Vol. 9 No. 25
I move:
In page 16, Section 28, after sub-section (10), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(11) So much of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, as relates to the case of a public road being prejudiced by the shade of any hedge or tree, or to any obstruction being caused in any public road by any hedge or tree shall cease to have effect."
This is merely a technical amendment in order to ensure that there will be no duplication of statutes.
Is the consideration of this matter to be left in the hands of the council, or is it to be entirely a matter for the surveyor. If trees are to be cut down because they are hanging over our roadways I am afraid that a great many beauty spots may be destroyed. Surely some other measures should be adopted, and I would ask that before anything of that drastic nature is done, the whole matter should be considered by the local authority rather than by the engineer.
If there is any objection the aggrieved parties can appeal to the District Justice, and then no action can be taken without their consent or authorisation.
You say that the parties are allowed to appeal, but before the appeal can be heard the work might be carried through. That does not seem a wise way, nor does it guarantee that it will be effective. The way one would be inclined to deal with a situation of that kind would be to alter the road construction to suit the situation, rather than suit the situation to the road construction.
Sub-section (2) requires that 21 days notice shall be given, and that would give the occupier or owner of the holding time to make any objection he wished. There is no danger of his being taken by surprise.
There is 21 days notice to the occupier?
To the owner or the occupier.
But suppose that in this case the owner is not always the best person to guarantee the continuance of these very places referred to. What I want to ensure is, that before any drastic action is taken in connection with some of those beauty spots, the matter will be considered by some person or persons in authority who will look upon it from an impartial point of view.
The sub-section says that 21 days notice must be served on the owner and occupier.
But, as I already indicated, the owner or occupier very often does not really place the same value upon these places that other people do.
I am afraid it would be very hard to allow a discretion to any other people. I am afraid the two things conflict. There are many nice vistas along roads, created by having very beautiful trees along the roads, and yet these trees may be a very great source of danger to travellers, and a source of expense in the maintenance of the roads. They may keep them continually damp, and I am afraid in this case beauty will have to give way to utility, no matter what provisions are put into the Bill.
The way that is met elsewhere is that a different class of road construction altogether is used. The Minister ought to be aware of that fact. It is what is called a dry surface rather than a wet surface, and it is specially adapted for such a situation as the Minister refers to.
I do not think at this stage we can do any more. Perhaps the matter can be raised in the Seanad. I do not know if it would meet the Deputy's point if the council has a say in it. My own experience is that the councils have not any more regard for beauty spots than the owners of property of this kind. As a general rule, quite the reverse applies. I know of many cases in which councils wished to demolish old castles and ruins of historic importance. It was very difficult to restrain them from so doing. I would imagine they would have the very same outlook in regard to beauty spots in general. If the Deputy wishes something to be put down bearing out his suggestion, it can be done in the Seanad, but we have no power here at present.
Have not councils power to notify owners or occupiers of land, the trees or hedges growing on which may be considered very dangerous to the public, to have them removed? Surely it is necessary that such a power should be given. There is a certain number of very narrow roads in the country and if the hedges or trees are allowed to grow they may overhang the road and become a very serious danger. If some power is not given under this Bill, the upkeep of the roads will become very expensive on the rates. Further, I would argue that a period of twenty-one days is too long.
In regard to this matter of trees overhanging the roads, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the case of a long and broad road which has high walls on both sides. On both sides of that road there are trees at least 200 years old. Of course these trees are, no doubt, causing some damage to the road, but yet the road looks good enough. It is in the power of the county surveyor to order these trees to be cut down within twenty-one days. The expense involved has to be borne by the owner of the land and it is sometimes enormous.
He need not bear the expense.
Then, again, there might be damage caused to the walls. If men are not careful, they may smash the walls to atoms. A notice of twenty-one days is not, in my opinion, sufficient. A great many people would not know what to do when they get those orders. They may become flustered and probably they would let the thing slide. Then the trees might be cut down by indifferent woodmen and perhaps far more damage would be caused than if the trees were allowed to remain there.
Perhaps the Minister would consider the matter further and see if any provision could not be inserted, when the Bill is in the Seanad, so as to meet this particular point, and ensure that those places would not be damaged. That is what we are all anxious about, and, if it is done, I am quite satisfied.
I will try, in the Seanad, to met the Deputy's point, but Deputies will realise the difficulty of the position. Who can you invest with this authority? It is a matter of discretion. What one man might consider a beauty spot, another man might have a different opinion on. Then, again, what one man might consider a matter of utility, another might consider beautiful. It is really a question of judgment. However, we may be able to do something in the Seanad.
Amendment 31 reads:
In page 19, Section 35 (a), line 30, to delete the word "authorities" and substitute the word "bodies." It is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment 32 reads:
In page 19, Section 35, to delete from the word "any," line 33, to the word "pension," line 40 inclusive, and substitute the following words: "the following persons, that is to say—
(a) any person who, as an officer, has devoted the whole of his time to the service of one or more committees or joint committees, appointed for the purpose of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, for a continuous period of not less than ten years upon terms which do not expressly preclude him from receiving a pension and notwithstanding that his appointment was or is renewable periodically, and
(b) any person duly appointed standing solicitor of a local body before the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919, and
(c) any person permanently appointed before the passing of this Act to be a compounder of medicine for the purposes of any act relating to the relief of the poor.
This is to fulfil an undertaking that I gave on the Committee Stage to consider the position of solicitors and compounders of medicine who were the only people under the Bill who lost any pensionable rights. Solicitors and compounders of medicine who were pensionable and who had more than 10 years' service were provided for in Section 36 which enabled them to opt out of the Bill; but by an oversight we did not take into consideration the case of those solicitors and compounders of medicine who had less than 10 years' service, and who would accordingly have lost their rights under this Bill, and they would be placed in a worse position than previously. This section would enable those officers to retain their pensionable rights.
In connection with this amendment I was sorry to see that the Minister still retains that portion of Clause (a) which was the subject of considerable debate when the Bill was being considered on a former occasion. It is the sub-section which refers to the Technical Instruction Act of 1899. I referred on a previous occasion to the damage that the carrying of this Bill would do the work of technical instruction. Since that debate was published I have had expressions of opinion from a great many people as to the injury that this clause is likely to do to the work of technical instruction. As far as I see, the clause is not going to benefit a great many who do not come within the operation of the 1919 Act. In view of the damage that it is going to do to the important work of technical instruction, I would ask the Minister to consider if some amendment could not be made in the clause. I know he is anxious that a certain class of officer should be brought within the meaning of this Bill. That can be done to satisfy a particular claim without injuring the work of technical education. I would like in view of the injury one foresees under this clause, if it is adopted, to impress on the Minister the desirability of having the matter remedied by some slight alteration when the Bill is passing through the Seanad.
Is the solicitor or the compounder of medicine who is supposed to get a pension under this amendment a whole-time officer?
They were regarded under the 1919 Act as whole-time officers. They were made pensionable. They are not in fact whole-time officers.
If that is the case I need not develop my argument any further.
In regard to Deputy Good's point, the matter was discussed very fully on the Committee Stage. It was with great reluctance I agreed to bring in an amendment in favour of technical instructors. I realised those people were placed in a very difficult position, and it was up to me to see that they should get pensionable rights. After a good deal of hesitation, I agreed to allow them in; really, while not being in form whole-time officers, they are so in practice. I do not see how I could vary this section dealing with those officers without getting the Minister for Finance to bear some of the burden. That really seems to be the intention of Deputies. I have no control over the Minister for Finance. He stated that he was not prepared to consider the matter. If I knew that there was to be such an agitation over this point, I would not have allowed it in at all.
I will be completely in the hands of the Seanad. If they wish to delete it, I will have no objection. This section will have to stand as it is or else be deleted. We cannot delete it at this stage in the Dáil. We will have to leave it to the mercy of the Seanad.
If an amendment were put forward it might meet the matter there. I know the Minister is not anxious to injure the work of technical instruction. I want to see if this point could not be met, and also to avoid doing any damage to technical instruction. If an amendment can be put up that will achieve both objects in the Seanad, I take it that the Minister will have no objection?
No.
I am sorry that Deputy Good did not think it worth his while to develop the statement which he made to the effect that the giving of pensions to technical instructors is going to injure the work of technical instruction in the country. That seems to me to be a peculiar assertion on the part of the Deputy, and I must express my surprise at the attitude that is now taken by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in view of the expression of opinion we had here when this matter was last debated. From every side of the Dáil an agreement was come to that pensions should be given to those officers whose work was praised through all parts of the country and here in the Dáil. I think it is rather a strange thing, to say the least of it, to find the Minister for Local Government and Public Health now coming along at this stage, and, practically, suggesting to the Seanad that they should exclude those officers from the scope of the Bill. He knows that they are entitled to certain rights under the 1919 Act, and I take it that if that section of the Act is being repealed, that even those rights which they now have will be taken from them.
They can opt out.
Yes under this provision, but such rights as they have will be taken from them if they are not included under this section. I do hope that the Minister will not take up the attitude, which his last statement would seem to show that he is inclined to take up, with regard to these very useful and efficient officers.
In my opinion, these technical instructors are entitled to better consideration than the solicitors and the compounders of medicine. When the solicitor has done his work, his contract is finished, and he is paid. He has no right to a pension.
He has a legal existing right.
I am not taking the slightest objection to this. The thing has been perpetuated in the Act of 1919, and it is impossible that you can change it now. I am only giving you my views as a potential member of a county council. Of course, I would give no pensions at all, for the people who are paying the rates are not able to afford pensions.
I think Deputy O'Connell really misunderstood what I had to say on this subject. I do not want to take from any of these people the rights they have acquired under the 1919 Act. But I do object to what this Bill does and that is casting the liability for the payment of the pensions on the local authority. The effect of that will be that the local authority will get rid of the liability by not striking any rate. That is what I want to stop. That is a thing that will kill technical education and I want to prevent the possibility of that.
At the same time, if Deputy Good can convince the Minister for Finance to come to such an arrangement, I am with him, as I said on the previous occasion. But what will he do in the meantime? Leave them without any pension rights whatsoever until he would convince the Minister for Finance?
They would have the rights then under the Act of 1919 which they have at the moment.
But they are being taken.
This clause here is put in place of it. I say alter the clause here, and let the 1919 Act stand. Strike this out of your Schedule. I do not want to take the pensions from them. It is not fair to say that.
Make their rights clear before we depart from the consideration of these amendments.
Was it not decided that in the matter of these pensions the technical instructors would be paid in the same way as in the matter of salaries? As the Department pays a portion of the salaries given to the technical instructors, and the county council the other portion, the same thing could be done in the matter of the pensions. Personally I do not think it is fair to ask the local authorities to pay the full pension when they are not responsible for the full salary. I quite agree that it is not fair to ask them. I think Deputy Good is right. When it comes to the striking of a rate by the local authorities I am inclined to think that the rate will not be struck. I think it would meet the situation if the Minister would insert some proviso to the effect that the superannuation should be paid out of the same fund as the salaries.
In the 1919 Act the local authority had to bear the burden of the pensions just as in this case, and it would not make any difference.
I am not sure on that point. I have yet to be satisfied on that. I asked the Minister for a return of the pensions paid under that Act. I have not received that return. It is not a very large number, and it is a number that could be easily ascertained. Still, there is considerable delay in getting it.
Deputy Good has been rather exaggerating the effect of what was going to happen under this Bill. If the provision stands as it is now in the Bill the pensions will be a charge on the local authority under the county committee of technical instruction. It will be on the county council. Because they will have to find the pension for, say, one or two additional teachers as the case may be, the county council will thereupon refuse to strike a rate for technical instruction. That is the picture which Deputy Good paints for us. I do not believe there is a single local authority in Ireland that would refuse to strike a rate for the purpose of carrying on technical instruction in its county and thereby get the advantage of having to spend in the county a sum very many times the amount of the rate which is struck, for the purpose of depriving one or two officers of the right to a pension which is given to them under this Bill. That is the case that Deputy Good makes.
The only way to get rid of the burden of these pensions, he tells us, would be to refuse to carry on technical instruction altogether, and to refuse to strike a rate. In other words he says they would get rid of the teachers and schemes because some officers who have given a considerable number of years' service to the country and to the particular local authority are put on the pension list. I do not think there is one local authority in the whole Saorstát that would be prepared to throw away the benefits of technical instruction rather than accept this small extra burden.
I do not think it is fair on the part of Deputy O'Connell to make such an accusation against Deputy Good. I do not think it is at all the intention of Deputy Good to do away with technical instruction.
Oh, but it is. That is what he said.
It is not his point that the county council will refuse to strike a rate. I do not follow it. Usually the county council strikes a rate of 2d. or 2½d. in the pound. What will happen if you have two or three technical instructors entitled to superannuation? Only 2d. or 2½d. would be struck and, consequently, some other Department must go short and that is what will happen if the technical instructors are looking for a pension. I think Deputy O'Connell is taking a wrong view altogether. Certainly, technical instructors should be entitled to pension, the same as any other officials. In fact they are entitled to superannuation more than some people who enjoy that right. At the same time, it is not fair to put the whole responsibility for that superannuation on the local authority, when the local authority cannot appoint the officer, without the sanction of the technical department. When the technical department have to pay portion of the salary, why not also pay portion of the superannuation? I think it is not right to let it go from the Dáil that when I stand up to support Deputy Good it is our intention to do away with technical instruction. I did support the Deputy's suggestion, that was not to do away with technical instruction, but to encourage it. The only way to encourage it is to get the Department to pay part of the superannuation. Then the local authorities will be in favour of continuing the scheme and of developing it.
The next amendment reads as follows:—
In page 19, Section 35, line 36, to delete the word "continuous."
If I would be permitted, I would alter the amendment by deleting the words "a continuous period of." That was the intention, but I think there was a slight mistake in drafting.
Is it the intention of the Deputy to delete "a continuous period of not less ten years."
I want to leave in the period, but not to make it continuous, and the word "period" suggests continuity.
The amendment then would be the same as that which was moved in Committee.
I do not remember what I moved in Committee.
Leave is asked to alter the amendment to read: "In page 19, Section 35, line 36, to delete the words ‘a continuous period of.'"
Leave to alter amendment accordingly, granted.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the chair.
The whole purpose of the amendment is to deal with the case of an officer who may have been serving in the technical instruction service and who moved from one county committee to another county committee. There may be a break in that service of, perhaps, a month between committee and committee, and if we left the word "continuous" in, it would deprive of superannuation any person who has had a break of even one week or a month in the service of one county authority and another county authority. That seems to be inequitable, inasmuch as the whole of the time of the officer may have been given to the service of technical instruction. But if there were a break at all, he would be deprived of his rights under this section. Inasmuch as we are contemplating a transfer from one authority to another—one or more committees are mentioned—we ought to give the credit to the man who happens to be deprived of pay as between the service of one committee and another. The object of the amendment is to avoid that breach of continuity. I think it is reasonable, and I do not think it would impose any exorbitant charges. It would do justice to those who may have transferred from one authority to another.
One of the very many difficulties that confronted me when, in a weak moment, I agreed to introduce this section allowing superannuation to these agricultural and technical instruction officers, was that they were not permanent officers in the right sense of the term, and that there was no real means of deciding when they were permanent officers and when they were not. Without being permanent officers, I could not make them pensionable. After a good deal of consideration, we decided that the only test by which we could see whether they were permanent officers or not, was the test as to whether they had been in the continuous employment of the authority for ten years. Ten years is the period laid down for the Civil Service, and we considered that it was the most equitable period for those officers also.
If you leave out the word "continuous" there is absolutely no test. A man may be working for a couple of years or a couple of months and go away to the North Pole on an expedition. If a man can break his service as often as he likes, and if he happens to be a servant for ten years, he will have to be regarded as a permanent officer, and accordingly he will acquire pensionable rights. I see no possible chance of deciding whether an officer is a permanent officer or not, if we leave out this test. As I explained the other day in Committee, a number of these officers are not permanent officers either in theory or in practice. Of course, the majority are permanent, though appointed from year to year, but there are a number who are not permanent, and it might mean that we would have to include all sorts of officers if we left out these words. Accordingly I cannot accept the amendment.
Are officers appointed from year to year not entitled to a pension?
The Deputy had better read the section.
The explanation the Minister gave was that certain officers would be entitled to a pension and that he wanted to debar certain officers. What class of officers does he want to debar?
I move amendment 34:—
In page 19, Section 35, line 37, to delete the word "ten" and substitute the word "five."
On the last occasion that this matter was under consideration, it was argued that by putting in this qualification of ten years, you were putting in a condition that did not apply to the ordinary officers of local authorities. The only effect the provision has is to prevent a man under ten years' service who breaks down getting a gratuity, because there is no question of pension unless ten years has been served. The amendment moved to delete the word "ten" was not carried. This amendment was put down in the hope that the Minister will see his way to accept five years as a reasonable period to qualify an officer to be made a permanent officer within the meaning of the section. If a man has given, as the section will now read, a continuous period of five years' service, it ought to be sufficient to enable him to avail of whatever little benefit is to be given under a later sub-section to the section.
For practically the same reason as I mentioned in the case of the last amendment it would be impossible for me to accept this one. We have a precedent for the ten years in the case of civil servants. Even if we had not such a precedent to go on, five years, in my opinion, would scarcely be sufficient to give permanency to an officer. In any case, I am not anxious at the present time to allow gratuities to officers with less than ten years' service, which would be the case if I were to get away from the ten years mentioned in the section. Under amendment 41 it will be seen that the case is met and that provision is made for calculating pensions on the service of those officers during the ten years they have spent in qualifying for a pension. In that way I do not think there will be any hardship to complain of. As soon as they have qualified by giving ten years to the local authority, then their pensionable service would count from the day of their appointment. I think that on the whole their case is being fairly met. The case of these officers was a very difficult one to meet under the provisions of this section.
I beg to move amendment 35:—
In page 19, section 35, line 40, after the word "pension" to insert the words, "and also includes any employee other than an officer who has been employed for a continuous period of not less than ten years."
This amendment seeks to include within the superannuation provisions any employee of a local authority other than an officer, that is to say, a permanent officer who has been employed for a continuous period of not less than ten years. On the previous stage there was a very evident misunderstanding as to the intentions of an amendment which was put down from these benches regarding the case of a non-salaried employee, a wage-earning employee, who had served a local authority for a long period; an employee who became either incapacitated or who had reached the age of more than sixty-five years. The phrase occurred in the amendment, "three years," meaning that a person would not be able to qualify unless he had three years' service. Deputies spoke, particularly Deputy Gorey in his opposition, as though the intention was to pension any employee who had three years' service and upwards. Of course there was no such intention at all, and yet that misconception—no other factor, I imagine, could have persuaded Deputies to vote against the proposition in view of their records in the past—led to the defeat of the amendment.
Now this amendment seeks to make clearer still, even to give an absolute guarantee, that the employee in question is one who has served a long period. The period mentioned is ten years in the amendment, but it does not propose even to give a pension to a person who has served ten years. If a man has served twenty years with the local authority, and becomes sixty-five years of age, he may receive a pension if the local authority votes it, and the Minister approves. In the case of a person who has served ten years, and who has become incapacitated or infirm in the service, then he may be granted a pension if the local authority decides so, and the Minister approves.
Again, it is going to be a question as to whether we are to distinguish between the salaried class and the wage-earning class, whether we are going to place that dividing line between these two sections of the staffs serving a local authority. As I explained on the last discussion, many local authorities have, in fact, under the law as it was understood, granted such pensions, but by the exercise of a peculiar vigilance when it comes to wage-earners the auditors of the Local Government Department decided that the law did not allow such an allowance or pension in those cases. Now, the proposed amendment is specifically to allow local authorities to do in the future under the law of Saorstát Eireann what they were allowed to do under the old regime, even though it is now decided that there was a misconception as to what the law contained.
We are now asking the Dáil to agree that the new regime is going to be as fair to wage earners of long employment under local authorities as the old regime was. I say again that any Deputy who is a member of a local authority and who at any time in the past ever supported a proposition to give a pension to an old or an incapacitated employee, is bound to vote for this amendment unless he admits that he committed a faulty or a foolish act as an administrator in voting for such a pension. If he has ever done that and was wise in doing it, or thinks he was wise or justified in doing it, he is bound, I say, to vote for this amendment which proposes to allow public authorities to make an allowance or to give a pension to old or incapacitated servants who have served for twenty years and have reached the age of 65 years, or who have served ten years and have become infirm in the service. I accordingly move the amendment.
It appears to me that Deputy Johnson is arguing on a wider basis than the clause itself allows. The clause speaks of officers under the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act of 1899, and it deals only with them. I take it that his intention is that not alone are the pensions given to teachers to be cast on and paid by the local authority, which at present pays only ten per cent. of their salaries, but that all pensions of the staff paid out of a central fund are to be cast on and paid for by the local authority. In this case the local authority would only pay a small proportion, possibly one-twentieth of the salary. The proposal now is that these particular officials are to be pensioned and that their pensions are to be paid for by the local authority. If that is carried there is an end to technical instruction.
The Deputy is under a misapprehension.
I hope I am.
The first part of the section deals with local authorities as a whole. Then there was interpolated the words "the said expression also includes technical instruction officers." And I want to insert also the words "and also includes any employee other than an officer who has been employed for a continuous period of not less than ten years."
That does not clear the air in any way. All the time the Deputy is adding to the liability to which we have objected. He does not lessen that liability but he is adding on further officials and further expense to the local authority, so that whatever chance we have of getting the local authority to carry the burden cast upon it by the earlier portion of this clause, if this added liability is to be put on, I am satisfied that technical instruction, so far as the local authorities are concerned, is at an end.
This does not deal with technical instruction, but with all employees of a local authority. Really, the amendment is not broad enough when it says "for a continuous period of not less than ten years." Some of these employees work under local authorities up to the age of sixty-five or seventy, and after serving them for thirty or forty years they are thrown out of employment. As their baptismal lines cannot, in many cases, be found, they are not entitled to old age pensions and the only place for them is the workhouse or county home. Surely, better provision than that should be made for them, especially for employees who have given long and faithful service to these local authorities. I quite agree that the meaning of the amendment is that there will be created a large number of extra pensions. From a broad point of view, I think that every employer, whether he is a farmer, trader or builder, should be compelled to give some superannuation to his employees who have served for twenty-five or thirty years, as a gratuity for the services they have rendered. If officials in offices, doctors, solicitors, compounders of medicine, and other professional gentlemen are entitled to superannuation, why should we deny it to the people who have rendered services probably not as skilful but as valuable?
I think it is only right to explain that the amendment does not seek to provide pensions for road-workers, as may be in the minds of Deputy Good and other Deputies. It says for continuous service for a period of not less than ten years. Road-workers are not in continuous service, or at least in very few counties are they in continuous service. They work probably for six months on the roads, and the other six months wherever they can get work. I think it only right that something should be done for employees who have served twenty, twenty-five, and maybe forty years, under a local authority. When they come to old age, and are no further use to the local authorities, they are cast out and thrown on the scrap-heap, and replaced by young people, with the result that they have to seek outdoor relief, or go into the county home. I ask the Dáil to agree that the amendment is a fair one, and will not mean the huge amount of superannuation that is anticipated. The amendment should be seriously considered. If the amendment is inserted it would relieve the ratepayers, and will reduce the estimates of the county homes, and will also reduce the amount of home help.
I cannot agree to accept this amendment. The arguments I used on the Committee Stage hold equally good now. Whether the period is three years or ten years, my objection to pensioning these officers is that it creates a new class of pensionable officers. This Bill is not intended to make a new class of pensionable officers, but to codify the existing law. At a later period it may be possible to bring in a Bill to provide for pensions on a contributory basis, and it would then be a question whether employees could not be brought in on a contributory basis. That is a matter which would require a great deal of thought and consideration, and under no circumstances could I undertake to deal with it in a perfunctory manner in a Bill of this kind.
I move to report progress.
