DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924—THIRD STAGE RESUMED.
(1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing:—
(a) the nature and quality of the materials which may be used in the maintenance and construction of roads;
(b) the size, shape, colour and character of the signs to be erected on the roads for the purpose of—
(i.) indicating the places to which the road leads, and the distances to such places;
(ii.) indicating the distances on the road;
(iii.) warning persons using the road of dangerous portions thereof;
(iv.) guiding traffic on the road with a view to minimising the risk of accidents;
(c) the places at which the several signs hereinbefore mentioned are to be erected;
(d) the conditions upon which such signs as aforesaid may be erected or retained on land adjoining any road by the owner or occupier thereof;
(e) the signals by which persons using roads can indicate their intentions to other such persons.
(2) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after the regulation is laid before it annulling the regulation, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.
(3) The council entrusted by this Act with the maintenance of any road—
(a) shall not use in the maintenance of such road any material of a nature or quality contrary to regulations made under this section, and
(b) shall erect and maintain on such road such and so many of the signs prescribed by the regulations made under this section and in such places as shall be necessary to comply with such regulations, and
(c) shall not erect on such road any sign in contravention of such regulations.
(4) The expenses of a council in erecting any sign in accordance with such regulations as aforesaid on any road and of maintaining such sign shall be part of the expenses of the maintenance of that road.
(5) If it appears to a Justice of the District Court that any sign such as is referred to in this section is erected or retained on land adjoining any road contrary to any regulation made under this section, he may on the application of any police officer or of any officer of the council to whom the maintenance of such road is entrusted by this Act, order the removal of such sign, and, if he thinks it advisable, by such order authorise such officer to enter on such land for the purpose of removing such sign.
(6) If any person, without lawful authority, removes, defaces, or otherwise injures any such sign as is mentioned in this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.
I beg to move the following amendment:
In sub-section (1), line 43, after the word "may," to insert the words: "after consultation with the roads advisory committee appointed under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919."
Section 30 provides that the Minister may make certain regulations, and the object of my amendment is to provide that he would consult with the Roads Advisory Committee appointed under the Ministry of Transport Act before making those regulations. Under a section of that Act which is still the law, I understand the Roads Committee is set up. I think it would be advisable that the Minister, before making his regulations regarding roads, should consult with, and obtain the advice of, this body. In a previous portion of the discussion the Minister rejected the idea of having a general advisory council attached to his department. I trust his objection to receiving advice will not prevent him accepting this amendment and getting advice from a competent body before making regulations in regard to all the matters set out in Section 30.
I do not think the Deputy will achieve anything by inserting this amendment. As a matter of course, in bringing in any legislation of this kind, or formulating any rules or regulations, I consult with the Roads Advisory Committee. That is what they are there for. As a matter of fact, this section was inserted on their advice; it is purely their own creation. The insertion of the Deputy's amendment will not help me in any way or help them. The only possible consequence it might have in practice would be to make it hard to prove that I had obtained the advice of the Committee; it might lead to legal difficulties. If I insisted on a sign being removed down the country, and was not able to prove conclusively that I had taken the advice of the Advisory Committee before so insisting, the owner of that sign might be able to defy me and would refuse to take it down, although it might be creating trouble in the neighbourhood. I do not think the Deputy should press the amendment, and I do not believe it will achieve anything.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move the following amendment:
To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words—"The Minister may also on the advice of the council of a county make regulations as to the size, weight, carrying capacity and speed of any vehicle travelling on any road in a county."
I cannot see in the Bill that such powers are being taken by the Minister or being given to a council in any county. I think there is fairly general agreement that such powers ought to be vested in the council of any county, enabling them to declare that a certain road is not capable of carrying a vehicle of a certain size carrying a certain weight. Beyond doubt, our roads were never constructed to carry the traffic now passing over them. If we continue as we are going, in a very short space of time our roads will not be able to carry the traffic; that will apply at least in some counties and some particular districts. I may go so far as to say that the roads will not be able to bear even lesser traffic, such as the ordinary traffic of the farming community. Recently I had experience in a district in my own county of a lorry of considerable weight carrying over five tons of a load. Possibly the lorry itself weighed from 1 to 2 tons. That passed over a particular road week after week, with the result that that road is now impassable, not alone for such a lorry as I have referred to, but for practically all other traffic.
The law as it stands makes it almost impossible for a county council to get compensation for extraordinary damage done to roads by any individual who may use them to an extraordinary extent. Unless authority is given to our councils to deal with such matters, and say when a road must not be used by any particular individual when it really means misuse, then beyond doubt our roads will be rendered impassable, not alone for extraordinary, but for ordinary traffic. There is also to be taken into consideration the speed at which a vehicle travels. The condition of our roads must necessarily be affected by the speed of a very heavy vehicle passing over them. A council ought also to be in a position to say that a certain road must not be used by a lorry weighing 2 tons and carrying a 5-ton load, and councils should be able to regulate the speed at which a vehicle travels. The Minister should agree to accept those further powers, and I believe that no powers will be of more importance than the ones I have suggested.
It is, of course, unnecessary for me to say I am opposed to this amendment. It is moved by Deputy Baxter in continuation of a policy adopted by one section of the House, introducing into the Bill road regulations of a very drastic nature. I think the House, on the main amendment that was considered, has refused to adopt that policy. Deputy Baxter's amendment suggests that a county council shall have power to do this, that, and the other in connection with roads. That is the suggestion, because certain heavy vehicles use roads that are not capable of carrying those vehicles.
If that were put forward as a general proposition, of course there is argument for it; but to bring it forward as giving authority to one county council to put it into operation, in spite of the fact that the county council adjoining is not doing any such thing, is another matter. To relieve a county council of the necessity of providing a road, at all events suitable for carrying modern traffic, is quite a different subject. Deputy Baxter, in this matter wants to put back the hands of the clock.
It is a matter of a slight difference of opinion, I think. I do not suppose that Deputy Baxter will even accept as a principle that the roads should be made to accommodate the needs of the people.
As far as I know, the county councils and authorities have power to shut up a road against traffic. I know that over and over again I have seen notices posted up that no traffic exceeding a certain weight shall go over certain bridges. But as far as I can see, the amendment goes a great deal further than that, and I would oppose as strongly as I can the introduction into the Bill of a principle of this sort, relieving local bodies, or relieving somebody, of the need for providing roads as a means of transport for the use of the community. In saying that, I do not mean roads for the use of the user. The user would not be there unless the demand was provided by the people in the neighbourhood over which the traffic is going; it would not be there if there was not a demand for it. The demand being there, I say that it should be provided for. In saying that, as I said earlier, I do not controvert the fact that there is a big question to be settled in connection with the roads, but I do say that any of these restrictive measures are entirely out of place in connection with this particular Bill. One point that Deputy Baxter has brought out is that he wants to prohibit certain weights going over certain roads. Now, it is clearly not merely a question of weight; it is quite clear to anybody who knows about the damage to roads that you can have two vehicles going over a road, one of them half the weight of the other, and the lighter one will do more damage. I maintain that this amendment is more or less out of order, because it deals with a matter which has already been decided.
This amendment, to my mind, is one of very great importance, and I wish to impress its importance on the Minister for his consideration. I feel that Deputy Hewat has not asked the House to consider this question from the angle that Deputy Baxter had in his mind. He seems to think that Deputy Baxter wished to put back the hands of the clock by leaving it to the county council to see in what manner the traffic of those heavy vehicles could be used with the least damage to the roads of the district. There are two or three very important points in connection with it. I think the main idea in Deputy Baxter's mind is that there should be a control over these vehicles that there is not at present. On the one hand we are anxious that this traffic should not alone continue as it is, but should be increased. It is a very great necessity for the farmers that this traffic should continue. I know numbers of them at present who are sending their butter and their eggs direct to the ports on account of the heavy railway charges and on account of the delay when the railway company leaves them over for the night, and they possibly miss a boat. This traffic is being used very largely for that purpose, and I am quite certain that Deputy Baxter had no intention of interfering with that traffic, nor do I believe that that is in the mind of any Deputy.
But there must be a certain control. I believe that the Local Government Department could see to that control by having governors on all these heavy-weight vehicles. The harm that they do to the roads—and they do very great harm—is on the return journey when they are empty, or have only a very light back load. All roads are not equally well constructed. The water-tables may be defective, and there is bound to be a certain amount of moisture which will deteriorate the roads. When a heavy-weight vehicle goes over a road slowly it does not do so much harm, but when a light lorry travels on a road at the pace of a motor car it turns a small hole into a pot-hole, and where the county councils have not the proper machinery for repairing these pot-holes, where they are simply repaired by dumping stones into them which are not properly put in by a special roller for that purpose, the stones are turned out by the next lorry that passes, and the hole is continually increased in size. In other words, a good deal of time is being lost, and money belonging to the ratepayers expended on these roads simply because these particular vehicles are allowed to travel without governors at the rate of twenty or thirty miles an hour, which is far beyond the speed limit.
There is practically no use in making a regulation fixing the speed at which these vehicles must travel. There must be a governor on each of these lorries, and that will prevent them running at this extreme pace, which is absolutely ruinous for the roads, as I know. I am aware also that the owners do not want these lorries to be run at this terrible speed, because the very fact that a lorry which is meant to go at ten or twelve miles an hour is driven at thirty means that it is simply being shaken asunder, and I do not believe any commercial man wants his heavy lorry run along at the speed of a motor car. I think there will be a further Bill brought in dealing with this traffic, but at the same time I would approve of Deputy Baxter bringing forward this amendment, even if he only brings before the Minister for his consideration the fact that there must be control of that particular class of traffic. As regards railway bridges, you cannot have loads of over a certain weight going across them, but there are other bridges that the railway companies have not control over, and the danger of heavy traffic over these is not supposed to be very great, from what I have heard from the county surveyors or otherwise. If there are dangerous bridges the county council should apply to the Minister to make special provisions with regard to them. I hope that the Minister will take steps to see that this traffic is properly regulated, while at the same time in no way interfering with a mode of conveyance very necessary at present, especially when we consider the very high and exorbitant rates being charged by the railway companies. I would therefore press the consideration of the amendment on the Minister, and I am certain that either at a later stage or in another Bill the Minister will be bound to take it into consideration.
I believe that already power is vested in the county councils to regulate what they deem is excessive traffic. They could fine or assess damages on any man who uses the roads excessively and damages them. In my county, a few years ago, a man bought a wood, and he had to pay £100 because he injured the road by drawing the timber over it. I think the same should apply in the case of a man with a big lorry. If he is using it constantly over a road the county council is empowered, without any further legislation, to make that man pay, or fine him, if you like. He is bound to pay for the excessive traffic and for the excessive way he uses the roads.
The point I want to make on this question is this, that not alone should councils be entitled to deal with the question of weight and size, but they should be entitled to close certain roads to certain classes of traffic. It is not when the damage is done and when the county council recovers damages that it should be done. During the time these small roads are rendered impassable to the people that have to use them, they get no compensation whatever; the county councils do, but the people who actually suffer the loss get none. It is brought under our notice every day that when the main steam-rolled roads are brought down to a certain stage of deterioration by this heavy traffic and when they are impassable, the drivers of these heavy lorries go by another road. They travel that road until it is also impassable and then they go in some other direction. County councils ought to have power to close to certain traffic narrow roads which are of great utility to the people they serve and which are not meant to carry heavy traffic at all. That part of the amendment that deals with the speed limit, I agree with Deputy Hewat, ought not to be made a county matter at all; it ought to be made a general matter. But when we come to the question of closing roads—the roads that ought to be closed and the other matters with regard to size, weight and carrying capacity—nobody has a better idea or is better able to deal with the question than the county councils, because they have local knowledge and they are in possession of all the facts.
The question is at present under consideration by a Departmental Committee, I believe, but whatever the findings of that committee may be, I think the county councils should get the power of closing certain roads to traffic, and also the power to regulate what classes of lorries should go over certain roads. There is no doubt at all about it that heavy traffic should not be allowed on roads that are not steam-rolled, and there ought to be a signpost at the entrance to these by-roads with notices that these roads are closed to heavy traffic. Until that is done, there will be great hardship imposed on the country.
I am afraid there is some misunderstanding with regard to this amendment. I have read it carefully, and I cannot see any proposal with regard to the question that occupied Deputy Gorey's speech, namely that of closing the roadways. Possibly he can see what I cannot see in the amendment.
I am trying to read into it.
We should take what is before us, and not what Deputy Gorey is trying to read into it. With regard to the power of closing a roadway— possibly I am getting a little out of order in discussing a matter that does not arise—I know at the moment that roads are closed to motor traffic, and they would not be closed except there was authority to close them. I am sorry we did not get this interesting discussion before a vote was taken on that important question the other night about placing the roadways under a central authority, because I am sure from remarks made this afternoon that the proposal to set up an authority to deal with roadways will have two additional supporters in Deputy Gorey and Deputy D'Alton. I was glad to hear Deputy Hewat trying to illustrate what would happen if the Minister was to give assent to the recommendations of the 26 different county councils in dealing with roadways in the Saorstát. I suppose we would have 26 different regulations governing the question of motor traffic if the Minister were to give any consideration to the views put forward by the different bodies. I can quite understand if such an amendment as this were passed, that the farmer Deputies, when the question of taxation for maintenance of the roadways would arise, would say that instead of providing the large sums surveyors want for maintenance of roadways this year, and having that oppressive taxation, the best thing they could do would be to ask the Minister to close these roadways for traffic of such and such a size going over them, and in that way get out of liability for these roads. While a good deal may be said from one point of view in connection with a policy of that character, let us look at it from a national point of view. Is it a policy that ought to be supported? Is it not a retrograde policy to adapt our traffic to the roadways, instead of adapting our roadways to the traffic? We all recognise that traffic conditions have very seriously altered during the last few years, and are likely to alter considerably in the next few years. Surely Deputies should not stick their heads in the sand and say: "We will not have regard to these altered conditions." Is that their policy? These Deputies wholeheartedly supported the Railways Bill recently passed, which imposes such burdens on the traffic carried by the railways that that traffic will have to find some other outlet. Now, when we are trying to find some other outlet, they come along and say that the county councils should have power to prevent this traffic going over the roads. You might as well say at once that trade cannot be carried on in the Saorstát, for that is what their contention amounts to. We should take a bigger and a longer view of this question, and I am satisfied that if the Ministry impressed on these local authorities the necessity for adapting the roads to suit modern traffic it would be to the interests of the Saorstát, instead of listening to recommendations from them as to how this traffic may be impeded and curtailed.
I want, if I can, to clear Deputy Good's and Deputy Hewat's minds of the belief that either I or any of the Deputies on these Benches want to retard progress by the operation of such an amendment as this, or that we seek to prevent the development of trade and commerce by limiting the outlets for traffic. I wish to tell Deputy Good that we supported the Railways Bill because we believed that it would relieve traffic burdens, and I suggest that measure has justified itself and that we were justified in passing it.
The reduction it has brought about is that the rates for agricultural produce are 100 per cent. over pre-war level here, and in Great Britain only 50 per cent. over pre-war level.
The rates will be less than before the Act was passed, and that is some consolation. We do not seek to limit the traffic, or to put burdens on it. We are not trying to put back the hands of the clock. A pretence may be made of putting on the hands of the clock; you may put on the hands, leaving the machinery behind. You may for the time being permit certain roads to carry certain traffic, but you may render it impossible for these same roads to carry that traffic six months hence. We sought before today to put the responsibility for the maintenance of the roads on the State, and we were defeated on that. We are faced with the proposal of putting the obligation of maintaining the roads on the ratepayers to the county councils. If the counties feel that they cannot provide enough of money to keep up roads to a certain standard to carry all traffic it is only justice to the ratepayers of the county, and justice to the traffic, to limit the traffic passing over the roads. We do not want, and we wish to be emphatic in this, to put restrictions on trade and commerce, but we honestly feel that in certain counties— it may not perhaps be true of many counties in the centre and South of Ire-land—and perhaps in some districts in every county, the roads are being used for carrying traffic that they were not constructed for, and because of that roads are rendered impassable for anybody, even the residents in the district. That is what we seek to get over.
Someone has raised a question as to the compensation that may be obtained for extraordinary traffic. It is almost impossible for a county to obtain damages for extraordinary traffic, because it would be necessary to go into court and prove that certain damage to roads was caused by certain traffic, but these roads are used by others, and because of that the county council would find it difficult to prove a case to get compensation for damage. Some people contend that roads should be maintained at a high standard regardless of cost to the ratepayers, but we must cut our coat according to our cloth. We should not impose on ratepayers the responsibility of maintaining roads at a high standard for all traffic, regardless of their capacity to bear the burden. The ratepayers and their representatives through the county councils have a right to determine what traffic should pass over the roads. I have no fear the county council would close the roads to traffic unless there is good reason for it.
I want to remove the cobwebs from Deputy Good's mind. We do not stand here as an obstacle to progress. We recognise that modern roads must be constructed. The county councils cannot take over all the roads in the State and make them fit for traffic in a day, and until the roads are made to bear a certain class of traffic then this class of traffic should not be allowed over them. Even Deputy Good can see that point.
If they are not made equal to the traffic the traffic could not go over them.
We have not gone into that question.
Does Deputy Good maintain that you can make perfect roads in an hour or a day? We are waiting for contractors like Deputy Good to do that. County councils should have the power to prevent heavy traffic over the roads until the roads have been made to bear the traffic.
I must take strong exception to the remarks made by Deputy Good. He said we were going to extremes, that we were putting our heads in sand, that we did not see the advance of time, and that we should take a bigger and longer view. Surely the county council should get power to deal with the traffic as it is, and all future traffic. That does not mean that we are out to retard progress. I maintain that these huge lorries which, to my knowledge, and to the knowledge of other Deputies, return from their journeys half empty, have done much injury to the roads at the cost of the ratepayers. We know, and the large employers also know, the pace at which the lorries are driven by their men, thereby depriving these machines of years of utility. Deputy Daly said that in County Cork they were able to recover for damages done to roads. I am aware of a fact that a timber merchant carried away from a beauty spot thousands of tons of timber, and in the process damaged the roads. Our county council instructed our solicitor to take action in the matter. This timber merchant was responsible for the cutting up of the roads which had been steam-rolled at great cost only a few years before. On being communicated with he told our solicitor that he would pay at a later date. But after leaving the road in a condition that it would have to be steam-rolled again, when it ought to have lasted fourteen or fifteen years, he disappeared to England, and never paid one penny.
If the county council had had sufficient authority to deal with that gentleman, and if the solicitor had been able to deal with him, surely he could not have used the roads to make money for himself at the expense of the people who maintain the roads. I want the Dáil to understand clearly that in supporting this amendment of Deputy Baxter's and urging it on the Minister, I do so for the reason which I think is in Deputy Baxter's mind—we want to support any mode of conveyance or any form of traffic that is going to help the people of this country to place their produce or manufactured products on the market, whether that is motor traffic, canal traffic, railway traffic or any other form of traffic. I certainly take very serious objection to Deputy Good when he suggests that the Farmers' Party, or an individual Deputy like myself, supporting this amendment, want in any way to interfere with the development of traffic. The development of traffic is in the interest of all of us. What I want to bring to the attention of the Minister is the abuse that exists in certain areas because the county council have not sufficient control of the traffic. I want, in common with the other Deputies, to make the roadways in Ireland suitable for any traffic that has occasion to use them.
I think there is very little difference between Deputy Baxter and myself on this point. As the law stands at present, I have very considerable powers with regard to controlling the speed and structure of heavy vehicles. But the regulations are spread over different statutes and it is not easy to say exactly in what respects the law as it stands falls short of what Deputy Baxter has in mind. Of course, as Deputy Baxter realises, the county council has power to recover the cost of exceptional damage to the roads. In practice, those powers are not sufficiently wide. Of course, I have power to close a road, at the request of the county council, to any particular kind of traffic. That power is given me in, I think, Section 7, sub-section 4 of the Roads Act, 1920. This is really more a case for rules and regulations than for legislation. If Deputy Baxter would consult with me about the matter, we might be able to hammer out something on the Report Stage that would get general agreement.
The Committee that sat to deal with reconstruction and development made certain recommendations. One of these recommendations, which was of the greatest importance, was scoffed at by the Minister for Finance. There was another recommendation made, which has not been put into operation, though the Minister now tells us he has power. The recommendation was as follows:—
"We are strongly of opinion that further restriction with regard to heavy motor vehicles is essential. Heavy motor vehicles, up to 12 tons in weight, with insufficient bearing surface are allowed to travel at great speed upon our roads. This type of vehicle is destructive of the present roads and will be destructive of any roads which, for many years, we can afford to construct. In fact no roads are capable of standing such usage save concrete roads, which would cost from £8,000 to £10,000 per mile to construct."
That recommendation was made, having heard the opinions of expert engineers and surveyors upon the question. The Minister has power in this matter at present, but he has not been exercising that power. If the result of this debate and the pressure used by Deputy Baxter, will mean that there will be some restriction placed upon the weight carried by vehicles of insufficient width of wheel upon certain roads, then great good will have been accomplished. I think that is the important point. The acceptance of an amendment of this character may not add anything to the Minister's powers. But can we get some assurance from the Minister that he is going to exercise his present powers in this respect, even if he gets the powers that Deputy Baxter seeks to give him?
Or seeks to give to the county council.
The proposition is not to give powers to the county council but to give the Minister powers, on the advice of the county council, which he may exercise or not as he wishes. The Minister already has those powers and has not exercised them. The adding of a new sub-section will not increase the Minister's powers, but I would like to get some assurance that the Minister will exercise his present powers in respect of the width of the wheels of these very heavy vehicles. While it may be very desirable to keep roads up to or in advance of methods of transportation, it is rather asking too much, I think, that the country should make roads at an expense of from £8,000 to £10,000 per mile for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of a few firms. If that new method of transportation were general, then there would be substance in Deputy Good's contention. But I think we ought not to ask public authorities to go to this great expenditure for traffic which is exceptional. I want to impress upon the Minister the necessity for using his present powers. Then there may be no necessity for adding a new provision to the Bill.
I do not know if my suggestion has been accepted by Deputy Baxter and if he is prepared to withdraw his amendment?
I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I understand from the Minister that his proposition to me is that the powers which he has at present and which have not been operative will be operative in the future, or that county councils will be given such powers under this Bill as will make it possible for them to carry out what the Minister knows are my intentions.
The powers under the present law are, to a great extent, the powers that Deputy Baxter has in view. I am not quite sure in what respect they fall short of his desire. I am aware that they have not been put into operation consistently throughout the country. I would be prepared to consider, with him, the position and see how I could meet his desires to have these rules enforced.
I hope the Minister will make a distinction between what is "exceptional" traffic and what is "ordinary" traffic. The Minister has power at the moment to deal with exceptional traffic in a very drastic way. But what I think is embodied in this proposition is ordinary traffic. I do not think it was in the mind of the Deputy —he did not say so at all events—that he was only dealing with exceptional traffic.
What I had in mind was extraordinary traffic on certain roads. It might be ordinary traffic on some roads and on other roads it would be extraordinary traffic.
That opens up an entirely new aspect of the question. If a roadway is to settle the question as to whether traffic is "ordinary" or "extraordinary," it is a point which has not been dealt with in any previous Act. The Minister has certainly power to say what is exceptional traffic and to deal with it. But now it is sought to make what would be "ordinary" traffic in certain cases "exceptional" traffic by reason of the particular roadway.
Will the Deputy admit that in England certain roads are not open to particular classes of traffic?
In Ireland certain roads are not open to certain traffic.
I mean heavy motor traffic.
As the law stands we have power to close the roads to certain traffic.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Motion made—"That the Section stand part of the Bill."
On this motion, might I say that I am afraid that the part of Hamlet has been left out of the section. Whether that is an oversight on the part of the Ministry or not, I do not know. The Minister has power to control the materials that may be used in the maintenance and construction of roadways, but he has no power at all to control the method under which the materials are to be used. Let me give an illustration. The Minister may say that the materials to go into a certain road are to be of a particular class. He has no power to say how those materials are to be applied. What is the result? As we travel through some areas controlled by the county councils, we find pot-holes filled up with loose stones and covered with a little clay or sand. A motor car comes along and spreads the whole thing to the four winds. I quote that to show that there is no use in controlling the class of material unless you control the method by which that material is to be used. I suggest to the Minister that a new clause should be added immediately after (a) dealing with control of the method which may be used by a council in the maintenance and construction of roadways or of roadways of a particular class. There is also the point that in some areas it is not possible to get what is known as proper bottoming for roadways, and consequently a different form of surface-construction is necessary. It is necessary if the Minister is to control these roadways effectively—as we hope he will under this Bill—that some such clause as I have suggested should be inserted.
In practice there would be great difficulty in giving effect to Deputy Good's amendment. As he has more or less hinted in moving this amendment, conditions vary very much throughout the country. In one county one class of material is available. One method may be adopted in one county, and a different method in another. Also a different kind of material is used. To give effect to the amendment I would require a larger staff than I have at the present time. I can only make general rules and regulations here in Dublin. With regard to the trunk roads I have a considerable lever, inasmuch as I can withhold the grant in cases where we are supplying money out of the road fund if the road is not constructed according to what I consider the proper method. To go further than that and insist that the Department should supervise in an intimate way the making of roads throughout the country would practically mean nationalisation, and would mean duplication of staff all through the country. County Surveyors have their own way of doing things, and may not agree with the methods of the surveyor who is sent down from Dublin. There is no general agreement in the country with regard to the breaking of stones. In some counties it is found easier to break stones by hand. In other counties you have to use machinery for the purpose. You would find yourself up against difficulties of this kind if the amendment were accepted.
Would the Minister say how he is going to formulate those regulations dealing with the kind of material contrary to regulations, and how is he going to make them? Will he consult the 26 county council surveyors, or in what way is he going to particularise the breaking of stones?
I have the roads advisory committee and an expert staff. Their numbers are not great. This first provision, sub-section (a), practically deals with the exclusion of soft limestone. The principal object of that section is to prevent the use of soft limestone in the making of roads.
On this point I would like to mention to the Minister that it is not a question of roadways but of general regulations with regard to the methods to be adopted in making those roadways, and furthermore those regulations have to be laid on the Table of the House, and remain there for twenty-one days before they become operative. They require no staff to carry them out.
I do not think that makes it any more simple. The difficulty about regulation as to method is that it is hard to make regulations because you require different regulations in different parts of the country. The regulation about soft limestone may be all right, but it would be a different thing if you laid down regulations that stone should be broken by machinery.
Question—"That Sections 30 and 31 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 32.
(1) Every direct labour scheme which was or is deemed by virtue of this Act to have been legally in force in any rural district on the 31st day of December, 1923, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, continue in force up to such date as the Minister shall appoint.
(2) Every direct labour scheme which shall be approved of by the Minister after the passing of this Act shall, subject to the provisions of this section, continue in force for such period as the Minister shall appoint.
(3) Any period appointed by the Minister under this section for the duration of a direct labour scheme may at any time and from time to time be extended by the Minister for such further period or periods as he shall think proper, and any period so appointed or any extension thereof under this section may at any time be curtailed by the Minister by such amount as he shall think proper.
(4) Every such direct labour scheme as is mentioned in this section shall expire at the end of the period or of the extended or curtailed period (as the case may be) appointed by the Minister under this section for the duration thereof.
I move:
In sub-section (1), line 54, to insert after the word "date" the words "not being earlier than the date fixed for the termination of the scheme by the terms thereof."
The section as it stands in the Bill gives the Minister more power than I think is desirable, and the amendment seeks to limit that power. Just a moment ago the Minister deprecated the idea of getting him in touch with the practical administration as to the methods. He said it would be impossible to carry it into effect. I agree with him. He would want a staff that would not at all pay for the expense incurred. In this case the Minister is asking absolute power to suspend or terminate the direct labour scheme, and in that way to upset all the arrangements come to by the county council. It would be rather difficult for a county council, which has made arrangements to carry the direct labour scheme through for three years, to work in practice. When the direct labour scheme is put into operation it comes before the Minister for sanction. If he sees any objection he can reject it. I do not see any idea in supplementing his power in that direction. We have also heard a great deal of the desirability of people knowing how long they are to be employed, and if you find two Deputies with such different ideals as Deputy Good and Deputy Johnson agreeing that the workers should have an idea of how long employment is to last——
Both elected by the same constituency.
The Deputy is speaking of Deputy Johnson's view.
Those are two virgin idealists. I agree there must be some security of employment if you wish to get the workers to give the best result. The Minister said he could withhold the grant. That also gives him a certain leverage over the administration of the roads. If he is suspicious of his county councils he had an opportunity when the direct labour schemes were submitted to him of seeing that they were practical and good schemes. He is seeking now to put his Department in control in a bureaucratic fashion over what the Road Board would be a better constituted body for. I hope the Minister will see his way to let the direct labour schemes operate for the original number of years.
I think the Deputy misunderstands my intention. It is not my intention to put the direct labour schemes in a worse position. It is intended to put them in a much better position. The rules and regulations which have grown up around the direct labour scheme were intended in the beginning to make this system unworkable, and in practice it nearly worked out that way. At the present time direct labour schemes have no legal sanction whatever, and the first section of this Bill is intended to validate them. They are tied up with all kinds of redtape, and before a direct labour scheme is passed I have to sign a thick volume of rules and regulations under which the scheme is to be carried out. Under this Bill I intend to break away from that old system, put it on a par with the contract system, and leave it to the discretion of the county council to decide what is best. I intend to draft a new Procedure of Councils Order. The old one was the one which tied up the direct labour schemes in this impossible way. The only concession those in favour of the direct labour scheme have to make is to allow the duration of the scheme to be considered at this moment. I am anxious that new councils should have an opportunity of deciding whether the direct labour or the contract system is the best. If I had not introduced this system most of the direct labour schemes in the country might be scrapped. In return for that, I think Deputies ought to allow county councils a free hand in the matter. I will introduce a new Procedure of Councils Order which will be laid on the Table of the House and an opportunity will be afforded for its discussion. Under that the position of direct labour will be better than it is at the present time.
The sub-section says "every direct labour scheme." I hope the Minister does not think that all the direct labour schemes in force have not legal sanction. It continues "shall continue in force for such period as the Minister shall appoint." I would like to know from the Minister is the position at present that a direct labour scheme shall not be for less than 3 years. If that is so, there is more in this section than the Minister would lead us to believe from what he said. Under the old Council Order it said: "Direct labour schemes shall be for not less than 3 years." Is that correct?
If that is so there is much more in this section than the Minister intimated to the House, because not only does the sub-section give the Minister the power he requires to legalise schemes already in force, but it upsets the old order which establishes that the direct labour scheme shall continue for three years and gives the Minister power to terminate the scheme at any time he likes.
I should like to commend the Minister for his recent remarks in connection with this clause. I have found that there is a tendency in this House to give the Minister rather more autocratic powers than I personally think is advisable. The Minister says he is willing and anxious that the county councils, when they come into operation under the regulations of this Bill, shall examine and decide this question for themselves. I think that is wise. Otherwise it seems to me the great difficulty you will have in those bodies down the country is that they will not exercise the control they should have over their own affairs, and I think the prime need of the country at the moment is to get the people interested as far as possible in their own affairs. On the question of those roads and on this question of direct labour, I would advocate that those powers shall have as little interference as possible with their operations so far as that is practicable.
Read the sub-section with the amendment.
I was really only following the remarks of the Minister.
That man will lead you astray.
I am afraid I am often led astray from various parts of the House.
Perhaps it might be well for me, having interrupted Deputy Hewat, to explain as well as I can what the intention is. There are direct labour schemes in operation which are, within the present law and Order in Council, continuable for three years. The sub-section says that every such scheme shall continue in force up to such date as the Minister shall appoint. So far as that goes it is all right because it may mean continuing beyond the present legal limit, but it may also conceivably say that the Minister shall have power to cut off at any time. He may not intend to avail of that power, and he has assured us that he does not intend to avail of it, but the amendment simply asks that the House should agree that such a date to be appointed by the Minister shall not be earlier than the date originally fixed for the determination of the scheme. That fits in with what Deputy Hewat argues, and, I think, also fits in with the Minister's intention, but the sub-section, as it stands, would leave the Minister for the time being, whoever he may be, in a position to cut through direct labour schemes which, perhaps, might be only half finished.
Does the Deputy mean that every scheme is to run for three years?
It has nothing to do with any future schemes or schemes put into operation since December, 1923, but it means that any schemes in force shall continue for the prescribed period.
Three years. If the argument is sound, as I suggest it is, that having entered on a scheme with the approval and ratification of the Minister, that scheme should be completed. I thought that Deputy Hewat's argument supported the view that there should not be this overturning of the actions of the county council when once approved. I think I am right in saying that the amendment does, as a matter of fact, embody what the Minister tells us is his intention regarding the older schemes in operation in December, last year. We are not now dealing with any portion of sub-section (2), (3) or (4), but only with sub-section (1).
Is there any danger that these powers will be exercised except in some exceptional cases?
Nobody knows, but why not have confidence in Ministers, in the Government, or in your own powers of raising a discussion?
Supposing a direct labour scheme started on a roadway and subsequently it was thought desirable to alter the methods of construction, would Deputy Johnson point out how we are going in this amendment to alter that scheme? The scheme must run for its normal period before the Minister can interfere or before any alteration in the method could take place.
The position is that certain schemes were put into operation under the present law and regulations for a definite period. Whatever are the conditions regarding alterations under the present regulations they will continue.
There is no guarantee that where direct labour is engaged on any work it must be continued for a period of three years.
It is possible, but there is no such undertaking given. I think this amendment is exceedingly inadvisable, and I think it is well to have this discussion so that the Minister may know what is behind the proposal. When I read it first I was a little in doubt about it, but this discussion has now shown where we really are.
I am sure that Deputy Johnson would not object to the curtailment of a direct labour scheme provided there were some radical defects found in the working of it. The Minister in that case, unless he had this provision, could not take that power. He is only taking power where he deems it necessary. There are two radical defects pointed out by Inspector Quigley in respect of all direct labour schemes, and possibly the Minister may be guided by him. He says that the county councils insist on a large permanent staff, and that huge mileages of bye-roads are attended by men on a day's wage. It is possible that some other scheme may be evolved by which the present system may be bettered, and why should not the Minister have power to change it?
I agree that no one wants the Minister to continue a scheme which is not doing the work it was intended to do, but that is a very different thing to the powers he takes under this section. Deputy Good thinks that we should tell him what was at the back of our minds in this amendment. I must say that the Minister should explain each section fully and should give us some idea of what powers he takes and why he is trying to take these powers. If the Minister would adopt an attitude of that kind the House would be in a better frame of mind.
I think that the proposer of an amendment is the person who should explain it, and I thought I explained my attitude in regard to this. I tried to make myself clear about the matter. At present the rules regulating direct labour schemes are extremely rigid, and I think that the idea of having schemes enforced for three years is a serious handicap to the direct labour system, and is one of the things which would weigh with the county council in deciding whether they would have such a scheme when they realise that it would be enforced for three years without any variation. Very often county councils decide on a contract labour scheme, and when such a scheme is passed by sealed order it often happens that there are two or three roads which they would like to include in it, but they cannot do so once the scheme is adopted. On the whole, it is much better that the county council should have a free hand in dealing with this matter. A great number of schemes were put into operation when there was no legal sanction for them, and there are a great number of illegalities connected with them. I am taking power to validate these schemes now, whereas, as a matter of strict law, many of them should be scrapped. I am leaving this power to the county council. Probably very few schemes will be scrapped, but there is a possibility that they will, and the county council should have that power. The new procedure under the county council order will put direct labour schemes on a far sounder basis, but, along with that, the county council must get power to consider a direct labour system and a contract system at the same time.
Would the Minister say what his attitude is in regard to the present direct labour schemes? Am I to infer that any direct labour scheme now in operation cannot be varied?
Can the wages not be altered from those obtaining at the beginning?
There can be an increase, but no reduction.
They have been reduced by the Minister, backed up by Deputy Good.
That question would depend on the scheme itself.
I think we may understand from that that there will be nothing at all varied, only a reduction in wages.
If the Minister does not intend to interfere with existing direct labour schemes his intentions should be put in the Bill. The county councils have, in some cases where direct labour schemes have been in operation, gone back to contract schemes, and wages have been reduced by ten or fifteen shillings. Is not that variation?
I have no power to vary any schemes enforced for three years.
Mr. HOGAN:
Why does not the Minister say "continue in force until such date as the Minister shall appoint"?
I ask the Minister to detach from his mind anything about sub-sections 2, 3 and 4, and to direct his sole attention for the time being to sub-section 1, which only deals with direct labour schemes which are in operation since the 31st December, 1923. The intention is that such schemes shall continue in force up to a date which the Minister shall appoint. We are seeking to introduce in the amendment further words which mean that the schemes shall continue for the whole period originally intended. The Minister's power to vary certain things is not altered. The only thing that is altered is that the period shall not be less than the original period fixed.
That is all we seek to embody in the section by this amendment. The scheme which is at present in operation shall continue so until it works out the full course that was prepared for it by the surveyors and approved by the Minister. The Minister tells us that it is his intention; at least I understand from the Minister that he does not intend to curtail those schemes. There may be certain variations provided for in the scheme itself. There may be powers within the scheme which the Minister has had and has exercised. We are not touching that by this amendment. We want to intimate to the Minister that he should not have power to cut off these schemes before they are fulfilled. I hope the Dáil will agree to the amendment.
We have had a very long discussion on this, and it has taken some of us, who have, perhaps, thick understandings, a long time to know what was meant by the discussion. The whole thing now hinges on the question of schemes in relation to contracts entered into.
Under the amendment put forward by my respected friends on the Labour Benches, it seems they want to hold hard and fast by any schemes in operation at present involving direct labour. Seeing that December, 1923, is the date in the Bill, it must be prior to that, and if a scheme was in operation from an earlier period the very most it could have to run would be about two years. There does not seem to me to be a tremendous difference of opinion over the whole matter. Under the principle brought in by the amendment the situation arises that the Labour representatives want to take away the Minister's power from interfering with these schemes, whether they are good or bad. The Minister has pointed out that that may react in both ways; in other words, it cannot always be one side, and it may react to the detriment of the interests of the mover of the amendment, just as much as it may operate against the other side. It seems to me we will have to give the Minister reasonable latitude.
In other words, to hell with contracts.
That is what you are compelling him to adopt in order to avoid being held up by your schemes.
There is not a tremendous amount of difference between the two parties. I think in this matter we might trust the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I would not have said that were it not for the expression of goodwill that was uttered. I think, in the circumstances, we ought to give him a freer hand.
Deputy Hewat forgets that Deputy Gorey may be in the position of the Minister in a year's time, and that might cut the whole scheme into two.
What about Deputy Johnson being there?
If you guarantee that, we shall withdraw the amendment.
I believe the new councils you are about to elect must be relieved of any handicaps, such as their predecessors' commitments with respect to certain direct labour schemes. I may be prejudiced, but I feel that some of the unrepresentative councils we have had, both in the past and, perhaps, at the moment, showed in many respects complete disregard of the higher interests of the ratepayers. I know for a fact they have drafted schemes for direct labour which impose very serious burdens on the ratepayers for a period of three years, the greater part of which is unexpired. If your councils are to effect anything, it is necessary that certain powers should be given, notwithstanding the claptrap about the sanctity of engagements. Over and above all, the weal of the common people must take its proper place. I feel that this amendment should be rejected and the principle outlined in the Bill should be retained.
Does the Deputy suggest that there should be no continued responsibility for the new county councils? That is the first time that I have heard that revolutionary doctrine preached in a constitutional assembly.
In other words, every time a new council comes in the Minister must take on himself the right to scrap everything the old council did.
The classification of roads under the present schemes are all wrong; we will have to have a new classification. If Deputies prefer to have the whole section deleted, they can do so, but it will do away with direct labour altogether.
That is a far-fetched view on the part of the Minister.
I am inclined to support this amendment.
Under the section I think the Minister could at any time write down to a county council, tell the council to withdraw their agreements with labour representatives in that county, and abolish the direct labour scheme. Where those schemes are carried out by direct labour, they are found to be much more economic than if they were carried out by contract. There is better work turned out, and the ratepayers get full value for their money. The farmers evidently want to get back the contract system; and they are of opinion that the roads will not cost more.
We do not suggest anything of the sort. We make no suggestion at all on that matter.
It may not be suggested, but it is nevertheless the intention of the Deputy, if he would only speak his mind. I think the direct labour scheme is very satisfactory wherever it is in operation.
Are we discussing direct labour?
We are, under Section 32. If some people had their way on public boards there would be no direct labour and there would be no roads made. They would not subscribe one penny towards the upkeep of a road. That is why I support the amendment, because it is not asking too much from the Minister, nor is it taking from his powers. We only want to save the labourers where direct labour is in operation, and prevent the Minister, at a moment's notice, withdrawing it. I hope the Labour Party will put this to a division and that every Deputy will vote in favour of the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 36.
Tá
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Padraig F. Baxter.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Proinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Máighreád Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Connor Hogan.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niócaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh O Guaire. Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That Section 32 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed—"That Section 33 stand part of the Bill."
This section is to give more direct power to police authorities for prosecuting in cases of motorists using their cars without licences. At present a person cannot be prosecuted for using a motor car without a licence except a special resolution of the county council has been passed. In practice the police usually provide the evidence, and in the ordinary course the prosecutions should go ahead without any difficulty. But to obtain the resolution of the county council is slow, and involved in all kinds of difficulties and, as a matter of fact, often-times it is impossible to get prosecution under the circumstances. The section also provides in cases where the police prosecute that the county council will not have power to mitigate the sentence of the court. At present a number of these sentences are rendered useless as deterrents to people using cars without licences, because the local authority has power to reduce the fine inflicted by the court to a nominal sum. In some cases they have been reduced from £20 to 5/-, and it is considered that it is only proper that any discretion in this matter should rest with the court, and not with the county council.
I want to repeat on this my dissent from the general practice of even allowing the court to mitigate a penalty which it has inflicted. It is very much better that the court should do it than that the county council should have power to do it, but I think that the obligation should be to put the onus of fixing a definite penalty upon the court, without any reference to mitigation afterwards.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, shall be construed and have effect as if the word "new" were omitted therefrom.
The object of this section is to give the Minister power, where necessary, to construct or to maintain a road. In order to give Deputies a clear idea of the working of the section it will be necessary to quote sections of preceding Acts. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Roads Act, 1920, lays down how the road fund is to be applied. The sub-section is as follows:
"There shall be paid out of the road fund in every year ... and subject to the payment of the sums aforesaid and of any sums to be repaid to a local or police authority out of the road fund under any other provision of this Act, the moneys standing to the credit of the road fund shall be applied by the Minister to the purposes of Part II. of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as amended by this Act."
Then Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, lays down the purposes for which advances may be made. The following are the purposes:
"(1) The Minister shall have power, with the approval of the Minister for Finance—
(a) To make to any highway authority advances in respect of the construction of new roads or the maintenance or improvement of existing roads, or to make such advances in conjunction with a highway authority to any company or persons.
(b) to construct and maintain any new road.
The object to be achieved by this section, accordingly, is that by deleting the word "new" it gives me power to maintain and construct any road. It is a very considerable change in the law. As I mentioned when we were debating the nationalisation of roads, it practically gives power to limit the expenditure on nationalisation of roads. Accordingly, I do not think there would be any objection on the part of Deputies, seeing that there was a feeling in favour of going farther in the direction of nationalisation of roads.
Question—"That the section stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
In this part of this Act,
the expression "local body" means and includes every local authority except a committee of management of a district lunatic asylum;
the expression "pensionable officer" means any permanent officer who either—
(a) devotes the whole of his time to the service of one or more local authorities, or
(b) is required by virtue of his office to be a registered medical practitioner, nurse, or midwife,
and the said expression also includes any person who has served as an officer of one or more committees or joint committees appointed for the purposes of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, for a continuous period of not less than ten years and the terms of whose appointment do not expressly preclude him from claiming or receiving a pension, and the expression "pensionable office" shall be construed accordingly;
the expression "emoluments" includes all fees, poundage, and other payments made to an officer as such for his own use, and also the money value of any apartments, rations or other allowances in kind appertaining to his office;
the expression "yearly salary and emoluments" means in relation to an officer who has served for not less than three years, the average amount of his salary and emoluments during the three years ending on the quarter day which immediately precedes the day on which he ceases to hold his office, and in relation to an officer who has served for less than three years, the average amount of his salary and emoluments during each completed year of his service.
I move:
"To insert in line 23, after the word ‘means' the words ‘a school attendance committee.'"
The object of the amendment is to allow whole-time school attendance officials to have the same rights as regards superannuation as are extended to other officials under local committees. These men devote their whole time to this class of work, and I think the amendment should be accepted. If they were in any of the other services under local bodies they would enjoy the privileges asked for.
These officers are not officers of local authorities under the meaning of the Act, and this amendment would not bring them under it. Even if it did, I could not, in the present state of the rates, and in view of the fact that the ratepayers are so severely handicapped, undertake to add to their burdens. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment. Another point is that most of those officers are old people, and a great many of them would go out on pension if they came under the Act. If there is any intention at a later date of bringing them under the Act it will be necessary to see that only young people should be employed in the position. I think that might be a hardship rather than a help to some of the people concerned.
The mover of the amendment represents a portion of the Saorstát to which this Bill will not apply. I take it that the school attendance officers in the City of Dublin will not be affected by the Bill at all.
I understand the Minister nods his assent to Deputy Wilson's assumption that school attendance officers in Dublin will not be affected by the Bill.
Dublin is in no different position in regard to this section than any other part of the country.
I want to correct the mistake of the Minister when he said that these school attendance officers are old people. I am acquainted with the majority of them, and none of them would be over 50 years of age. In some cases, they have 25 years' experience as school attendance officers, and they are doing most useful work which lasts from 10 o'clock in the morning until 5 in the evening. They have to visit the schools, and keep a note of the attendances and absences, and they have to visit the homes of the people, and go to the courts and prosecute. They are full-time officers. There are only about 30 in the City of Dublin and in Cork. If the case were put properly to the Minister, I am sure he would give consideration to this body of men. I do not see why these only should be penalised. If they are not allowed, I will not say this concession, but their rights, it will mean that they will remain on until they are tottering into the grave. They are a most deserving body of people, and worthy of every consideration.
I think there is a principle involved in this which the Minister should recognise right away, and that is that the officers are employed and paid as whole-time officers. In the city of Dublin, I understand, there are 22 such attendance officers who are recognised and paid as full-time officers, and who are actually in receipt of a Civil Service bonus. I contend that if they are in receipt of a Civil Service bonus they are to all intents and purposes Civil Servants, and as such should be entitled to the conditions in the amendment. Further, there is the important fact that they do not receive unemployment insurance benefit. If unemployed to-morrow they would receive nothing after their long period of service. The main consideration is that they are actually full-time officers, and it would be a good thing for the State if there were many more full-time officers employed in this work. I think the Minister should recognise the justice of the case put forward on behalf of these men.
I am afraid there is a misunderstanding with regard to the school attendance staff. There are what you call whole-time officers who are inspectors, but there are other officers in connection with school attendance who are not whole-time officers. In Dublin, and elsewhere in the Saorstát, there are a number of what are called part-time officers. In connection with school attendance, in the local authority of which I happen to be a member, the clerk is a school attendance officer. He is paid a small salary for discharging the duties in connection with that office. Nobody can allege that is a whole-time office. I am only taking that as an illustration. As I said, you have the inspectors who are whole-time officers. Apart from that, it is not a matter that should come under this Bill at all. School attendance is a matter that ought to, and I hope does, come under the Minister for Education. We are dealing with the Department for Local Government and surely it is not the intention that the person who is within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Education should have his pension fixed by the Minister for Local Government, rather than by the Department of Education. With all respect I am afraid that the thinking in connection with this matter is not very clear.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Good about whole-time officers, that is fully covered by the section already. No one will get the pension unless he devotes his whole time to the service of a local authority. At any rate, the claim is not made on behalf of anybody but whole-time officers. The number of such officers, as has been pointed out, is small; not more than 30 or 40 in the whole country would be affected. Deputy Good makes a point that this is a matter that should not come under this Bill, but should rather be dealt with by the Minister for Education. The question is, are they or are they not under the Minister for Education or the local committees? I hold the school attendance officers are under the local committees, and are officers of these bodies and not of the Minister for Education. The Minister for Education has no control over these.
The Minister for Education appoints a moiety of the school attendance committee.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
He does not exercise control over these officers.
The school attendance committee appoints these officers, and the old Ministry appointed a moiety of the committee. I take it these duties are now discharged by the Minister for Education.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
The question is, is the school attendance committee a local authority? That was the point sought to be made clear by Deputy Doyle's amendment, and I think there can be no doubt on the merits of the claim put forward on behalf of these officers who, as has been pointed out by Deputy Mrs. Collins O'Driscoll, have given a period of service of from 15 to 25 years. In my opinion the claim is a strong one, and I can see no justifiable reason why the Minister should refuse the inclusion of these officers in this Bill.
I wish to call attention to the arguments used by Deputies about the sanctity of contracts. The appointment of these officers was a contract between a particular individual and the nation. There were no pensionable rights, and both parties knew what they were doing when the appointments were being made. Now it is sought to go behind that contract made between the individual and the citizen on behalf of the people. Sanctity of contract is all right in one particular direction, but not all right except in that direction. That is what I understand from some of the arguments used. I am not dealing with the question of the rights or wrongs of the case, but the nation has as much right to insist on the sanctity of contracts as those who speak on behalf of organised bodies.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
I would like to say in connection with Deputy Gorey's remarks, that if his theory were to be logically carried out every tenant farmer would be under the heel of the landlord. It would be a question of "To hell with contracts" if any tenant farmer claimed to have any rights.
Then let us hear no more about the sanctity of contracts.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
You do not understand what contracts are, if you talk about that as a contract.
I am much impressed by Deputy Mrs. Collins O'Driscoll's statement and the arguments of other Deputies, but I am in an exceedingly difficult position at the present stage in trying to codify the superannuation law. Amendments have been put down to give pensionable rights to all kinds of officers, and the only ground I can take in getting this Bill through is to see that intolerable burdens are not put on the backs of ratepayers. There is a good deal in what Deputy Gorey said about people accepting positions with their eyes open. They knew at the time they were not to be pensionable officers, and they have no right, at a time when the ratepayers are harder hit than ever before, to have this additional charge put on their shoulders. We are fortunate in this country in being able to carry on at all with our high rates. I was talking some time ago to a distinguished representative of the United States, who told me that in one of the richest States they had to close down the schools altogether. Of course, out there the schools are under local authorities, and owing to want of funds as a result of the terrible agricultural depression, schools had to be closed. That is in one of the richest countries in the world. If a country of that kind finds it so hard to carry on as a result of financial conditions, I would like the Deputies to consider our position in this country, which is not so rich. If we were to burden the rates to such an extent that the people would not be able to bear it they would refuse to pay, and accordingly, on principle, I must resist this amendment.
I would like to know where the principle arises. This part of the Bill empowers a local authority, with the consent of the Minister, to grant a pensionable officer, on certain conditions, a certain annual allowance.
A pensionable officer is a permanent officer who either devotes the whole of his time to one or more local authority, or is a registered medical practitioner, a nurse, or a midwife. In this case, you have officers of a local authority, though I do not know at the moment whether they are permanent officers or not. However, that is not involved in the acceptance or rejection of this amendment. The amendment is a little awkward in its phraseology, but it endeavours to secure that amongst the local bodies dealt with in this part of the Act, there shall be considered school attendance committees. It may be that school attendance committees, even without the insertion of this amendment, would be considered local bodies. But the amendment makes sure that they shall be, though they probably are at present. If these school attendance officers are not permanent officers within the meaning of the section—if they are not whole-time officers, and if they have not served a certain period and attained a certain age, or become incapable of discharging their duties by virtue of infirmity— they are not going to be pensioned. If it is true, as is said—I have no reason to entertain any doubt about it—that it involves probably fifty or sixty people in the whole of the Saorstát——
If it involves even less than the number I have mentioned as is now suggested, and if many of those officers will not be entitled to pensions for a long time, the cost of the amendment is going to be very, very small indeed.
The question of the age of these people, and whether they are permanent employees of particular bodies, has been raised by the Minister and by other speakers. I understand that in the City of Dublin there are twenty-two of these officers, who are engaged from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on every week-day, except Saturday, when they are engaged up to 1 p.m. I think no Deputy, with the possible exception of Deputy Gorey, would dispute that men working these hours are whole-time employees. I know that in the case of a person relieved from paying unemployment insurance, the general understanding is that the employers agree to pay full salary to the employed person for a certain period in case of sickness, or that they make some provision for him after a certain number of years' service. One can understand how Deputy Gorey has objection to giving anything like reasonable or humane treatment to anybody engaged in the work of education. We have had some outbursts from the Deputy before——
When I spoke on this question, I did not deal with this point at all. I dealt merely with the question of contract. I did not enter into the merits.
As regards the question of service of the twenty-two school attendance officers I have mentioned, eleven have twenty-three years' service, and the remainder have from seven years to nineteen years' service. The latter would not, in the ordinary course, be pensionable on this service. These people are engaged in a useful class of work, and it would be well if that class of work could be extended in the Saorstát. In the city, these men are actually called upon to conduct prosecutions without legal assistance. There is no question that they are full-time employees. It may be said that they entered into a contract, but it is well known that, where there is no pension scheme, that is taken into consideration by a public body when fixing the salary. The Minister will merely be doing justice in accepting the amendment that Deputy Doyle has moved.
I was glad to hear a statement of policy on the question of pensions and superannuation allowances from the Minister. If Deputy Davin and Deputy Johnson had their way, I am afraid this country would consist of only two classes of persons— pensioners and poor farmers.
And people drawing home help, if you had your way.
May I remind Deputies of what the position of the taxpayer is. I leave out the ratepayer for the moment, because the Minister has not told us exactly what the pension liability of the ratepayer is. It must be a considerable sum. But what amount have we got to pay for pensions as taxpayers? There is no doubt at all about the figures. We have them in the Budget.
Are not the figures outside the amendment, if they concern only the taxpayer?
I am dealing only with the statement of policy made by the Minister. He said that he was unwilling to add to the burdens of the ratepayer. I only wanted to draw the attention of the Dáil to the seriousness of those burdens. Whether we pay out of the right-hand pocket as ratepayers, or out of the left-hand pocket as taxpayers, makes little difference; we have got to pay. It was with the object of emphasising the nature of these burdens that I desired to remind the Dáil of those figures. We are called upon by the Minister for Finance to pay the sum of £4,000,000——
If we get into a discussion of the burdens placed upon the taxpayer by the Minister for Finance, how far will we get from school attendance committees? I do not desire to interrupt the Deputy, but the question of general financial burdens is a very large one. We are in Committee on a Bill to which it is desired to make an amendment which, it is urged, by adding a certain number of persons, will increase the burden of the ratepayers—not the taxpayers. It would lead us very far if other Deputies followed Deputy Good on the same lines.
I do not question your decision at all, A Chinn Comhairle, but we are starting to deal with Part IV. of a very important Bill. This is the first amendment to the first clause of that part of the Bill. Part IV. deals with superannuation, etc., and in connection with it, there is a series of amendments down. I want the Deputies to know the position before we consider these proposals, which will add further enormous burdens to the ratepayers. I think the opening of such a section is the time to explain the position——
I hope the Deputy will tell us where the burden comes in under this amendment.
The amendment imposes a burden on the ratepayers which does not exist now. If it existed there would be no necessity for the amendment. It is because these officers are not pensionable now that the amendment is proposed. It proposes to make these officers pensionable, thereby placing a new burden on the ratepayers. I bow to your decision, A Chinn Comhairle, with regard to the other point, and I will not pursue it.
I would like to point out that this is a permissive amendment, having as its object the bringing within the purview of "local bodies" of school attendance committees. The fact that it is going to make it possible for a local authority to pay a pension to an officer who is called upon to resign, or whose office is abolished, would deter the local authority from abolishing that office. Conceivably the new Commissioners might abolish the office of school attendance officer. The very fact that, if that were done, there might be a call for a pension, would deter the commissioners from taking that action, and would conserve a really necessary service to education. I deny that acceptance of this amendment will entail a burden upon the ratepayers. Possibly it may; possibly it may not. It by no means provides that there shall be a burden placed upon the ratepayers.
My intervention in this debate has been treated by Deputy Davin in the manner peculiar to Deputy Davin. I want to draw the attention of the Dáil to the tendency among certain Deputies and certain elements of the community to urge that if a person is in receipt of public money he is entitled to superannuation, irrespective of his office or of the terms of his contract. What virtue is there in the person employed in a public capacity, as distinguished from the ordinary citizen? If this principle is good with regard to every public servant, irrespective of the conditions of his employment, it is equally good so far as the ploughman, the farmer and everybody else is concerned. Until we are prepared to accept such a position, I will oppose pensions to all persons whose contracts did not specifically state that they were to receive pensions. I do that on principle and for no other reason. If an office carries with it a pension, the applicant knows it. If it does not, he knows it likewise, and there is no injustice done. If we are going to adopt any other attitude, I will certainly oppose it.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 16; Níl, 42.
Tá
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- David Hall.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conáill. Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Laidhín
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P.O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Proinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Wiliam Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Pádraig MacFadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhair O Conghaile.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Eamon S.O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh S.O Guaire.
- Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
- Aindriu O Laimhin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Seán M. O Suilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:
"After the word ‘authorities' in line 29, to insert the following words ‘and to have no other occupation or source of earned income."'
The object of this amendment is to try and make clear what is not at all clear at the moment. The expression "pensionable officer" means any permanent officer who devotes the whole of his time to the service of one or more local authorities. The phrase "devotes the whole of his time" is somewhat ambiguous. A whole-time officer in a technical school is one, I understand, who devotes 21 hours per week for practically eight months of the year to his occupation. If the officer devotes that amount of time to his work he comes within the expression "whole-time officer." The Minister for Education will correct me if I am wrong. What does that mean? These technical schools in many cases are only open at night. At least many of the classes are open then. A teacher can easily get in the 21 hours required per week and follow any other occupation he likes in the day-time. I know of a case, I do not suppose it is exceptional, where those teachers carry on in the day-time—some of them in lucrative occupations—and they devote their evening hours, 21 hours per week, to teaching at the technical schools. If this clause is to be passed in its present form they become pensionable officers entitled to large pensions at the end of 10 years or more. I think the House will agree that this is not exactly fair, and to endeavour to meet that difficulty I propose this amendment. I put the word "earned" before income to make a distinction between what you might call private means and earned income, because I think the distinction is necessary.
I think that the case which was used by Deputy Good to illustrate his argument is not a very good one, if I know anything about the facts. I think he has in his mind a class of officers largely engaged in technical instruction in Dublin and the adjoining townships who are not whole-time officers in the proper sense of the word but who are part-time officers and who do not come within the section at all. Regularly appointed technical instructors appointed by the Department are people who have to devote their whole time to the service of the Department and who are not allowed to engage in any other occupations.
Therefore you are in favour of the amendment?
Mr. O'CONNELL:
No, because it does more than what Deputy Good seeks to do. A man may, for instance, put in a reasonable day's work—reasonable even in Deputy Good's opinion —and may devote some time in the evening to writing newspaper articles, but if it was found out that he did that, and was remunerated for it, he would be shut out by the amendment from receiving a pension. A man might, for instance, grow roses in his summer afternoons, and might sell them, and from that source he might get a certain income, but the fact that he did that would debar him from a pension if the amendment were accepted. I think the words, "devotes the whole of his services to the local authority" covers the position very well. There should be no doubt about what is a whole-time officer.
I agree with Deputy O'Connell on this point. I do not think that there is any difficulty, when a practical case is put up, of deciding whether a person is a whole-time officer or not. If he is not devoting sufficient time to the performance of his duties, the authority employing him can call on him to give up any occupation or hobby which may be interfering with his work. If I laid down a hard and fast rule it would rule out all sorts of people who have hobbies apart from their occupation with the local authority. A man may grow roses or write newspaper articles, as Deputy O'Connell suggests, or he may be the secretary of a golf or tennis club, and get some remuneration for it. A man may paint pictures; for instance, one of the most distinguished of our Irish artists, Chinnery, was also a civil servant, and founded a school of art of his own. There are thousands of cases of men who engaged in hobbies during their leisure hours, and who spend their time much more profitably in that way than they would, for instance, in public-houses, and I do not think that it would be fair to interfere with this ordinary discretion. Of course we might have a case of a man also being, for instance, an auctioneer, but there is no doubt that he is not a whole-time officer, and no local authority would attempt to have him placed in the category of a whole-time officer.
Would the Minister consider a way in which "whole-time officers" could be defined? If my argument with regard to technical school teachers teaching for twenty-one hours and being regarded as whole-time officers is right, some further definition is necessary.
I do not think that they are entitled to be considered as whole-time officers.
I have been informed that they are by those in authority.
It would not give them pensionable rights.
What is the position, say, of a borough surveyor, who may be looked on as a whole-time officer, but who is permitted by the corporation or borough council to do private work? Would he be a pensionable officer?
I do not think that I could very well express an opinion on a specific case of that kind, because cases of that kind are coming up every day before me to adjudicate upon, and I might be prejudicing such a case.
Does not that show the necessity for Deputy Good's amendment?
Is it not clear that it is not desirable that cases should come up in the way which the Minister mentioned for his decision without any guide? Surely there must be a rule saying that a man, such as in the case mentioned by Deputy Corish, is or is not a part-time officer. It may be interpreted that he is a whole-time officer because he has a fixed appointment with duties attached to that office, but if he is permitted to do outside work apart from that occupation he is not dependent on that salary for his livelihood.
I think it would be a dangerous precedent for the Minister to make any statement here which might involve the loss of pension to certain public officials owing to the fact that they do work outside that for which they have been definitely appointed. I know of cases where urban councils in small and poor towns are unable to keep a whole-time borough surveyor, and a salary in one instance of only £40 a year is given with the post of borough surveyor. They were unable to get a surveyor to do these duties, and they appealed to the county council to allow the local assistant surveyor to act as borough surveyor. The county council had no objection, and they appealed to the Local Government Department for sanction to allow the surveyor to act in that town and sanction was granted under the circumstances. I do not think that it would be fair, because that man had been allowed to do that work by the county council with the sanction of the Ministry, that his pension should be interfered with.
It is a very difficult matter to try and lay down any fixed formula, but if the Deputies could give me a definition upon which I could go I would consider the matter. I think Deputy Good must realise that his own remedy for this situation is rather too wide and would result in very severe hardships. At present discretion is left more or less with the local authority, and if they decide that an officer is giving adequate service, that at any time they require his services he is there, and that he gives these services efficiently, that would count very much with us and, in fact, as a general rule we would not oppose it. There is no hard and fast rule at present and it is very hard to get one. If we did lay down a rule here, a court of law might put a different interpretation upon it.
I think that it might be difficult to get a good definition of "whole-time officer," but I think that Deputy Good's amendment raises the question as to whether the Government intend to give such definition. It would not lead to any great hardship if this proposal put forward here were adopted. As regards the expression "devote the whole of his time," I do not suppose that any court of law would interpret that to mean twenty-four hours a day, but it might be so taken. Supposing we put the weakest interpretation upon it, and say that it means the whole of his working time, would not that exclude from a pension an officer who undertook outside work?
I think it is quite a common thing in such appointments to lay it down that a man is not at liberty to take on other work without permission in writing.
I do not think that Deputy Thrift is anxious to rule out people in the position mentioned by Deputy O'Connell, men who in their leisure hours may be inclined to write a novel or short story, or paint pictures or grow roses, and if we were to accept this definition that would be the result. This definition is taken out of the ordinary enactments and has been the subject of legal interpretation. I expect that the judges put a different interpretation on the words in different sets of circumstances. I think it would be very difficult to give a definition which would be sufficiently wide and yet sufficiently narrow to cover all cases coming up.
The Minister is right in thinking that I do not wish to rule out such people as those mentioned, but my intention was to point out that the clause might rule them out in cases where it was intended that they should not be ruled out. Perhaps the Minister would undertake to try and get a satisfactory definition.
I think there is something to be said for Deputy Good's point of view, but I do not think that his amendment is satisfactory. There are, for instance, such cases as public officials working for local authorities who work also for the Government and who are, for example, in the position of paid gate-keepers at G.A.A. sports and people protest against this because they are whole-time officers. I dare say that Deputy Good is standing up for those people who protest against gate-keepers at Croke Park already paid salaries out of Government funds, but, whether that is so or not, there is something to be said in favour of making a pensionable officer one who is devoting his working time to the public service and who should not undertake any other regular occupation for pay.
I do not think the amendment that Deputy Good puts down is going to secure that without securing a great deal more beyond what he pleads for. I think some other form, which would include regular occupation for pay, might cover the intention of the Deputy and the intentions of others.
I quite recognised, when I tried to frame words to meet the difficulty in the first instance, that it would require wiser heads than mine; but I would be satisfied if the Minister undertakes to look into the question between this and the Report Stage and see what can be done. I am satisfied, and I think the Dáil would be satisfied, that we should in some way define the word "whole-time." It is a most ambiguous term at the moment.
I do not like giving any undertaking that I feel in advance will not bear fruit. We have had this question of whole-time coming before us practically every day in administrative matters, and it is continually cropping up in the course of our business. The judges put their own legal interpretation on the word; there are legal precedents to cover all kinds of cases, and I am afraid we could not hit upon any definition that would exactly fit this situation. However, we will give the matter consideration in the meantime, and if any happy inspiration strikes us we may be able to bring something forward here; but I am not optimistic.
Perhaps the Minister might raise no objection if some other member of the House brings forward a happy inspiration?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On behalf of Deputy Daly I intend to move the next amendment.
I suggest we should take from amendment 45 to amendment 48 together, as they all deal with practically similar matters and we will be repeating the same arguments.
Before we go into that matter there is a duplication in amendments 45 and 47; they both contain references to "compounder of medicine."
There is a whole string of amendments covering almost the same ground.
I cannot accept some of those amendments unless they are in a very modified form.
Deputy Gorey's purpose is admirable, but it could not be accomplished. If you take a division, on what particular matter will the division be taken? Amendment 45 is very compendious; it includes compounders of medicine, dentists, engineers, lawyers.
And rate collectors, rent collectors, veterinary surgeons, surveyors and nurses are included in the other amendments.
It would be better to take them separately and endeavour to ask Deputies not to repeat their arguments.
The same arguments would apply to all.
But the decision would be different.
I have Deputy Heffernan's permission to withdraw his amendment.
We will have to take amendment 45. I see no other remedy for it.
In the event of amendment 45 being defeated, how does amendment 47 stand?
I think amendment 47 is in order; amendment 45 suggests a greater demand on the Minister than amendment 47. If No. 45 were defeated, No. 47 would be in order. Of course, if there were agreement on No. 47, it would be better to get it out of the way.
I do not know if Deputy Doyle is prepared to stand up for Deputy Daly's amendment. If he is, I will give way to him. As it is, I find myself differing from rather than supporting all the suggestions made by Deputy Daly. A compounder of medicine ought to be dealt with separately, because it is a most important office to my mind. I am sorry I do not know what an engineer means. A Deputy told me a minute ago that an engineer inspects houses. Some people who put up electrical wires around a house call themselves engineers. I know very little about rate collectors, rent collectors, and assistant surveyors. I know a little about dentists, and I ask the Dáil not to include that class of gentleman under this heading. There are two important dental associations in Ireland—the Incorporated Dental Society and the Irish Dental Association—and neither of them knows a single thing about this matter being put down here. Possibly Deputies have thought there might have been some canvassing, and that those associations were responsible for having dentists included. I may mention that the associations know nothing whatever about it. I could not do anything to encourage people to be non-industrious. I can foresee a lot of young men, if this were adopted, getting qualified, and getting £200 or £300 a year as Government dentists. All their industry would go to the wind; the golf clubs would get more members, and pensions would be staring those young men in the face. If the Dáil desires to include dentists, that may be done, but I will vote against it. If a dentist is any good he will be able to make provision for his own pension, and he will not be looking forward to a pension such as is suggested after several years of service.
Is the Deputy proposing this amendment:
To add after the word "midwife" in line 31, page 19, the words "compounder of medicine, dentist, engineer, or who is a rate collector, or rent collector, assistant county surveyor, or veterinary surgeon."— (John Daly.)
I propose it with the object of being allowed to speak on it.
I suggest that we should pass on to the next amendment.
I am prepared to move an amendment on the Report Stage allowing compounders of medicine who were in dispensary districts or poor law institutions at the time of the passing of the Act, to have pensions. But I will not allow any further extensions to that right. With regard to miscellaneous people catered for in the amendment, I think whoever put forward the amendment originally was not nearly so modest as the proposer now. I do not think under any circumstances that we can include them under this section. If we accept all these amendments we might as well open the door straight away and say that every member of a local authority shall be a pensionable officer. I cannot accept the amendment.
If a compounder of medicine is a whole-time officer, does he come within the section? Are there such things as compounders of medicine who give their whole time to the job, or does the Minister mean it should be governed by the condition that he will have a regular, permanent whole-time job?
It came under the heading of Medical Officer, and on these grounds it was a pensionable office before. In future I do not intend to have the compounder included as a pensionable officer. The only officer having that right is the medical officer.
I understood the Minister to say that compounders of medicine will be recognised as pensionable, but no further officers will be included. I think that is very fair, and, with permission, I will withdraw what I proposed in the name of Deputy Daly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
In line 31 to insert after the word "midwife" the words "or matrons, nurses and attendants in county infirmaries."
This amendment was put down for the purpose of making sure that this class will be looked after. Up to the present matrons, nurses, and attendants in county infirmaries have been entitled to superannuation. Under an old Act, 28 or 30 years out of date, those people were entitled to superannuation. Any persons who occupied those positions in the county infirmaries during the last 27 years are not entitled to superannuation. Matrons, nurses and attendants have just as much responsibility as similar officials in county hospitals. It would be well if the Minister includes them. Under Section 48 the Minister may say that these are included, and there is something said about such persons in that section, but I want to make sure that they are referred to in Section 35, where all the other pensionable officers are mentioned. I am sure the Minister will not find any difficulty in acceding to the terms of the amendment. Every Deputy will realise that a person with 20 or 30 years service in a county infirmary is entitled to consideration. If, under the new system, the county hospital is sufficient to cater for all patients and the infirmary is not required, it would be unfair to dismiss the officials without compensating them for the number of years they have served. As far as the question of running chances of getting diseases and complaints, they run the same chance as any other person under the Board of Health. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair at this stage.
Committees of county infirmaries are not local authorities within the meaning of this Bill, and accordingly such officers are not pensionable under this section. I think there are only seven such county infirmaries in existence at the moment, and provision is made in Section 48 for the taking over of these officers, so that actually the Deputy's amendment does not achieve anything, and accordingly I do not think that he should insist on it.
May I take it from the Minister that what is mentioned in this amendment is included in Section 48? I presume I would be out of order to speak on Section 48, but this is the only opportunity I get, and I would be quite satisfied if the Minister tells me that these people will be entitled to superannuation if they are compelled to leave their occupation against their will.
If the Deputy will read Section 48 it might simplify matters considerably. If their officers are abolished they can get pensions under that section.
I am satisfied. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I desire to move amendment No. 47——
It is to be brought up on report.
Amendment 47 not moved.
I would like to ask the Minister what is the definition of a compounder of medicine.
A man who compounds medicine.
I am not an encyclopedia and I could not define that.
Amendment 48 not moved.
I move to delete lines 32 to 39 inclusive. This is rather an extraordinary clause, and I will read it:—
"and the said expression also includes any person who has served as an officer of one or more committees or joint committees appointed for the purposes of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, for a continuous period of not less than ten years and the terms of whose appointment do not expressly preclude him from claiming or receiving a pension, and the expression ‘pensionable office' shall be construed accordingly."
This is an attempt to bring in as a pensionable officer an officer who was not pensionable at the time of his appointment, and that is only one of the features in connection with this proposal. Pensions under this Bill are to be approved by the Minister for Local Government. All teachers in connection with technical education are appointed by the Minister for Education, the terms of their appointment are made by the Minister for Education, their salaries are fixed by the Minister for Education, and they carry on their work with the approval of the Minister for Education. But when it comes to the question of pensioning, under this proposal they leave the jurisdiction of the Minister for Education and come under the Minister for Local Government.
I think that is a very extraordinary proposal; it is about the only proposal of that character that I know of in the Bill. The reason, I take it, that this is put forward is that these officials want to have their appointments looked upon as appointments of the local authority. As a matter of fact, these officials are not appointed by the local authority at all; they are appointed by a board on which the local authority has representation only. The minutes of that board do not go before the local authority; that board is in no way subject to the local authority, and the appointment is made without the sanction of the local authority. Yet when it comes to the question of pensioning, it is attempted to bring in these officials who are not appointed by the local authority.
It may be argued on behalf of these officials that their salaries, if not paid by the local authorities, are contributed to by them. Well, the local authority under the Technical Instruction Act, contributes a penny, and in some cases twopence, for purposes of technical instruction. That is all the local authority has to do with technical instruction. That money is administered by a joint committee. I suppose that penny, or twopence, would possibly form ten per cent. of the expense of carrying on technical education in a particular area, so that if you were to take it on that argument the local authority would not contribute even ten per cent. of the salaries of these particular officials. Yet it is sought to make the local authorities responsible for the pensions of those particular teachers.
I was greatly struck by what the Minister said a moment ago regarding some of the States in America, that they actually found that the pensioning of a number of these officials amounted to such a sum that they had to abandon the work of education. If these officials are to become pensioners, the present sources of income will not be sufficient to pay the pensions, not to talk of doing any educational work at all, so that the illustration that the Minister gives is a very apt one. Furthermore, if it should be decided that these officials should be pensionable officers I do not see why the technical teacher should be put on any different footing from the ordinary national school teacher. There should be no distinction. Why should a technical teacher be brought in under local government for the purpose of a pension, and another teacher who has, possibly, longer and better service, be brought in under another scheme altogether? I think that no matter from what point of view you take this proposal it is an exceedingly unwise one.
I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment. When these committees were appointed at the commencement by the British Government, there were no pensions in connection with them; they were, more or less, committees of the county council. They appointed a certain number of members, and the Government of the day appointed a certain number to complete the committee. The money in the same way was raised partly by the county council and partly by a grant from the Government, but there were no pensions for a considerable time. But that was altered. The British Government, in the year 1919, I think— I am not quite certain of the date— brought them under the Pensions Act, and they have every right to have pensions. I was chairman of one committee, and vice-chairman of another, and I knew intimately up to four years ago, as far as my own county was concerned, the way they worked. There are no officers, in my opinion, who deserve better of the country than these people, who are striving to make the youth of the country take up, after they have left school and in their free hours, work that would be useful to them all through their lives. In most cases, these men give their whole time to the work. It is only right and just that they should not be left out, and I am very glad to see that the Minister proposes to confirm what the British Government did a few years ago. The officers themselves are not quite easy in their minds about their position. They are pensionable officers, but they are not satisfied. Perhaps the Minister will say whether they are wrong or right, that they ought to come under the gratuity provision in the case of those who served less than ten years, and if they are entitled to that allowance that they, being also brought under the Pensions Act, should get the same chance as any others. I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment because I think it will be generally agreed that those officers have done good service. In most cases they are extremely high-class, well educated and efficient men and women, and I hope that their case will be most wholeheartedly considered, and that nothing will be done to take away from them what they have every right to, to be considered as pensionable officers in every sense of the word.
Deputy Good wants to make it appear that the local authority has no control over affairs administered say by the county committee of agriculture. His statement is not in accordance with the fact, for any business transacted by the county committee of agriculture, as far as I know from my experience, is filed, put into book form, and submitted to the local authority once every three months, the same as the reports of any other committee.
With regard to that statement, I think the Deputy will agree that only such expenditure as is approved by the Department of Technical Instruction could be incurred. Whether the local authority approves or disapproves is a matter of no importance.
I think no Deputy has spoken oftener or more strongly in favour of technical instruction than Deputy Good. But it apears that when it comes to paying for that in the way it ought to be paid for, it is another question so far as Deputy Good is concerned. He made great play with the point that the body that appoints the instructors is not the local authority. As a matter of fact, this body is appointed by the local authority, so that there is not much in that point. The technical instructors are officers of this committee and appointed by it. True, they must have the qualifications laid down by the Department. They must be sanctioned by the Department, but they are selected, appointed and paid by the local authority. This agricultural and technical committee, or joint committee, or whatever it may be, is a sub-committee in the same position as a sub-committee of the local authority.
The appointments are approved by the Department and not by the local authority.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
That, I think, holds good of every local officer. The appointment of a clerk to a council must be approved by the Local Government Department. The point has been made, and it is a very important one, that these officers have pensions rights under the 1919 Act. If Deputy Good were to have his way, the rights these people already have would be taken from them.
This section is intended to give pensions to technical officers, but in respect of their salaries I believe that a considerable portion comes from the Department of Agriculture, and the proposition here is that the local authority is to give pensions to men who are really paid by the Department of Agriculture. I am not objecting to them getting pensions, but certainly it is not in the interests of the ratepayers that men who are not being paid by the local authority should be pensioned at the expense of that authority.
I would draw attention to the fact that there will soon be more pensioners than ratepayers to pay them.
I think the amendment is asking for too much. If this part of the section is deleted it would prevent technical officers appointed a number of years ago, and whose appointments have been sanctioned by the Department, from receiving any superannuation. As to the question of the local authorities paying the technical instructors, I think that does not arise, as the Department pays half the expense in that respect incurred in each county, and I think the Department would also bear half the cost of the superannuation, so that I think the point made by Deputy Wilson fails. Deputy White says we will have too many persons superannuated. I quite agree that there are too many people superannuated, but the unfortunate thing is that owing to different actions by the local authorities and the Government some of those people have been obliged to leave their occupations, and surely they cannot be allowed to starve. They must get something. Their parents went to a great deal of trouble and expense in educating them to qualify for their positions. They may have served their country well in their different occupations for a number of years, and surely Deputy Good does not want to deprive these people of the bread of life? Any person who has acted as a technical instructor for ten years, doing hard work and travelling in all conditions of weather, should be entitled to something if he is compelled to forfeit his position.
I believe Deputy O'Connell's argument is a sound one. If we want a prosperous country we will have to look after technical education, and we must depend on the technical instructors for the technical education of our young men and women. Those people have given valuable services, and if they come to the time when they must resign, be it through ill-health or compulsion, I think they are entitled to some consideration.
I fail to understand why Deputy Good should seek to penalise what I would describe as a very useful body of public servants, who have first to undergo an expensive training, and who afterwards have very arduous duties to discharge. The carrying out of these duties involves travelling long distances in many cases and often under very unfavourable conditions. I am sure that the Dáil will disagree almost unanimously with the Deputy's amendment. We are looking forward to an improvement in agricultural methods, and if we are going to treat unfairly the people on whom we will have to depend to bring about this improvement I do not think that we are very likely to attract the right class of instructors in the different branches of technical education.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
A point was briefly touched upon by Deputy Lyons which I think must meet the main objection raised by Deputy Good with regard to this particular clause, and I think it was touched on by Deputy Wilson also, that is the question as to who will bear the cost of the pensions. If the present system to which Deputy Good referred continues, namely that a very large proportion of the grants, something like three-fourths, are paid from headquarters, it will mean that the proportion of the pension paid locally will be small.
Under this clause it is sought to make the local authority liable for the pensions. It would be right enough if the committee out of its funds had to provide a pension, but here it is sought to put that on the local authority.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
The funds of this technical committee are derived from the local authority.
No, only 1d. in the pound.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
From the local authority plus the central department. The local authority has to find the rate, but this authority has no right to strike the rate or collect the funds. It gets a share of it from the local authority, and the other share from the central authority. If it has to go to the same source for its funds it will put on the local authority the right to grant a pension, but there is nothing in that which shows that the pension cannot be paid from the funds of this sub-committee.
As I understand the proposal in the clause, its intention is to make the local authority liable for these pensions, and not the technical education committee at all. It is sought to make the technical teacher the pensioner of the local authority. If the other proposal were put forward it would be a horse of another colour.
If Deputy Good's intention is to prevent the cost of the pension being placed on the local authorities I am with him.
If that is so, there is no use in discussing the amendment further, for the Deputy does not want to take away the pension rights of technical instruction officers, as far as I can gather.
It does not take away any rights the officers have at the moment. It only prevents them from being made pensioners of the local authority.
There is no use in carrying the discussion further, as there is no intention to take away the pension rights. If the intention is to relieve the local authorities of the cost of the pensions I am with the amendment, because it is a fact that a large portion, certainly more than one-half of the salaries of these officers, is paid by the central department. That being so, it is only right that the central department should bear its due portion of the pensions.
Has the Department the right to shift these officials from one county to another?
I take it that there is no dispute that agricultural instructors are included in the class which is entitled to pension. I suppose that is generally admitted. There was some doubt about it, as the Bill was originally drafted, because when these instructors were first appointed it was not quite certain how long the schemes would continue. The appointments were, therefore, made from year to year by each county committee. The schemes, however, have continued, and obviously will continue for a long time. Notwithstanding that, in a great many counties—in fact, I think, in the majority of counties—agricultural instructors are appointed from year to year. Though they are really permanent officials, their appointments are renewed each year. That is done although they are as permanent as the schemes themselves. The reason for that is contained in the history of the case. When the Act was passed, nobody was quite sure how long these county committees of agriculture and technical instruction would last. It was really an experiment and, for that reason, no permanent appointments were made at the beginning. Now, experience has shown, beyond yea or nay, that these schemes are likely to last in their present form, or in some substitute form, permanently. I may use the word "permanently" for the purpose of this discussion. In some counties, I understand, these instructors are not appointed at all. They just carry on, and the whole position is somewhat unsatisfactory from their point of view, and is especially unsatisfactory from the point of view of the county committee instructor, who is considering whether he has a right to a pension under this Bill. It was for that reason that the next amendment was put down —"to insert in line 36, page 19, after the word ‘years,' the words ‘notwithstanding that such appointment was or is renewable periodically.'"
As I had not the advantage of hearing the beginning of this debate, I am not quite sure whether it was generally agreed that officers of county committees should get pensions, whoever paid them. I take it that that is the attitude of the Farmers' Party. I have heard some Deputies, at all events, say that these are officers who are entitled to pensions if any officers of county committees are entitled to them. I think that is established beyond yea or nay. If once the principle that officials of local authorities are entitled to pensions is admitted, certainly there is no reason on earth against excluding agricultural instructors of county committees. But there are very good reasons for including them. They are doing very good work and they are doing it under very onerous conditions. They go about the country on push-bicycles doing extremely good work, and they are men who have spent two or three years at the College of Science and have very high technical qualifications.
I do not think it would be easy to find men with the same technical qualifications, doing the same work, who are paid so badly and whose conditions of work are so undesirable. It was from that point of view that I had hoped at a later date to get the principle adopted that the proper secretary of a county committee is a promoted instructor. That would open up some avenue for these people. If it is admitted that any class of public official is entitled to a pension, then these officials are. The only question is: who should pay them? Technically, the present position is that they are officers of the county committees. It is true that, speaking roughly, the salary of every one out of two comes from the central authority. But they are officers of the county committees. I think you have to admit that a grant, such as this, given to a county committee and the money paid as salary to one instructor out of two from the central authority, is a grant-in-aid which, by arrangement between the county committee and the central authority, can be spent as the county committee wishes. That is really the historical position. Whatever moneys come from the Department are really grants-in-aid of the work of the county committees to supplement the rates. That being so, it is not really so obvious as it would appear to be that the central authority should take liability for the pension. These officials are officers of the county committee, even though the salary of one out of two, approximately, is paid by the Department. The central authority, which makes the grant—and I say this, having regard to Deputy White's remark—has not a Fortunatus' purse. It does not get the money on the street. It gets the money out of taxation and it gives a certain amount each year to the county committees. That money goes towards schemes and the salary of an instructor, and that arrangement can be altered by agreement between the county committee and the Department. Why, in view of all these circumstances, is it said that it is obviously the right thing that the central authority should bear the pension? When, as a matter of fact, you decide that the officers in question are entitled to a pension, I want to be shown why, having regard to the manner in which the county committees are financed, the central authority should find the pension. It is already finding a grant-in-aid. If this was one of the hundred items of wasteful expenditure in connection with local authorities there would be something to be said for Deputy White's point of view. But it is not. Deputy White himself admits that this pension should be paid, whoever pays it. No irrelevant remarks about there being more pensioners than ratepayers alters the fact that Deputy White is enthusiastically supporting this pension at the moment—
That is very provocative.
Mr. HOGAN:
There is no use in giving the impression that you are generally against pensions and want to keep down rates, when you are at the same time agreeing—and I am perfectly certain the Deputy does agree—that this pension should be paid. He is not taking up the attitude that agricultural instructors should not be pensioned, so that there is really no relevancy in the remark that there will be shortly more pensioners than ratepayers. What Farmer Deputies should ask themselves is: "Does it really make such tremendous difference to them who pays the pension"? Who pays the taxes?
Mr. HOGAN:
Exactly, and "everybody" in a county includes more than farmers.
The farmers pay 80 per cent. of the amount.
They are supposed to pay.
Mr. HOGAN:
We all know just how much the farmers pay. I am not going to make a song about it. While the farmers pay a very big proportion of the rates—I have often given the figure —and the taxes, still, other people pay as well. I doubt very much if the farmer would pay less—this is an agricultural question, and one that interests farmers particularly—by paying for this pension out of taxation than they would by paying out of rates. I think it is probable they would pay just as much of it by way of taxation. There is no use taking up the attitude that if you put the pension on the taxes, farmers will pay none of it. That is not the situation. I would ask Deputies to consider the question from this point of view; this pension should be paid. I am quite clear about that. I would like to hear any Farmer Deputy who would get up and say that it should not be paid, however he may speak about the number of ratepayers being less than the number of pensioners.
The Minister is very provocative.
Mr. HOGAN:
The pension should be paid. The question is whether it should be paid from taxes or from rates. I put it to the Farmer Deputies that it does not make any difference to them, and in view of the history of the case, the more correct way of paying the pension would be from taxation.
Deputy Good's point—the only point of any moment which, I think, has been made—is that these pensions may be charged upon the rates, but that if he were sure they would be charged upon the fund administered by the county committee, he would consider it quite satisfactory. I suggest that there is no provision in the Bill which leads one to think that the ordinary county rate would bear any pension to these people. A "local body" is defined as "every local authority except the committee of management of a district lunatic asylum..." A county committee will surely be regarded as a "local authority." Perhaps here we have a reason why we should include in this earlier definition of "local body" a county committee of agriculture and technical instruction, so as to ensure that a county committee will be regarded as a "local body." If it is so defined, it will be a "local body" which may, with the consent of the Minister, grant a pension to one of these officers under the usual conditions. In that case, the pension would come out of the fund that that committee administers—wherever that fund may come from. If the county committee is to be defined as a "local body" under this part of the Bill, it will be a local body which will have power, with the consent of the Minister, to grant a pension to these officers. If it has the power to grant a pension it will be obviously out of the fund that that local body—the county committee—administers that the pension will come. On that point, I would like to ask the Minister if he will insert on the next stage some words in defining "local body" to include county committees of agriculture and technical instruction. In such an event, there would be ample safeguards as regards Deputy Good's point.
This amendment of Deputy Good's is based on the principle that the Minister for Education should have control of the technical schools as part of his educational authority. It does not seem to me that going into this is forming a precedent. In this case the Local Government Department are trying to provide for people that are not directly under their control. That raises what I think is a very large question as to the whole system of pensions. It would be an unpopular thing in this House as constituted—following the expressions coming from its various parts —in any way to question the sanctity of the arrangements at present in operation as regards pensions. I am not going to take it on my shoulders to do any such thing or to question the efficiency of the officers in the various Departments, but I do contend that when Deputies come down to this House, and emphasise the terrible hardships the Government officials go through as an argument in favour of special pension arrangements, they go a little too far.
Undoubtedly, Government officials, as a whole, do their work thoroughly and well. On the other hand, to select them and to put them on a pedestal as doing specially hard work compared with the work carried on by the man making his living in other directions, is to be disputed. In this clause there is a provision that pensions shall be for a service of not less than ten years. That, in my judgment, is going too far. A man who wants to be pensioned at the end of ten years' service has either come into your service after giving the best part of his life to another job, or is leaving it at a time when his capacity is unimpaired, and very often he is in a position to earn more when he comes out from the job. I am not questioning the right of the man to do it, but you see very often men retired from the public service enjoying a pension and a bigger income than they ever had out of their work.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
There is no provision for a person of ten years except in cases of incapacity.
It takes effect in the case of ten years.
He only becomes a pensionable officer. That does not mean he is getting a pension. He has to fulfil other provisions.
In that case I apologise. I misread the Section. It appeared to me at the time that the talk of a man retiring after ten years was rather an absurdity, because ten years, after all, is not a long period in connection with these technical appointments. I would like to ask the Minister for Education, are the appointments given to middle-aged people, and, if so, whether they would get a pension after ten years?
I should say with his own experience that the Deputy is quite able to provide an answer to his question.
We, on those Benches, are not quite satisfied with regard to the incidence of those pensions. With regard to the case made by the Minister for Agriculture that it is only out of a grant-in-aid that those men are paid, I have a vivid recollection of the Vote under which those officers came before this House. They are included under a Vote on Research.
Mr. HOGAN:
I did not say that; it came to that. The whole thing amounted to a grant-in-aid.
Who appoints those officers? There is a veto over the Committee which appointed them. Who has the power of dismissing them? Who is the real employer? I put it to you it is the State and not the local body. We are prepared to accept these terms. It makes no difference, he says, to the farmer whether they are on the taxes or on the rates. Put them on the taxes and we are satisfied.
With regard to the point Deputy Hewat is making about the ten years' service, those particular officers are put in a worse position than the ordinary officer under the Act in respect of whom no such provision applies at all. The object is to prevent those officers getting gratuities. An officer with less than ten years' service is, under certain conditions, eligible for a gratuity. We consider it would be a great hardship on the local authority if any one of those officers left his employment under conditions that would enable him to get a gratuity.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
Why has the Minister put them in a worse position than the others?
They should be satisfied to be in this position at all.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
That is not an explanation.
They are employed temporarily from year to year in those positions, and under conditions that make them whole-time permanent officers. In many cases they are appointed automatically from year to year. There are cases where the county councils cannot continue those schemes and they have to dispense with the service of those officers. If those officers were in a position to claim a gratuity, it would be a great hardship on the local authority which was not in a position to pay their salaries. Accordingly, we have insisted that those officers shall not become pensionable until they have ten years' service.
There is no precedent in this section. On the face of it it seems unsound that the local authority should contribute the whole pension, considering that they only pay 30 or 40 per cent. of the salary. After all, there is no great reason why their pensions should be paid out of taxation rather than out of the local fund. It will be the same individuals who will bear the brunt of the taxation in any case. They are very efficient officers and are people who are most intimately interested in the local authorities. It is to their interest to see that those officers give useful service. Under Section 8 of the Act of 1918, they are provided for as follows:—
(3) This section shall apply to a whole-time officer of a committee of a local authority or of a joint committee of several local authorities in like manner as if he were an officer of the local authority or authorities holding a pensionable office, and in the case of an officer of a joint committee the amount of the superannuation allowance or gratuity shall be payable by the local authorities in such proportions as may be agreed upon, or in default of agreement, as may be determined by the Local Government Board: Provided that, in the application of this section to an officer of a committee or joint committee appointed for the purposes of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, the sanction of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland shall be substituted for the sanction of the Local Government Board.
That is a proviso already in existence. We are not accordingly breaking away from precedent in making those officers pensionable by the local authorities. We are insisting on their being whole-time officers, and we are not allowing them to come under the gratuity portion of the Bill. I think the local authorities come very well out of the bargain.
Would the Minister consider a scheme by which those officers would contribute towards those pensions by deduction from their salaries? It is right to give a pension if a man pays for it, but they should contribute at least four per cent. of their salaries.
Personally, I am in favour of contributory pensions, and at a later time I would be prepared to amend this.
I would like to hear Deputy White's views.
Those pensioners are men of high character and ability. They are one of the two classes paid out of public funds who are underpaid considering the service they give, and I do not think it would be fair to deduct very much in respect of their pensions.
Mr. O'CONNELL:
Is it not the underlying principle with regard to the Government service that pension is in fact deferred pay? The salary of those posts is fixed having regard to the fact that it is a pensionable office. If there were no such pension the salary would be higher in order to enable a public servant to make a similar provision to that made by the pension.
What would be the effect of Deputy Good's amendment being passed, on those officers? Would the 1919 Act still stand?
Possibly Deputy Heffernan would like an answer. The Minister has pointed out that we are not establishing any new principle in this clause and that those men are already provided for in the 1919 Act. If they are already provided for why bring the men into this Bill?
The 1919 Act does not cover all those cases. It is limited in scope and it is not a precedent.
I am not sure that it is a satisfactory answer. There is a considerable amount of doubt about the 1919 Act, and that is the reason of this clause. Nobody has a higher view of those teachers than I have. There is no class of teachers in educational work that I have a higher regard for than those engaged in technical education. From anything I have to say I do not wish anyone to take me in any way as saying anything else of those people. They are all excellent men who do very good work. My difficulty is that those men are under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Education.
They are engaged in educational work. Why take one small section of teachers engaged in the work of the education of the State, and say, "You should be pensioned under the Ministry of Local Government? When it comes to the question of pensions, I have nothing to do with you, I refer you to him." That is the position, and I say it is a most extraordinary position. I doubt if there is such an extraordinary position anywhere. I do not object if those men are entitled to getting a pension, but I do object to that pension being put on the local authorities for those people. If it is decided that those men are entitled to pensions under the Act, why make a difference between them and any other teachers? The duties they discharge are under the Minister for Education, and yet, when it comes to a question of pension, he refers them to the Minister for Local Government. The Minister for Local Government may say that is only the position under this Bill, but the clause is a little bit wider than that. The clause says if there is any dispute between the local authority and this particular teacher, the dispute is to be referred to the Minister for Local Government.
He is to be the Solomon who is to settle the amount of pension of the teacher. That appeared to me from the start to be a most ridiculous position, and I think it is the duty of the Dáil to put that matter right. I do not want, in striking out this clause, to deprive these teachers of anything to which they are entitled. But I say that this is not the place nor the way to do it, and, for heaven's sake, when we are doing these things, let us try to do them in a proper manner.
I will go this far with Deputy Good and say that if the Minister for Finance introduces a pension scheme for all those engaged in the work of education, I will then vote for the powers given under this Bill being transferred and brought under the Minister for Education, but until the Minister does that, I will urge as strongly as possible that these men should not be left out in the cold. There was a question on the Order Paper to-day about one of these teachers who has given fifty years' service, and who has no right to pension or gratuity. We have been urging that there are something like 800 or a 1,000 such teachers under the Ministry for Education, year in and year out, and that these should be provided with a pension scheme. That, however, has not been done and the Minister tells us that we have no legislation to do it, and now we have Deputy Good's suggestion regarding these technical teachers, and even the youngest of them will be pensionable before that occurs. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying to-day that what Deputy Good suggests would only be taking the rights away from these men and exposing them to risks to which they should not be exposed.
I think that the circumstances surrounding the case are very confused, and that we should have some statement from the Minister as to how the position stands. I want to know who pensioned these officers in the past and who paid their pension?
I must point out that that is disputed.
Then we have confusion between the Ministry of Education and the Department of Agriculture and the Ministry of Local Government.
Mr. HOGAN:
Having technical officers in the Ministry of Education pensionable from the local rates and subject to disciplinary measures by the Ministry of Education. You have them paid partly by the local rates and partly by the Department, and subject to the discipline of the Department and dismissable by that Department. The Minister referred to the farmers in regard to local rates and taxation, and led up to the fact that it comes to the same thing whether the farmers pay by means of local rates or taxation. I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that all local rates and taxes are paid by the farmers. It amounted to that.
Mr. HOGAN:
On a point of explanation I want to make it quite clear that it was Deputy Heffernan who made that discovery.
I understood the Minister's statement to mean that it did not matter to the farmer whether the pensions were paid or not, as, eventually, he would have to pay them. We agree that the incidence of local rating is unfair to the farmer, and we maintain that he pays an undue portion of the local rates and that he would have to pay an undue portion of this superannuation. We maintain that the twenty-acre farmer pays as much as the shopkeeper who makes £1,000 a year. Our view about pensions is this: We do not blindly aim at cutting down pensions indiscriminately, but we say that they should be equitable and fair. We aim at cutting down pensions, but not cutting them down indiscriminately. We do not want a person entitled to a pension having his pension cut and leaving one to a man who is not entitled to it.
We have amendments down later on which will have the effect of cutting down the general pension list. We all agree that no class is more deserving of pensions than the agricultural officers, and I think the technical officers may be included with them. They are travelling through the country all the year round, and they become old men while they are still young, owing to the hardships which they have to face. I would be very slow in taking any action which would deprive officers of pensions to which they are entitled, but I cannot see why the Minister makes exceptions with regard to gratuities if they go out before ten years. Why make exceptions in this case?
We are told that they are temporary officers, but they are just as temporary after fifteen as after seven years, and although they are nominally appointed as temporary, they are really maintained as permanent officers. No distinction of this kind should be made. We ought to find out once and for all whether they are temporary or permanent officers. If they are only nominally temporary they should be made permanent and put upon an equal footing with the others. I urge upon the Minister the necessity of clarifying the circumstances surrounding this question. If the salaries had been paid largely out of departmental funds the pensions should be similarly paid out of such funds.
I agree with the Deputy who has just spoken that clarification is needed in this matter. I could not gather, and I would like to know whether it is so, that the effect of Deputy Good's amendment will be to make a proportion of the pension charge payable out of the Central Taxation Fund. It does not seem to me that that is contained in the terms of the amendment, and, if it is not, how far is all the discussion of that aspect of the case relevant at all, or where is it leading us? The fact that a certain Ministry contributes to the assistance of education as a Department of public administration in a certain locality is put forward as a reason for a thing which the amendment does not provide, so far as I can see, namely, for charging a portion of the pension on the Central Exchequer.
That is not the only assistance which the local rates receive from the Central Exchequer. Out of the General Taxation Fund other assistance is also provided, and the chief assistance is providing that the salaries of all officers of local bodies are partly paid, and if that is so, according to the arguments we have heard here, a portion of the pensions of all local officers should be paid out of the Central Taxation Fund. The fact that the Ministry of Education has a certain disciplinary control does not alter the case. The Ministry for Local Government has also a certain disciplinary control.
Over other officers. There are other officers besides those who have pensions partly chargeable on local taxation. I do not agree with the remark that it makes no difference whether the pensions are paid out of the Central Exchequer or out of the local rates. It makes a great difference. The other day a Deputy on these benches was reported as saying that the Government are pouring out these taxes in every department as if they were pouring them through a sieve.
You see the difference, the great difference, it makes; that is that you can bombard the Government with extravagance by transferring the pension charge to them. It is much more convenient than bombarding the County Council from a certain angle of view. It is plain to me this question of the funds upon which the pension charge should fall does not arise in this amendment. I cannot see on the face of the amendment, how it does arise, and the amendment, whatever its merits are, must be decided, for or against, on other grounds than on the grounds with which it does not deal.
I suggest that the three Ministers should put their heads together, hammer out a good pensions scheme for technical instructors, and put it before the Dáil to-morrow or whenever the discussion on the amendments is ended.
Is Deputy White in favour of these pensions?
I am in favour of the pensions; but I would like to see them paid out of taxation, not out of local rates. I would be in favour of handing over control of the teachers to the Minister for Education, and taking them from under your control and the control of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health altogether.
The intention of the Bill as it is proposed at the moment, is that these particular teachers shall be paid their pensions out of local funds. If this clause is passed as it stands they will be paid out of local funds in the future—for all time. If you want that, retain the clause; if you do not want it, vote against it.
Amendment put.
I think the amendment is lost.
How many Deputies are challenging my decision? Will the Deputies who are challenging my decision please stand up.
Deputies GOOD, CONNOR HOGAN and COLE rose.
There are three Deputies. Does Deputy Good insist on a division?
indicated that he did not.
Ordered that progress be reported.
