I want to query why the amendments have been ruled out of order.
Teachers Superannuation (Amendment) Bill, 1989: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Acting Chairman
The Bill is of a very narrow scope and it merely provides a different means by which superannuation schemes come into effect under the Teachers' Superannuation Act.
I have got a note to say that amendments Nos. 1 and 5 tabled by me have been ruled out of order but not any of the others.
Acting Chairman
The amendments are out of order. They have been ruled out of order. They cannot be debated here. You can, of course, see the Chair outside to discuss the matter further if you so wish.
With your permission, I will seek a reason on each individual amendment. Some of the amendments certainly do refer to general matters but some are quite specific in relation to the actual amendment they propose. The first amendment says that "This Act shall not come into operation until such date as is fixed by the Minister by order." What can possibly be out of order in relation to that?
Acting Chairman
I simply have to repeat, Senator, that this Bill is of a very narrow scope and, therefore, the amendments have been ruled out of order.
Could I ask about the amendment which refers very specifically——
Acting Chairman
I am sorry, Senator, you cannot. You are out of order and are interrupting the business of the House.
I am merely looking for an explanation.
Acting Chairman
You have already received an explanation, Senator, and the Chair has offered to meet you outside the House to discuss the matter further. You are now interrupting the business of the House. We must now proceed.
I ask the Minister to make a statement in relation to some of the amendments.
Acting Chairman
They have been ruled out of order, Senator. There can be no further discussion on the matter. The matter is now closed. Is section 1 agreed.
On section 1, I have tried to make reference in my Second Stage speech to a number of items. To my mind this line in this Act, the Principal Act — The Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1928 — is not sufficient. I think we also must make reference to the earlier Acts, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, and the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme Act of 1879. I am convinced of that and it leads me straight to the point of how can we ignore the Act of 1879? That Act requires us to do certain things. What this Act is doing is changing that without making any change in the original Act. This Bill only seeks to change the 1928 Act, even though the 1879 Act is now going to be in conflict with it.
I have an amendment in there on the number of days, which is as precisely relevant as I can imagine to anything in the Act. I recognise that I cannot raise that with the Chair but I will certainly raise it on the section. I do not know how we can ignore the Act of 1879 and the Act of 1920, particularly the 1879 one, which specifies many aspects of what we have just been discussing and in fact is referred to as the Principal Act here. In other words, the 1928 Act refers back on a number of occasions to the 1879 Act and it makes it clear in the 1924 legislation that it applies to teachers who were covered by the 1879 Act and it allows the definitions from the 1879 Act to remain in effect. It also allows the conditions for the changes which are referred to in this Bill before us today to remain in effect.
As the Minister quite rightly said in his speech, and where I would agree with him, is that there is no conflict between the 1924 Act and the 1879 Act. I never said there was. The conflict arises now with the 1990 Act and the 1879 Act. Anybody who can read can see that there is a conflict there. I cannot understand the obduracy of the Government in not recognising that they are creating a problem in legislation. I do not understand how we can ignore that particular fact.
All the sections which are being amended do not refer to the 1879 Act. While we are satisfied that there is a legal basis for what is being proposed, I take sincere objections that Senator O'Toole has, while I do not agree with them. What I am prepared to say is that the legal basis on which the amendments are being made will be further examined in the context of the education Act which will deal in a much more fundamental way with this whole area. I want to assure the Senator that the sections which are now being amended do not refer to the 1879 Act at all.
I am sorry but that is not a response to my argument, although I take the Minister's point on it. I do not have a difficulty with what he says in the sense that section 2 does not make reference in 1879. That is why I am on my feet. I am saying it should make reference to it and I am referring to something that is going to come after it, but I have to use it to illustrate the point I am making.
This Bill before us that we are now about to pass refers to the number of days that it takes and it says that we are going to make a change to say that a certain number of days are required. That is not in the 1928 Act. It simply says that it must be confirmed by the House. The reason that there is no conflict between the 1928 Act and the 1879 Act is that it says in the 1879 Act that "Copies of all such rules should be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days from the date thereof ..." or 14 days from the next reassembly. There was no conflict between those two pieces of legislation, so consequently in 1928 they did not require a change to that legislation. But in simply making a change to the 1928 legislation now somebody has forgotten to advert to the fact that it does have a reference back to the 1879 Act. It is there in front of our eyes. We are now going to a situation where we are passing legislation today which says that the scheme is passed by the House within 21 days etc. whereas in this particular one here we are saying that it has to be lodged within 14 days.
The 21 days, as I understand it, is under Standing Orders of the Dáil. That is where, perhaps, the Senator misunderstands the situation.
I am sorry. I know that I am right in what I am saying because none of my questions has been answered. It has no relevance whatever to the Standing Orders of the Dáil. What we are talking about here is the number of days required under legislation, not under Standing Orders. We are requiring that it be laid before the House within the next 21 days while we are saying in another Act within 14 days. That is a conflict. A child can see that. It does not take any legal brain to work that out. What has happened and the Minister and I know it, is that somebody did not notice it. It has slipped through and I have now adverted to the fact.
The thing that should be done is that we should now interrupt Committee Stage if you cannot take an amendment and let it be referred back to the legal people for amendment that will bring the legislation into order, because it is not in order at the moment. That is the reality of the situation. You cannot have both 14 days and 21 days in effect and they are both in effect. What we are doing is irresponsible. The easiest way I can think of is to simply delete the sentence from the 1879 Act. I am not trying to change the Bill; I am accepting it but I am making sure that it works.
What Senator O'Toole has said in the last few minutes is logical. Fudging the issue and suggesting as the Minister did, that it will work out at the end of the day under an education Act does not help. The introduction of a new education Bill was proposed a couple of days ago. It worries me what the outcome would be if this flawed legislation, as Senator O'Toole has rightly stated went through.
We are dealing with antique legislation. The language Senator O'Toole used is antique. We are reverting back to 1879 and 1920. I ask that in legislation there be statutory obligation on Government to review legislation at least every 20 or 25 years. If there is nothing to be done that is fine but we should not dismiss what Seantor O'Toole has said. He knows what he is talking about. The 14 and 21 days are contradictory and cause confusion.
The purpose of bringing legislation to the Seanad is to iron these matters out. If there is a flaw surely the Minister is big enough to say, "we will look at it again", otherwise we might as well not have Committee Stage where such technicalities can be ironed out. This is not just a technicality, it is a major contradiction between two Acts. The Minister should be big enough to call a halt to this and to look at what Senator O'Toole has suggested.
I am advised quite categorically by our legal people that there is no flaw.
In that case we have legislation which says that it must be brought as soon as may be, we have legislation which says that it must be brought within 14 days and we have legislation which says that it goes on until 21 days afterwards. How can "as soon as may be" equate with 14 days? They are two different requirements.
One, obviously, supersedes the other.
If that is the case we have to state so. That is my point and I thank the Minister for accepting the argument. If he put that line into the Bill we would not be arguing. The reason we are changing the legislation is to make one Act supersede another. Of course, it should supersede. The Minister is logical in what he is saying and that is the reason I am on my feet. One piece of legislation superseding another must amend the other, and must make reference to that Act which has been superseded or deleted.
I said already that there is no conflict between the 1879 Act and the 1928 Act. Therefore, there is no basis for the argument that the Senator is making.
Having listened to the arguments I must agree that Senator O'Toole is putting forward a valid and sound argument. The Bill is an Act to amend the Teachers Superannuation Act, 1928. The last section says that The Principal Act in this Act may be cited together as the Teachers Superannuation Acts, 1928 and 1989.
We have not gone back to the 1879 legislation and there are contrary provisions in it. If there are contrary provisions in that legislation we have to address them in this Bill, otherwise we are seeking to bring into existence legislation that should have been introduced long ago to try to consolidate the teachers' superannuation schemes and bring them into line with what exists in the vocational, the local authority and public sectors.
We must ensure that the Bill covers the situation that arises from the 1879 legislation. There is no reference in this Bill to that. If there is not some reference, and some amendment to separate provisions, then I cannot see how this legislation is valid. Either we accept amendment now or go back to the parliamentary draftsman to see how the 1879 legislation conflicts with what is in this Bill and iron them out.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and McKenna; Níl, Senators O'Toole and Norris.
Question declared carried.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
In section 3 the Teachers Superannuation Acts of 1879, 1928 and 1989 should be cited together. We have had evidence here today of previous legislation having been ignored and also of a flaw in this legislation. I am not calling any more votes on this Bill. What we have done so far is a bad day's business. This is flawed legislation. We have not distinguished ourselves today in the way we have dealt with the Bill.
The purpose of this legislation is to consolidate the superannuation schemes that are in existence. We have had an incredible number since 1928, more than 30, in the secondary sector alone. The idea was to put this on a clear legal and consolidated basis.
Acting Chairman
I do not think that is relevant.
In this context because we have allowed a flaw to remain in the Bill the Minister may well have to come back to the House. The whole purpose of the Bill for which we have waited 18 years, may be totally negated.
Acting Chairman
We could have cleared that on Fifth Stage rather than now.
The fact of the matter is, again in relation to the points Senator O'Toole made, that teachers who were in the 1879 scheme are not too worried at this stage whether it is 14 or 21 days. That is the reality of the situation.
It is not. The position is that there is legislation left on the Statute Book which by the Minister's admission should have been superseded but has neither been deleted or amended. Therefore, the Minister is still governed by that legislation which has not been changed.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.