under the Act of 1925 this overtime was credited to the employees and was computed in the assessment of the amount of their pensions. If that is so, I think the Minister might review the position again. If he is willing to do that, it is not my intention to press the amendment having regard to what is involved.
I was rather disturbed too, when I first read this sub-section.
I felt reassured, however, when I read the following sub-section which empowers the Minister to regard such overtime as part of the income of a worker.
I think it can be taken that, where the overtime regularly recurs as part of the accepted routine of the job, it will be regarded as wages. The only thing that we are concerned with is casual, unexpected or unusual overtime. That will be excluded.
I desire to direct the Minister's attention to the word "service" which occurs in a number of places in this section. It occurs in line 12 of sub-section (3), paragraph (a), clause (i); it occurs again in paragraph (b). I take it that what is meant is "pensionable service"'. I do not think that the word could have any other meaning. I think that where-ever the word "service" appears the qualifying word "pensionable" should be inserted. It occurs in line 8, in line 12 and in line 29. The word "service" without any qualification is used in these three instances. It is an obvious error which can be corrected by the officials of the House.
I do not know that it is necessary to make any correction.
Is "service" not meaningless, unless it is construed to mean pensionable service?
Service for the purposes of this Bill. I do not know whether it is necessary, but if it will satisfy the Senator, I do not think there is any objection to the word going in, if it can be made as a verbal correction.
What is the correction, Senator?
I am suggesting that the word "service" standing alone in lines 18, 12 and 29 is meaningless and that what is intended is the expression "pensionable service".
I do not see any great objection to making the suggested verbal amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. Sub-section (3), I think, makes the position quite clear:—
"Where an established servant is in receipt of a particular rate of wages on any day, his pensionable remuneration for the purposes of this Act on that day shall be...".
It then goes on to refer to periods of service, and I do not think it necessary to put in the word.
It is the Minister's Bill, and, if he is satisfied, I am satisfied.
The word "service" is mentioned in Section 19 as well. It is used in several places throughout the Bill.
Obviously, if I may say so, it is pensionable service.
Very good.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In page 26, before sub-section (3) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(3) Employment in the service of Irish Enterprises, Limited, in the case of workmen transferred from the service of that concern to the service of the corporation of the County Borough of Dublin shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be reckoned as service in the employment of the said corporation.
This amendment is submitted in order to deal with a group of people— numbering, I think, about 50—now employees of the Dublin Corporation. These men in a number of cases were originally members of the staff of the Dublin Corporation in a temporary capacity. About 25 years ago, an organisation was formed in the city to take over the work of the cleansing department. I cannot remember what the title of the firm was, but it was owned by a French contractor. Subsequently an Irish company was formed, Irish Enterprises, Limited, to carry on this work. There was, I think, one French shareholder and there were some Irish shareholders, and they had a staff engaged on the work of the cleansing department for 23 or 24 years until April, 1947. On 1st April, 1947, the company ceased to hold the contract from the corporation. The work was taken over and is now being done by the corporation itself. When the corporation took over the functions of Irish Enterprises, Limited, it took over the staff, and I am trying to ensure that these men who have 24 or 25 years' service in the employment of the Dublin Corporation, although technically not so—technically, they were employees of a private concern, but, in practice, were doing the work they are now doing—will be regarded as having given the 25 years' service to the Dublin Corporation.
I will look into this, but I want to say that, so far as I am concerned, I can see a great many difficulties. These men were in fact the employees of a private undertaking, an undertaking which was carrying out work under contract for the corporation. What would be the position, for instance, of the employees of a building company which was carrying out, and had continuously carried out, housing schemes for the Dublin Corporation? If we were to concede the principle here, by analogy it might be argued that men employed for ten, 15 or 20 years by contractors who had been more or less continuously engaged in building houses for the corporation would be entitled to become pensionable servants of the corporation. There is a case for consideration, but I can see objections to it. The matter, however, will be examined further.
Fearing that the Minister might allow these analogies to take him on the wrong track, I want to draw his attention to this fact, that employees of private contractors are pensioned by the State in certain cases. The men who paint the roof of this building are the employees of a private contractor working for the Board of Works and when they reach the age of 65, the State pays them a pension. There is the case of the Blessington Tramway Company and many other cases. When the Electricity Supply Board took over the Dublin Corporation Electricity Department they had to provide pensions and they had also to provide compensation in the case of a man in Skerries who had a private enterprise of his own supplying electricity for the lighting of the town. The Electricity Supply Board took him over and had to pay compensation, and the men concerned were absorbed by the Electricity Supply Board. I am going to leave the drafting of the amendment to the Minister, but I do not want him, when drafting the amendment, to go down boreens after these analogies, lest they take him in the wrong direction.
So far as the Blessington Tramway Company and the other concerns which the Senator mentions are concerned, the corporation took over the assets as well as the liabilities.
In this case, too, they are taking over the assets—the men.
It seems to me that there is a principle here which requires a certain amount of consideration. If men have worked for the corporation as employees of private companies and would still be working if they were working as employees of private companies, the position would be quite clear. I do not think they should be entitled to pensions. If, however, the corporation or any other public authority changes the system and takes over the plant and the employees, it would be very unfair that work which they had done of a similar character and virtually in the same circumstances should not be taken into consideration. I do not know what is being done in a neighbouring State and I do not know whether we intend to follow the line of Socialism to the same extent, but if we were to take over the railways and there were to be a statutory provision setting out that the lifetime of service which people had given on the railways was not to count, it would be obviously unjust.
I agree with Senator Duffy that analogies can be carried too far and I do not want to carry the railway analogy too far, but I suggest that this is a matter which cannot be treated lightly because an important principle is involved. Analogies could perhaps be carried too far, but, on the other hand, it might be a mistake to ignore them. From my very limited knowledge and recollection, these men have, in effect, been doing what, in normal conditions, would have been regarded as corporation work, but which, for some reason which I do not now remember, was done by a private company at the time. To my mind, the cleaning of the streets is a job of the corporation and I would be sorry to see men who had spent all their time doing work of that kind find they did not come under the scheme for the only reason that they were employed by a private company during that period.
If the Senator is going to argue that because a private company has been carrying out the work for a local authority and the local authority decides to make its own arrangements then ipso facto the employees of the private undertaking must become pensioners of the local authority, I think that principle is quite unacceptable.
I have not argued that.
As I have already indicated, I am prepared to give this close consideration. We have already reached the conclusion here that, in view of the special circumstances, we are not giving this Bill the amount of consideration to which it would normally be entitled. Those who are going to benefit under it desire that the Bill should become law. Arising out of that fact, the intention is to review the operation of the Bill within a very short period and introduce such amendments as experience may seem to necessitate. When that amending Bill is before the Oireachtas, Senators or Deputies who have put down amendments and have withdrawn them in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill will have an opportunity of retabling those amendments and having the whole matter examined in normal circumstances.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 26, in sub-section (5), paragraph (a), line 55, to insert after the word "borough" the words "or of the vocational education committee of a county borough"; and after the word "corporation" in the same line to insert the words "or the vocational education committee".
Sub-section (5) provides that no contribution shall be required under Section 56 and paragraphs (a) and (b) go on to state the cases where no contribution shall be necessary. Paragraph (c) has given rise to this amendment. The paragraph says:—
"(c) from an established servant of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee who was a servant of that committee immediately before the commencement in relation to them of this Part of this Act and who, on the 14th day of November, 1930, was a person to whom Section 53 of the Act of 1925 applied."
People who asked me to move this amendment can see no reason why, if the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee employees are exempt from contributions, the employees of such committees in other county boroughs, Limerick, Cork and Waterford, should be required to pay contributions. I put this amendment down without examining very carefully into the conditions. I suspected there was some reason for the exemption, and information has been given to me since which would suggest that there is a genuine reason for the exemption. It would meet the case largely if the Minister would explain that reason, so that it would go on the records, and the officers concerned will be satisfied, I feel sure.
There are more vocational education committees than that of the City of Dublin where servants have been recognised as pensionable officers. In my own particular committee, there is at least one case of a servant being awarded a pension just as if he were an officer. I suspect that that case is typical of many others. In that case, there was an advertisement inviting applications for the post of caretaker, which drew forth a number of applications, and there was a formal resolution appointing one of the candidates. The sanction of the Department of Education was given to the appointment and the officer was paid by pay order on a monthly basis. When the matter was put up to the Department of Local Government, there was no question about it—the man was deemed to be pensionable and was drawing a pension up to the date of his death, which occurred recently. There may be other cases and there will be considerable dissatisfaction among people already pensionable if they are required to pay contributions, particularly when they find that the pensionable servants of the City of Dublin Vocational Committee are not required to pay contributions.
The position in relation to the section which Senator O'Reilly proposes to amend is, very shortly, this. Where there has been existing pensionability without contribution, that right is preserved and is carried through. In the City of Dublin, for example, the persons who were servants of the city vocational education committee some time in November, 1930, were immediately before that date technically in the service of the corporation, which had power to pension its servants; and the servants carried that right with them when they were transferred from the direct employment of the Dublin Corporation to the employment of the Dublin Vocational Education Committee. In the case of Cork, Limerick and Waterford County Boroughs, the servants of the vocational education committees there were never pensionable and we are putting them in exactly the same position as other servants who were never pensionable, that is to say, making them liable to pay contributions. That is the reason why they are not exempted under sub-section (5) of Section 63 and that is the reason why I think we could not accept this amendment.
The Minister will have regard to what I said that, in the case of a committee which is not even a committee of a county borough, there was one servant awarded a pension. There may be others and I feel sure the Minister's explanation will go a long way to satisfy them. However, I suggest that the Minister should look into the case as one that may be typical. It might lead to a lot of misunderstanding and it would be well to have it cleared up. I agree that pensionable servants were not regarded as pensionable heretofore and I gave the one case that occurred in my own committee.
I am not familiar with the circumstances of the case which the Senator has cited. If a person who might be regarded as being a servant secured a pension, it was because in support of his claim for a pension he was able to adduce some service which had an element of officership in it and we gave him the benefit of the doubt. To take a border-line case and give the benefit of the doubt cannot be taken as a precedent to decide the case of other servants. In the case of this one incident where a man was given the benefit of the doubt to his advantage, we had departed from the general principle, but that does not mean we should be bound to give the benefits of this Bill to all the servants of other vocational education committees, without contribution. That would be carrying the matter too far.
It is a fact that Judge Gavan Duffy held that a caretaker in a vocational school in Cork was entitled to a pension and I believe that a grant was made down in Ballinasloe on the same principle.
While I do not like to suggest that the provisions of this section are entirely unreasonable, I think that they are onerous in respect of the contributory section. This section provides that where a person who is in receipt of a pension under this Bill is convicted of an offence his pension is forfeited. Now that is understandable in the case of a pension provided by the Old Age Pension Act which is noncontributory, which is a free gift from the State. It is also reasonable perhaps in other cases, but here we have a person who has been contributing for 35 or 40 years in order to entitle himself to a pension on retiring. He retires at the age of 65 with a pension of £2 per week which is his only income. Then he falls into temptation; he sees the possibility of exporting a gold watch for which there are customers elsewhere and he is caught, simply because he is not a clever rogue for if he were a clever rogue he would not be caught; it is only the fools who are caught. This unfortunate man is convicted and gets six months and because he gets six months, his wife, who is an old woman and his dependents generally, are deprived of their income. I think that that is utterly unfair and utterly unreasonable, particularly in the case of a contributory pension because what is going to happen is this: when this gentleman returns to civilian life, after enjoying the comforts of Mountjoy for six months, he and his wife must go to the Dublin union and the corporation has to pay for the two of them and I think it is going to cost more than £2 per week to support the two of them in the Dublin union.
Senator Duffy's excellent case is exploded by sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) provides:—
"Where any allowance has been cancelled under this section the local authority by whom the allowance was granted, if they so think proper, may, with the consent of the Minister, restore the allowance either in the whole or part."
If Senator Hearne will tell me who is the local authority I will be perfectly satisfied.
If the case which Senator Duffy has presented were made to the county manager or to the county council it would be met, and the allowance would be restored, in part at least, if not in full.
I want to be perfectly frank. I have no confidence whatever in the justice or humanity of certain people who are performing the functions of county manager. I heard of a case, not in respect of a county manager, but in respect of an assistant county manager, where this gentleman happened to go into an institution and found fault with a woman who had been for 36 years in the establishment. He complained that she was lazy and incompetent and broke this woman's nerves. He sacked her after 36 years' service and sent her home to her people when she was a woman in an advanced stage of life. I am informed that she was a most competent, diligent and trustworthy person, but the assistant manager pursued her until he sacked her and she had no redress either from the committee, the manager or anybody else. The committee would have sacked him if they had the power but they have not so I have no confidence whatever in the justice or humanity of these people.
If the facts are as Senator Duffy states, the committee was of no use, because they should have suspended right away the man who did what Senator Duffy alleges. It would be completely within their power.
We will not go into that.
On Section 72, would the Minister make any statement in regard to a case which I mentioned in a previous session? It was the case of a national teacher who has 19 years' service and who has been informed by an authority that only ten of these years will be allowed. There does not seem to be any reason why the man should be penalised in that way. Why not give him the 19 years' service? I could not say whether the service which would be added would be limited to ten years, but this officer was informed by a person who should know that this is the maximum allowance which would be made to him, although he actually served for 19 years as a national teacher.
Under this section we have to make regulations, and when they come before us this matter can be discussed.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In sub-section (1), lines 23 and 24, to delete the words and figures "after the first day of July, 1940."
This amendment relates to a situation that was discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill. I drew attention on that occasion to the fact that a certain number—I think, as far as I can recall now, that the total number was 12— were retired from the employment of Dublin Corporation in circumstances which precluded them from getting any income as pension. In the discussion which ensued the Minister and myself and, I think, Senator Hayes at one stage, got talking about a particular individual. I think that the Minister selected that particular individual because his pension was substantially higher than a number of others concerned. I am informed that some of the people, all of them over 70, some 75 years of age and over, have pensions as low as £70 or £75 per year. But let us take the case of a person who has the highest pension and consider his circumstances. It was stated here on the last occasion—and I think it is pretty well known to a number of us— what the circumstances were. The gentleman concerned was a very competent and very trustworthy employee of Dublin Corporation. He served that body in a very responsible capacity for a number of years and when a certain organisation was being set up by the State in 1924 to discharge a very onerous job, he was asked by the then president of the executive council to retire from the service of the corporation and to take service with the Government, with the State, as a member of the board which was being established by the Government of the day, and after some hesitation and discussion he agreed to that. Now it is true that he had a salary from the State of £1,500 per year, but it is not true to suggest that that was additional to his pension. It was not. The proportion he actually got in effective remuneration was a sum equal to the difference between his retiring pension and the £1,500 a year. Actually, as a result of his leaving the service, the corporation undertook certain reorganisation which saved the ratepayers of Dublin £1,000 a year. These are facts of some importance and, at least, that man's case should not be prejudiced now because he left the safe pensionable post in which he had worked for 25 or 30 years to do public work when he was a man of about 54 years of age. We should have regard for that fact and we should ensure that he would not be treated less generously than if he had refused to take the risk in 1924 and simply sat down and said: "I can do my job; it is pensionable; I will work at it until I am 65, and then I will draw the pension to which I am entitled."
That is not the only aspect of the case. There is another aspect which must be taken into account, namely, the agreement which was entered into between the person concerned and the State. I shall read an extract from my copy of the agreement in order to give Senators an idea of its general tone. I understand that the Minister, also, is in possession of a copy of the agreement. It was made on the 24th October, 1924, between the man concerned, whom we shall call Mr. X, the Corporation of Dublin and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and it provides something like this:—
"Whereas the Executive Council of the Free State being desirous of securing the services of the said Mr. X for the Free State in the capacity of member of the Railway Tribunal, requested the corporation to ascertain if it were possible to make arrangements by which he might be set at liberty to accept the position without endangering his rights as to superannuation from the corporation and the corporation found that inasmuch as they were about to reorganise the Department of the City Accountant, it would be possible for them to retire the said Mr. X provided arrangements could be made whereby their doing so would not unduly burden the city ratepayers in respect of his pension and whereas it has been arranged between the parties hereto that in the event of the corporation retiring the said Mr. X with a pension, the Executive Council of the Irish Free State will recoup to the corporation the amount of pension paid by the corporation to him during the period of his service as a member of the Railway Tribunal or in any other capacity under the Government at a salary not less than £1,350, but in case he shall be employed by the Government at a salary less than £1,350 the amount of pension to be recouped shall be reduced by a sum equal to the difference between the salary he receives from the Government and £1,350, his salary from the corporation."
On looking into this agreement there is a phrase which seems to me to suggest that this man is indemnified against any reduction in his pension or emoluments or against any worsening of his position. Therefore, if we leave out of account altogether the idea of fair play and the ethics of the case there is a legal obligation, in my opinion, on somebody to ensure that this gentleman will receive as superannuation a sum of not less than the sum he would have received had he remained in the service of the corporation up to a few years ago. I do not think the Minister ought to do anything which would expose the Government to a risk of legal action for the enforcement of an agreement which, I submit, is enforceable by law. We have had experience before of Ministers simply saying: "No, we will not do this" or: "We will not do that" and claiming that their views were supreme and unchallengeable. Some of us took the view that, in certain circumstances, it might be discovered that the courts would not hold the views of the Ministers and unhappily that has happened. The court has held the view, in fact, that some legislation passed by this House is unconstitutional. I do not think that that should happen very often and I would urge the Minister to have this case examined not merely in relation to one person but in relation to the principle which is raised in the amendment.
I do not want to press this amendment, firstly, because I have not pressed any of the amendments I have submitted, in view of the statements made by the Minister; secondly, because I do not expect I would carry it in any event and, thirdly, because, if I did, the Dáil would be brought back to accept it and the people entitled to superannuation and an advance under this Bill would be deprived of it. Therefore, there is no great purpose in forcing a division.
I would, however, urge upon the Minister that the matter should be again reviewed first and foremost from the angle of doing justice to the person concerned and secondly in order to make sure that we are not exposing ourselves to charges that we are acting illegally for the purpose of depriving somebody of £100 a year.
First of all I would like to say that when this matter was last before the House, as Senator Duffy has pointed out, I misunderstood the position. I assumed that the gentleman who has been referred to here had drawn his pension while, at the same time, he was drawing his salary as a member of the Railway Tribunal. I want to make it clear that that was quite wrong. However, the fact that I have to give that explanation and to make that withdrawal does not in any way lessen my objection to the proposal. I think this proposal is a thoroughly bad one. I do not know whether the officer concerned has legal rights or not under an agreement which can be decided in the courts if he so desires.
The fact of the matter is that 24 years ago a certain officer of the corporation retired on a very substantial pension. He got two-thirds of his then existing salary—his pension amounted to £900. We are asked, almost a quarter of a century later, to start to review that matter and to allow someone—in this case the city manager—to reconsider the position of this particular officer and increase his pension on the assumption that he would still have continued to remain in the service of the corporation until he had reached the ripe age of almost 75 years. I should have thought, in view of the fact that it would be the city manager who would exercise the power, that the mere idea of giving a city manager or any other manager of a local authority additional power in a matter of this kind would have been so abhorrent to Senator Duffy that he would not have put the amendment down at all.
I must act in an ordinary commonsense way in a matter of this sort. It seems to me that the present proposal is quite unjustifiable. To suggest that we should allow this section to operate retroactively, without any limit in point of time, is quite absurd. If we were to do that we would find ourselves in the absurd position that under the Act of 1898 persons who were employed under the Collector-General of Rates in the City of Dublin —some of whom are still alive, having retired on pension 49 years ago—could get a pension under this section if we were to accept Senator Duffy's proposed amendment. Whatever sympathy we may have with the officer for whom Senator Duffy has shown so much concern—and we must all of us agree that he was a good public servant and rendered good public service—we cannot nevertheless allow our recognition of that fact to override all sense of responsibility and all sense of obligation to those people who would have to pay the pension. In that connection I would like to say that, when this officer did retire in 1924 under the terms then agreed upon, strong exception was taken by a certain organisation—the Dublin Citizens' Association, which purported to represent the ratepayers in Dublin—to that particular matter. That organisation pointed out that this officer's salary had been only recently reviewed and increased just prior to his retirement as part of a more general reorganisation scheme for the staff of the Dublin Corporation. I am quite prepared to accept the contention that this gentleman was a good public servant and that he was at all times prepared to place his services at the disposal of the community and the State. But I think, on the whole, he did not make such a bad bargain when he was able to retire at the age of 54 with two-thirds of his existing salary. Having made that decision, so far as I am concerned, he will have to abide by it.
I would like to discuss the matter further but, for the reasons I have already stated, I do not propose to do so and I do not propose to press the amendment. As there is no purpose in pressing it, there is no purpose in discussing it.
I move amendment No. 29:
Before sub-section (4) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(4) In the case of an officer who, subsequent to the 30th day of October, 1946, and prior to the 1st day of April, 1950, ceased to hold office, to whom a local authority proposes to grant an allowance at a greater rate in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of this section, the components of whose remuneration, prior to the 1st day of November, 1946, were similar to those paid to the persons prior to their having ceased to hold office, whose allowances are subject to adjustment under the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, the allowance may be calculated in such manner that its total amount and the conditions generally regarding its payment shall be similar to those applicable to a person entitled to an adjustment of his allowance under the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section whose remuneration prior to his having ceased to hold office was similar to that of the office concerned and for the purpose of this sub-section the consolidated remuneration paid to an officer as from the 1st day of November, 1946, shall be resolved into the basic and variable portions corresponding to a cost-of-living index of 270.
This amendment differs from a large number of the other amendments inasmuch as it is, I think, one that the Minister has power to implement without any material alteration in the existing Act. Section 79 provides for the allowance or lump sum in respect of certain classes of officers to be increased. Sub-section (2) gives particulars as to the way in which such increases may be made. The purport of the amendment is plain on the face of it. It is that officers who retired since the 1st of November should be put on exactly the same footing as officers who retired prior to that date and whose pensions or allowances are to be increased in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (2). I suggest that it would be rather an extraordinary situation if two different categories of officers were to be set up: firstly, those who retired before the consolidation of salaries came into effect and who would get the benefits of paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (2); and, secondly, another class of officers who, having got the benefit of the consolidation, would find their pensions considerably below those of officers who were not on consolidated salaries. In the case of consolidated bonus, there was an all-round increase, but the officers who accepted that increase did so on the strict understanding that such acceptance would not prejudice their pension rights.
Unless the Minister can see his way to interpreting Section 79 in the manner suggested by the amendment, it must follow that the acceptance of an increase in salary for a short period —say, for a day, a week, or a month— would mean than an officer would be penalised for perhaps eight or ten years, or whatever the balance of his life may be, and penalised very, very substantially. In Grecian mythology we hear of gifts from the Danaides and these are often contracted with bounties from heaven. The gift of consolidation at once is associated with that Grecian comparison. There are three different theories in relation to pension calculation. One of these is set out in a circular issued by the Minister's Department on the 27th of November last. In paragraph (2) of that circular it states that the pension shall be calculated on the average of the previous three years' remuneration. If that is done it was an evil day indeed when the officers accepted increases in salary. It is a curious paradox that the acceptance of an increase in salary should mean a considerable reduction in pension. At first sight that may seem to be impossible, but I shall give figures to prove my point. That is one way of computing pension.
In the course of a discussion in the Dáil the Minister stated that he would be prepared to consider fixing the pension ignoring the previous two years and taking only the last year's pensionable remuneration—that is to say, the remuneration as it existed after consolidation had taken place. That would lead to some slight improvement, but it is still a long way behind the pension allowance that an officer would have were he given the benefit of the Act under which his pension was regulated up to the date of his acceptance of this small increase in salary.
Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1925, provides that the average basic salary for three years shall be ascertained and two-thirds is then taken and cost-of-living bonus is allowed on that sum. In my opinion that is the proper legal way in which to make the calculation. There is, however, a snag in that also. The amendment to the Local Authorities Cost-of-Living Act pegs the cost-of-living bonus figure at 210 whereas the index figure under the consolidation arrangement is 270. As far as I can see the only purpose of the consolidation was to avoid the necessity of further amending this Act. The Act was got around by consolidating the salary but the consolidation was based on an index figure of 270. Now the Minister having granted this to officers who retired before this consolidation arrangement, there does not appear to be any logical reason why the other officers concerned should not get similar treatment. That is all I am asking for— that they do not get a bit more or a bit less than officers who retired before this increase of salary was given.
The terms of Section 79 are comprehensive and very elastic. They enable the local authority to grant almost any allowance as far as the words go. It is a matter then for the Minister to state his particular attitude to this section. Of all the section in the Bill, this is one which has given very considerable anxiety to officers who are about retiring or who have retired within the past couple of months.
There is one aspect of this case which I should like to stress and it is this. Quite recently a retiring age condition was inserted and, in the case of certain officers in the employment of vocational education committees, there was no moral right, as I pointed out again and again, for this House to allow the Minister to insert such a condition. It was in flat and direct contradiction to a guarantee given to officers in the 1930 Act. If, as a result of this forced retirement, a further penalty is inflicted upon them by not putting them at least on the same conditions as officers who retired before the consolidation arrangement came into effect, then you will be inflicting a double injury and I cannot imagine that the Minister would be anxious to act in that manner. He has certainly shown very considerable generosity in his approach to this Bill and I would suggest that now is the time for him to act and to interpret this clause in the manner suggested in this amendment. It took me quite a long time to draft this amendment. I had a number of shots at it before I arrived at the actual wording. I think it explains in the clearest possible fashion all that is wanted to make the Bill very satisfactory for the officers obliged to retire. There has been a definite injustice done in introducing an age limit for which the officers were not prepared, did not expect, and lived for many years in the belief that such a limit would never be inflicted.
It has been said, of course, that this House can do certain things. No doubt it is within their power to do them. I do not know, however, if this House could order that the death sentence be pronounced on an innocent man, or anything like that. There are certain things which may be in their power as far as force is concerned, but there are certain limitations that one expects from a House such as this. The introduction of the retiring age limit, in view of the particular conditions which were guaranteed to the officers, has inflicted a very great wrong. That wrong having been inflicted, there is an opportunity now of easing and allaying the hardship created and I ask the Minister to make a statement on the subject. I am sure it will give consolation to those officers who will be affected immediately. There is no logical reason why we should set up two categories of officers retiring under different conditions. You have, if you like, a parting of the ways. You have one group of officers who come under the Act and another group of officers who are excluded and, if you subdivide the officers who are excluded, you will create a position which will cause very great dissatisfaction. We ask simply that all the officers who are excluded from this Act be treated similarly. That is really the effect of the amendment.
There is one other matter that perhaps I might mention for the purpose of the record and for the information of members generally and, possibly, the Minister, but I am sure he is familiar with it already. This was suggested by a letter from the Minister to the secretary of the teachers' organisation in which he referred to the fact that, where an officer had not the full 40 years' service, an injury might be inflicted upon him if the 270 cost-of-living index arrangement was not carried out and if Section 46 of the Local Government Act was not used as the basis of the pension.
I will give you two cases. One is that of an officer with 32 years' service. After consolidation, his salary, which was approximately £220, amounted to £467. If his pension is calculated in accordance with the circular from the Department of Local Government which I have quoted, his pension on that service would amount to £213. If the pension is calculated on the last year's consolidated salary, taking, say, 32/60ths of that, the pension would amount to £240. But, if it is calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 46 of the Local Government Act of 1925, the pension would be £293 at a cost-of-living index of 270 points. That is the case of an officer who had not the maximum number of years' service; he had only 32 years' service.
Here is the case of an officer who has the full 40 years' service and whose consolidated salary was £1,106. Calculated in accordance with the circular, the pension is £642. Calculated on the basis of two-thirds of the consolidated salary, the pension is £736. Calculated on the basis of Section 46 of the 1925 Act, the pension is £841. Now you will see that there is a very substantial difference between £642 and £841 in the last case and between £213 and £293 in the other case. The House will see that, since officers were legally entitled to have their pensions calculated on the Section 46 scale, the mere fact of enjoying an increase of salary for a month or two, or sometimes a week or two, is not sufficient justification to deprive them of their legal right to have their pension calculated in the manner suggested. That has been admitted in the case of those who did not get the benefit of the consolidated salary. There is no reason why those officers who accepted the consolidated salary arrangement for a short period should not get similar benefits.
First of all, I should point out that the letter which Senator O'Reilly referred to in the opening portion of his remarks on this amendment was issued prior to the inclusion in the Bill of the new Section 79 and it related, of course, to the circumstances which prevailed prior to the insertion of Section 79 in the Bill, and, accordingly, is not applicable to the new situation. I think the Senator has not any doubt about that.
I have no doubt about that.
The only other thing that remains for me to say is that this is a highly-complicated business and I think it would not be possible to deal with it by any form of amendment that would cover all the cases that might arise.
We have already written to the general secretary of the Vocational Education Officers' Organisation acknowledging receipt of their letter of the 2nd January and stating that we would be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to their request that in the case of officers who retire between the 1st November, 1946, and the 1st April, 1950, a pension not less than that based on the previous basic salary, plus a cost-of-living figure of 270 should be granted. We intend to give effect to that. If a person retires after the 1st November he can be paid a pension on the basis of his salary immediately prior to retirement. He will be paid a consolidated pension based on the previous basic salary, plus a bonus based on a cost-of-living index of 270. That principle will continue to be applied until the 1st April, 1950.
I think it will be found that no person in any event will receive any lower pension than he would have received if he had continued to draw the previous basic salary and a cost-of-living bonus during that period, with, of course, an upper limit of 270 being fixed in relation to the cost-of-living bonus. Perhaps an example might illustrate better what I am endeavouring to say. Say an officer retired on the 30th September, 1947, after 40 years' service and that he had formerly a basic salary of £300, plus a cost-of-living bonus and that the salary was subsequently consolidated at £600. As we would propose to operate the section, the pension would be based on £200—that is two-thirds of £300, the average basic salary for three years— increased by a cost-of-living bonus at 270, amounting to about £240. His pension, therefore, would be £440; otherwise the pension would be only £400, that is, two-thirds of £600. That is the general procedure which will be applied. No person will be in any worse position than he would have been if he retired on his previous basic salary which carried a cost-of-living bonus of 270. I do not think there is anything else I can say on the section. As I have said the matter is one which would have to be dealt with administratively. We could not cover every case in the circular, but the general idea would be to ensure that those who retired before the consolidation and those who retired subsequent to the consolidation but prior to the 1st April, 1950, will be in approximately the same position.
I am satisfied.
For future reference by the Minister, if not for consideration now, I should like to call attention to the fact that an officer of a local authority, changing over to the Civil Service, must have a period of ten years' local service with the local authority before it can be reckoned for pensionable purposes in the Civil Service, whereas an officer of the Civil Service transferring to a local authority has no limit imposed upon him as regards the period served with the Civil Service. That is in Section 18 of the Bill. There is no period fixed there, whereas under Section 82 an officer from a local authority, joining the Civil Service, must have at least ten years' local service before it can be reckoned for pensionable purposes in the Civil Service. The officials of local authorities are smaller in number than are civil servants and the tendency should be to go from the smaller body to the bigger. One would not except that many people would leave the Civil Service to become officers of local authorities. Actually, there were some officers who left the Civil Service to become local managers, but they would have a long service in the Civil Service before joining the local authority. However, I think it is not equitable that an officer leaving a local authority to join the Civil Service should have at least ten years' service with the local authority before that service can be reckoned for pensionable service after he has joined the Civil Service, whereas no limit is imposed on the civil servants who join the service of the local authority. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the inequality shown in the application of these two sections.
I should like to support the remark of Senator O'Donovan. I think his attitude is quite right. Perhaps the Minister would consider applying Section 21 to cases of this kind.
There is a consideration apart altogether from equity and that is, that, from the point of view of efficiency both in the local bodies and in the Civil Service and considering the ramifications of the State services nowadays, there should be fluidity as between the services of the local bodies and the services of the State. A person who is a servant of either should be able to count the sum of his service. From the point of view of the services themselves, apart altogether from individuals, I think the case made by Senator O'Donovan is a good one.
I think the difference between the treatment to be accorded to officers of local authorities transferred to the Civil Service and members of the Civil Service who enter the service of local authorities, is much more apparent than real. Senator O'Donovan in referring to Section 18 overlooked the very important proviso in paragraph (b):—
"the Minister for Finance consented to the application to him of this section."
The Senator, if he appreciates what Civil Service practice is, will realise that it is very unlikely that the Minister for Finance will undertake to pay any part of the pension of a civil servant who has given less than ten years' service to the State. I think it would be in highly exceptional circumstances that any civil servant entering the service of a local authority would be in any better position than the officer of a local authority who enters the Civil Service. There is a further reason why the proviso is inserted in Section 82 and that is that the obligation to pay a subsequent pension to the officer has to be allocated as between the various bodies and the Minister for Finance. No officer of a local authority, any more than any officer of the Civil Service, is entitled to a pension unless he has served ten years and he therefore carries with him no pensionable right into the Civil Service unless he has at least served ten years. That is the reason for this proviso. It is a concession which has been given to officers of local authorities. All the sections except Section 82 represent concessions which have been given to officers of local authorities and I think it should be accepted that we have done our best.
I could not quite understand the meaning of paragraph (b) of Section 18.
The civil servants will understand it.
I see now that the Minister would not consent unless the officer had a considerable period of service.
Question agreed to.
I should like some enlightenment in reference to this section because its provisions seem to be in conflict with the principle which the Minister enunciated on Section 79. Section 79 was the section in relation to which I submitted an amendment which would cover a small number of people—some 12 people. The Minister argued strongly that individual cases of that kind could not be considered no matter what sympathy one might have with the persons concerned. In this section we are dealing with a number of individuals in a rather peculiar fashion. I am assuming now that each of the first four sub-sections relates to a particular person, that the four sub-sections are drawn in this manner because the circumstances of no two of the four persons are similar. Look at the first sub-section of Section 84:—
"(1) Where, as respects a person who is a pensionable officer of a local authority on the passing of this Act, the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—
(a) immediately before he was appointed to be such officer, he held an established position in the Civil Service of Saorstát Eireann for a period,
(b) immediately before the period mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-section, he held an established position in the Civil Service of the Provisional Government for a period,
(c) immediately before the period mentioned in paragraph (b) of this sub-section, he held an established position in the Civil Service of Dáil Eireann for a period,
(d) immediately before the period mentioned in paragraph (c) of this sub-section, he was a pensionable officer of a local authority for a period,
all the said periods may be aggregated and deemed to be service for the purposes of any Act (including this Act) relating to superannuation of officers of local authorities and applying to such person."
That seems to me to do exactly the thing which the Minister said should not be done. If you go to sub-section (2) you find reference to a person who has certain qualifications going back to some period 25 or 30 years ago. The Minister was horrified at the idea that a person who ceased to be an officer of the Dublin Corporation 24 years ago should be thought of now in relation to an agreement made between him and the Government of this State. Here we have cases of people who apparently have no agreements, because if they had they would enforce them, and the Minister writes in this section to compel a local authority to aggregate certain periods of service to revise in an upward direction the pensions payable to persons whose qualifications go back prior to 1912. I think before we pass this section the least we ought to have is an explanation of it and some estimate of the amount involved.
Senator Duffy surely does not suggest that there is any analogy between the case he tried to cover by his amendment to Section 79 and the cases which are dealt with in Section 84. The first point is that the persons in each of the four categories set out there are still in employment either in the Civil Service or in the service of a local authority. The second point is that their service has been continuous from the date upon which they entered the service of a local authority, for those who come within the first category, or the service of the Civil Service of Saorstát Eireann or of Dáil Eireann in the other cases; their service has been continuous from the date upon which they entered the service either of Dáil Eireann, the Provisional Government, Saorstát Eireann, and the later administration. That service has been given in a post the duties of which have been similar. They are, in fact, being accorded the benefit of the principle already conceded in respect of persons who have been giving service as national teachers, secondary teachers, officers of vocational education committees and others.
That is the only thing that is being done in this section—to give to these officers who have had this service the same rights as are given to civil servants under Section 18 and officers of local authorities under Section 82. By reason of the fact that they entered the service of the State during the transition period from 1919 to 1923 or 1924 they could not be covered in the broad and simple terms of Sections 18 and 82. That is all that is being done here. We are not saying that if a person retired from the service of the local authority 20 years ago and retired, if the Senator likes to put it that way, from a statutory post, say, in the year 1931, we are now going to proceed to review his pension in the light of what it might have been if he had never left the service of the local authority and had continued in its service from 1924 to 1947.
All these officers have been in continuous service. They have been either with a local authority and transferred to the Civil Service, first of Dáil Eireann, then of the Provisional Government, then of Saorstát Eireann and ultimately of the present State, or they may have gone the other way. They may have entered the service of Dáil Eireann, the Provisional Government or Saorstát Eireann or of Ireland and from that service may have gone to the service of a local authority, but they are still serving and in each capacity they would have been pensionable officers. All we are doing here is to aggregate that service for the purpose of computing their pensions when the time comes for them to retire on pension.
Question agreed to.