Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 1956

Vol. 45 No. 17

Local Government (Superannuation) Bill, 1955—Report and Final Stages.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Agreed to take Final Stages to-day.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Murphy

On this stage, I understand that we can speak only on what is in the Bill and not what we would wish to see in it. I must confess that I rather plagued the House all during this measure about what is in the Bill rather than what is not in it. On this Final Stage, I should like to express my disappointment that the Minister has not seen fit to put down an appropriate amendment to sub-section (f) of Section 10. We discussed that at the last meeting of the Seanad and the Minister promised to consider it. I think it was made quite clear from all sides exactly what the feeling of the House was in regard to that matter. I can only express my deep disappointment that the Minister has not had regard to what were obviously the views of the House and put down the appropriate amendment which was suggested.

However, I do not think any of us would wish to hold up what is good in the Bill for what are obviously very serious shortcomings. All I could have hoped to do here was to point out the shortcomings and I hope I have done that adequately. If I did not satisfy the Minister on the point, I feel that I have satisfied a lot of people in the House as to these shortcomings.

As the Bill is now about to pass, might I say that I am sorry the shortcomings are still in the Bill, sorry that I have not presuaded the Minister to make the appropriate amendment to this sub-section and sorry, too, that I should have in my ignorance done something by questioning the ruling of the Cathaoirleach at the start of the Committee Stage? I know that I was treated with gentleness which I probably did not deserve as I was probably out of order. I will cease on that point and express my disappointment again that the Minister has not had regard to the views expressed all round this House in regard to sub-section (f) and has not brought forward the appropriate amendment. I am sure he has since the last meeting given further consideration to the matter, but, as no amendment appeared on the Order Paper for Report Stage, we can take it that he has set his face dead against it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like briefly to associate myself with what Senator Murphy says and to express regret that the Minister has proved inflexible. I rather accused him the last time of being frequently inflexible and he hotly denied it. I am sorry that the three disputed sections are still maintained quite unaltered.

I very much regret that it is part of the Bill that an employee of a local authority may lose all his pension rights for being absent without leave for a short time; I very much regret that the clause is still inserted which prevents a man, if he happens to be in poor health, from making an agreement with the local authority for the payment of some kind of annuity to his widow on his death, and I particularly regret the failure to remove Section 64 which stands unchanged, by which a jail sentence of even a few months' hard labour deprives a person of his entire pension.

Professor O'Brien

I should like to refer once more to Section 64. We are confined to referring to what is in the Bill but I am sorry that Section 64 is still in the Bill. I spoke about this matter last week and I cannot allow this occasion to pass without referring to it again. The more I think on the matter, the more unfair and unjust it seems to me that the community should be divided into two classes. The criminal law lays down certain penalties for certain crimes. If a person is found guilty by a jury and sentenced by a judge, he expiates his crime, but if that person should be sufficiently unfortunate to hold a pension, he pays a double penalty.

Let us take the case of a man retiring at 60 years of age, with a reasonable expectation of life, who forfeits a pension of £300. What that amounts to is that the person is being fined in a capital sum that may be worth anything up to £6,000 or £7,000. It is exceedingly unfair and unjust that the community should be divided into two classes.

The Minister expressed his horror of Deputy Walsh's amendment that the law of testamentary disposition should be altered as a mere consequential result of a debate on the Bill, but here the criminal law is being altered in an exceedingly important respect by introducing this section. The people who will suffer as a result of this section will be the innocent dependents of a convicted man. The Minister replied on the Committee Stage, on which occasion I did not exercise my right to speak a second time, but I do so now.

In his attitude to this matter, the Minister takes the same kind of line as any Minister in the House of Commons would have taken years ago when anybody suggested that hanging must be abolished for stealing more than the value of £1. Is the Irish Parliament never going to reform the law? Is the Minister for Local Government never going to say that he would like to see the law of local government better than it is, or must every statute be debated on the basis that, because similar sections exist in old British statutes going back into the past, the Seanad must bow its head to these laws and say they can never be altered?

Mr. Kissane

I, too, must say that I am rather disappointed by the attitude of the Minister on this measure. As Senators will recall, there was a very wide discussion on certain sections in the measure, especially Section 10. I understood, when we were discussing Section 10 on the last occasion the Seanad met that it was the intention of the Minister to give further consideration to it. He also, I think, said he would have to consult the members of the Government. I do not know whether that has been done. In any case, I imagine it is due to the House that the Minister would tell us exactly what has happened in the meantime. It appears to me that he has now taken up what one could nearly describe as a disinterested attitude. I should like to know also from the Minister how it is proposed to implement this measure, when it becomes law. I understand it will rest with the local authorities to adopt the measure or not, just as they like.

Dr. O'Connell

I merely want to associate myself briefly with what has been said and to express my grave disappointment that the Minister has persisted in the line he took from the beginning, of refusing to give way to the amendments put up in this House and, indeed, in the other House to almost the same extent. More than once during the debate, the Minister paid homage to democracy. For instance, when complaint was made that Part III of the Bill can be put into operation only by resolution of the county councils—their servants not getting a pension scheme until such a resolution is adopted—the Minister said that that is democracy.

Again, I complained that certain county committees refused to honour the allowance, or grant, or bonus given to civil servants. The Minister said that that was democracy. When certain suggestions are put before the Minister in order to point out, as was strongly pointed out from all sides of the House, that there were certain clauses that should be removed, the Minister persisted in his attitude and has not been convinced.

We have before us now a measure which contains certain penal provisions that should not be in a Bill of this kind. They are regarded by those at whom they are aimed as something in the nature of insults, if I may put it that way—a want of confidence, a suspicion on the part of the authorities that they must always be watched as, otherwise, they will not discharge their duties properly.

I think the Minister hinted some time during the debate that there would possibly be an amending Bill very soon. It cannot come too soon. I believe it will come soon, because, in my opinion, there are sections in this Bill that are bound to cause trouble and that will have to be amended in the near future.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. P. O'Donnell)

First of all, I should like to thank the Seanad for the very constructive manner in which they have received the Bill and the very constructive suggestions they have made. However, I should like them to realise, as I told the House on a former occasion, that I consulted deputations of all Parties of this House——

Dr. O'Connell

Not of this House.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I beg your pardon; I consulted deputations of all Parties and some members of this House who wished to come on those deputations—and they were deputations of political and non-political Parties. I let it be known to all the political Parties that any of them who wished to send representatives from either House would be welcome to do so. As a result, I accepted a considerable number of amendments and they are incorporated in this Bill.

A lot of discussion has arisen here to-day about Section 64, the imprisonment section. This House voted on that section and the voting was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17 to seven. That shows how little interest the minority have in this particular section. It was a free for all vote of the House and 17 out of the 24 Senators present voted in favour of this section. Can anybody suggest to me that that section does not meet with the wish of the majority of the House? I think it was Senator O'Brien who accused me of changing the law. I am not changing the law.

Professor O'Brien

I am accusing the Minister of not changing it.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Suppose I accepted the amendments which have been suggested to me. What happens? We have one law—that is, the 1948 Act—for the persons who are to-day in receipt of pensions and we shall have a new law for those who will be in receipt of pensions under this Bill. Why should we discriminate? No member of this House has made a suggestion to amend the old Bill. It would be unfair to discriminate between pensioners of the past and pensioners of the future. If there were general agreement that the one law should apply to all—as I am trying to make it—then I could see something in the suggestion. I think it is a very wrong procedure to victimise people for certain actions of theirs in the past and to let pensioners in the future off scot free. The House expressed its view on the section. There was a free vote of the House. I did not try to intimidate or make a suggestion and, out of the 24 members present, 17 said they were in favour of this section.

A number of Senators expressed views on Section 10 (1) (f). I gave the House an assurance, and I give it again, that that sub-section is not being inserted to victimise in any way the striker. It is being inserted for a very good reason, that is, so that we or the local authority can chastise individuals who willingly absent themselves from their place of work. In my view, it is but right that they should be penalised in some way or other. I have discussed the matter with trade unions and with representatives of all political Parties of the Lower House. I have heard the views of this House. I say now, with confidence, that, no matter what I have heard from these other individuals, nothing has impressed me yet that I should amend the section.

Senator Kissane wanted to know when the Bill will become an Act. Part III of the Bill becomes an Act immediately.

Mr. Kissane

I wanted to know what steps the Minister proposes to take to see that the Bill will be implemented when it becomes law, because, as far as I understand, it is a matter for the local authorities.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Immediately this Bill becomes an Act, Part III will apply to all local authorities who have already adopted Part III of the 1948 Act. The remainder of the Bill will become an Act by an Order made by me, which I hope to make before 1st April. In other words, the entire Bill will become an Act before 1st April, except in so far as certain local authorities who have not adopted Part III of the Superannuation Act, 1948, are concerned. The local authorities concerned are Cork, Donegal, Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo and the South Cork Board of Public Assistance.

Mr. Kissane

That is what I was alluding to.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Those local authorities have not adopted Part III of the 1948 Act. I will not force them to adopt Part III of this Act. It is voluntary. Part VI of the Bill will come into operation immediately and I will certainly implement the Bill by Order before April 1st.

Mr. Hickey

Can these other bodies refuse to implement the Bill?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Yes. One of the ten points of the inter-Party Government was to give local authorities as much discretionary power as they wanted.

Question put and agreed to.