Was not the Deputy asked to resume his seat last night?
Committee on Finance. - Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1943—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on Section 5.
Mr. Corry rose.
I reported progress.
That is so. It was on an earlier occasion he was ordered to resume his seat. The Deputy may continue.
When I was dealing with this matter last night, I pointed out that the rights that are in this Bill, and that apparently are being objected to, are similar to the rights in other Bills concerning local authorities, such as county councils. If a county committee of agriculture at any period did not carry out its duties the law would prevent the Minister from dissolving that committee until he first dissolved the county council. That was the Minister's difficulty.
Deputy Broderick must be a very innocent man, or else he does not read any paper—and I cannot believe either. Last night he said he saw no reason for this provision in the Bill; that every county committee he knew of was doing its duty. But Deputy Broderick is also aware that for five or six years the county committee of agriculture in Cork was definitely composed of one political party and it devoted nine-tenths of its time to an endeavour to prevent the operation of the tillage Order in Cork County.
The Deputy related all that last night.
Only some of it. When I was dealing with that matter some time ago, I produced an advertisement, published in the Cork Examiner, advocating the growing of wheat. Side by side with that advertisement was a leading article which pointed out to the farmers the foolishness of growing wheat. Now, what was the position taken up by the county committee of agriculture? They were carrying out the schemes sent down to them in connection with the growing of wheat, but each Saturday a special reporter from the Irish Independent was sent down to write a special article for the Sunday Independent relating to a motion by a member of the county committee against the growing of wheat and the carrying out of tillage operations in the county. That went on Saturday after Saturday; there were meetings of the county committee, and the special articles were disseminated in the Sunday Independent, together with a few articles from some gentleman—I think they called him Ben Mayo. They were like something one would expect from Deputy Dillon, and they appeared in the same paper.
I do not think a committee that persisted in carrying out that policy month after month during a period of emergency such as we have experienced since 1939, was acting in the best interests of the county. The county committee is supposed to be composed of experienced agriculturists, men who are prepared to give advice and assistance and carry out agricultural schemes. I think it is rather ridiculous to have a county committee, on the one hand, carrying out those schemes and, on the other hand, endeavouring at meeting after meeting to prevent those schemes being carried out. That is what happened in this instance. I quite admit there were some members of the committee, such as Deputy Halliden, who did not agree with that policy and who endeavoured in the best way they could to prevent that game being carried on. Nevertheless, that continued for five or six years. One section of the representatives of the ratepayers was excluded, was completely kept off the committee, and the committee was in the hands of one set of individuals who were using it for propaganda purposes. In a case like that I think the Minister would be quite justified in abolishing such a committee.
Does the Minister say so?
Deputy Broderick was not here when I said that he must be a very innocent man, or else he does not read the papers. If Deputy Broderick read the Cork Examiner on Mondays, during the period to which I have referred, or indulged in the Sunday Independent in the same period, he would be quite aware of the deliberate campaign that was proceeding.
On a point of order. The point was made by Deputy Corry that if there was any adverse criticism of the policy of the Department, the Minister would be justified in suppressing the committee. I ask, will the Minister support that point of view?
That is obviously not a point of order.
The situation is that there was deliberate propaganda. On the one hand, the committee is disbursing public money for the purpose of carrying out schemes and, on the other hand, they are turning the committee into a medium of propaganda for the purpose of preventing these schemes bearing fruit. Such a committee, in my opinion at any rate, should be dissolved. I made several appeals to the Minister in that connection during the period when that propaganda was proceeding. I saw the harm that committee was endeavouring to do throughout Cork County. Thank God, the farmers of Cork did not take their advice, or the advice contained in the articles in the Sunday Independent, written by the special reporter sent down to report the meetings, or by the gentleman who styled himself Ben Mayo, and who used to write like Deputy Dillon.
I submit that there is nothing in this section which differs in any way from the law as it is under the Local Government Act. That Act gives power to the Minister for Local Government to dissolve a county council, board of health or board of assistance. The non-insertion of this section in this Bill would put the Minister for Agriculture in a very awkward position because if a county committee of agriculture refused to carry out the proposals or schemes put before it, and that it was its duty to carry out, the Minister could not dissolve it without first dissolving the county council, which is not his responsibility. I think I have given sufficient reasons to show that there should be power to dissolve a county committee of agriculture that is not prepared to do its duty.
Sometimes the members of the House are asked to show a good deal of patience in having to listen to the long discourses from Cork Deputies, who invariably feel that there is only one part of the country of any importance, and that the rest of it counts for nothing.
We do not claim any more for Cork than for any other part of the country.
There are other county committees of agriculture besides the Cork Committee of Agriculture. I do not see why we should have that sort of stuff imposed on us. We are discussing this section in a general way and are not concerned with the affairs of the Cork County Committee in particular. The Minister admitted last night that this matter did require consideration. I hope that, having slept on it since, he is now prepared to meet the House. We have tried to meet him, but last night he appeared to be adamant in his refusal to budge even an inch. Possibly, on more mature consideration, he may now be prepared to do something. The Minister has not made any case for the section or attempted to justify its inclusion in the Bill. The only attempt that he made to justify its inclusion was in his statement that this section would be in line with similar provisions to be found in the Local Government Act and in the Vocational Education Bill now before the Dáil. He said that the three Ministers concerned, as a result of the consultations they had before the introduction of the Local Government Act of 1941, agreed that the legislation governing these matters should be brought into line.
I do not think that there is any analogy at all between the responsibilities of a county council and a county committee of agriculture. As Deputy Broderick pointed out last night, it is the county council that has the responsibility of finding all the finances required for the various services in a county. It has to provide the money needed for the relief of the destitute. It has to provide hospital treatment for those unable to make that provision for themselves, and it has to look after all the social services. If a county council fails to do any of these things, it may be a very serious matter for individuals in a particular county. Therefore I say there is no analogy between the two. In the case of the county committees of agriculture the Minister for Agriculture definitely holds the whip hand because the schemes administered by those committees are financed up to 50 per cent. by way of grants out of State funds. That puts the Minister in the position of being able to withhold payment of those grants.
It would be invidious, of course, for the Minister to name any particular committee but, when pressed yesterday, he had to admit that in the past no county committee of agriculture had given him trouble. Deputy MacEoin rightly pointed out that all those committees have shown their anxiety to help and co-operate in the present food drive, that they have welcomed the Minister personally and his principal officials, and that they have never failed, when called upon to do so, to make all necessary arrangements for an expansion of food production in the country. Surely it is not desirable now, in view of all that, to introduce anything that may cause friction or difficulty. The Minister expressed the view that he hoped that what had been said by Deputy MacEoin would not create any clash between any committee and his Department. In my view, if there is anything that is going to cause friction or a clash of interest between those committees and the Minister's Department, it is the Minister's action in introducing this contentious section. I think it is a most indiscreet thing to do. It is most unfair in view of the co-operation that the Minister has got from those committees. The Minister could not, even in a general way, make any charge of dereliction of duty, of failure or of improper conduct against any of those committees of agriculture. I think that he ought to reconsider this matter. We, as I have said, have tried to meet him, but he was not prepared to do that. We are definitely opposed to the section, and if the Minister persists in his attitude we shall have to challenge a division.
I am surprised that the Minister should adopt such an attitude towards the county committees of agriculture. As a member of the Waterford County Council and of the Waterford County Committee of Agriculture, I am in a position to say that the members of that committee do all they possibly can to improve agriculture. They have introduced prize schemes, and in other ways have tried to improve agriculture. If the Minister is now going to hold this weapon over their heads, the members may well ask themselves why they should be giving their time and assistance to the promotion of agriculture through the committees on which they serve. I can say that those members give unselfish service. I think it is very unfair, in view of the amount of time and attention that they give to public business, that they should be treated in this way. In addition to the members of the county council who are members of those committees, you have other men selected to act on them. They also give of their best, and try in every way to help the instructors employed by the committees. They go out of their way to help them in their work. In view of all that, I think it is very unfair that this weapon should be held over the members of those committees who have rendered such good service to the country and to agriculture. As Deputy Hughes has pointed out, the members of the county committees were only too happy to meet the Minister and his responsible officials when they were touring the country to encourage the people to provide food for the nation. In view of all that, I think that the Minister should accept the amendment.
I think that if anything could convince the Minister of the unwisdom of including this section in the Bill, it should be the speech delivered by Deputy Corry. Deputy Corry advocated that any county committee of agriculture that expressed views contrary to those held by the Government should be abolished. If a county committee of agriculture is to be suppressed because its views are not in agreement with Governmental policy, then such a committee could be of no earthly use. There are, and always will be, differences in regard to agricultural policy. There have been violent differences about it during the past ten years, differences which have been very detrimental to the interests of agriculture. It is only right that every committee should be free to express its views and to get the widest possible publicity for them, even if those views are as foolish as Deputy Corry has represented the views of the Cork County Committee to be.
Another ground upon which he suggested that these committees should be abolished is that, in one case in Cork, a committee was formed of persons drawn entirely from one section on the county council. There was nothing contrary to law in the formation of a committee on these lines. It may not have been wise to have done so, but it was quite in accordance with the law, and the Cork County Council was quite entitled to form a committee on these lines, if they so desired. They have a precedent for doing so in the fact that the Executive Committee of this House is drawn entirely from one Party, even though that Party is a minority in the House. Having heard Deputy Corry's speech and having had brought to his notice, in very eloquent and forceful language, the extent to which this power to abolish county committees can be used, I think the Minister will see that it is better that this section should not be embodied in the Bill.
The debate on this section is rather surprising. One would imagine that a very big question was to be decided on it. I do not know how Deputies can work themselves up so much over a matter like this—a power which always existed but which had to be exercised in an indirect way. The power always existed, in that, by removing a county council, the county committee went with it, if the county committee had done anything wrong, or had not been carrying out its duties; but surely if the power is to exist at all, it should be possible to exercise it without suppressing a county council which might be carrying out its duties properly. When such powers were given over and over again in all the Local Government Acts, why did not Deputies at that time put forward an amendment to provide that if a county council were abolished, the county committee should carry on, if there were the same feeling about the matter as there is now? I am bringing in an amending Bill, and I want to keep this power. I see no reason for surrendering it, which is quite different from the argument which is put up, as to why I am looking for this power. I see no reason to surrender it, and no case has been made for my doing so.
If the power already existed, why bring in the Bill?
Because I say it is unreasonable to expect that, if we want to get at a county committee, we must adopt the roundabout method of suppressing the county council. That is the present law. Why should we not get at the county committee for not doing its business and allow the county council to carry on?
The Minister's Party should not talk so much about democratic control.
If we are to talk about this from the angle of democracy, let us do so. I said here yesterday, and I say again, that in other countries nothing has done so much to destroy democracy as that sort of talk about democratic control and about nobody interfering. If there is a democratic body which is not doing its duty, let somebody get rid of it and put somebody in its place who will do the work. Surely nothing will do so much to harm democracy in this country as our being put in a position in which we cannot interfere with people who are not doing their duty properly. I have nothing but admiration for the county committees; I have nothing but admiration for the men in this House, every one of them, and for the people of this country; but does any good citizen object if we bring in a measure to deal with law breakers? I do not want to use the word "criminals" because it is not applicable, but if we bring in a law providing penalties for breaches of the law, does any good citizen object? Surely he does not say that it is a slur on us all.
The argument put up in that respect is the most ridiculous argument I ever heard and the worst of it is that it is put up by all sides of the House, that the bringing in of a section like this is a slur on the committees. It is no slur on any committee to say that if a county committee is not doing its duty properly, something must be done about it, and I am quite sure that no decent county committee will object, because they all feel it is meant for the other fellow. As it happens, they are quite right in that feeling, because it is not meant for any of the county committees as these committees are now discharging their functions. We must have the power to deal with them if anything goes wrong.
I have stated over and over again that there is no intention of suppressing a committee because its members disagree with Government policy. Does any Deputy think that the Minister could get away with that, if he tried it? Does any Deputy think the Dáil will be silent if I suppress a committee because it criticises the Government? Surely I or any Minister would need a better case for dissolving a local authority than the fact that it was criticising the Government. The Minister must have a case he can stand over, and must be able to show clearly that the particular body was not carrying out its duties and not giving to the farmers in their area the benefits to which these farmers are entitled.
It is only in cases like that that the Minister can act, and, if he has to act in these circumstances, why must we adopt the roundabout method of suppressing the county council first, or why must a county council, which may be a good county council, be suppressed in order to get at a county committee? That is the power we have at present, and we are merely asking for power to get directly at a county committee, if it is not doing its duty.
I notice, from long experience of the Minister, that when he becomes very vigorous in reply to a debate, it is always a sure sign that he is defending a very weak case.
That applies to many people.
Possibly, but I think no one was ever put in the position of having to defend so weak a case as this. We have opposed this measure entirely on the ground that it is unnecessary; that it is, if you like, unnecessarily provocative, and seeks to provide insurances for which there is no necessity at all. The Minister has paid tribute to present and past county committees, and the records of his Department, since the establishment of these committees of agriculture, cannot show that there was ever any committee which did not carry out its duties properly. Why, then, should the Minister seek mandatory powers over them?
In my statement last night, I devoted a good deal of time to trying to show that there was no analogy between the Department of Agriculture and other Departments in the exercise of this power. I do not propose to go over the same ground, but these committees are purely voluntary bodies, composed of people who come from all sides of the county to administer, in their own interests, schemes put up by the Government for the betterment of their interest in life, the agricultural industry. Why should they not act wholeheartedly with the Government in their own interests and in the interests of the people they represent? The Minister talks about democracy. I do not intend to say much on it, but I think experience all over the world has shown that there can be no greater dictatorship than dictatorship in the form of democracy. Have a care that we are not tending in that direction in this county. Public opinion cannot be ruthlessly suppressed all the time under any form of government. It can revolt. Possibly it is held down by terror under dictatorial government, but it is not held down under democratic governments.
In our statements, we confined ourselves to the one issue, that it was unnecessary to have these powers. The only person who would appear to justify any doubting suspicion in the mind of the country was Deputy Corry, who said the Minister should have power to suppress lawful criticism. We never attempted to say any such thing, and we never thought the Minister would do any such thing. We have not opposed it on the ground of any potential danger of that kind, but on the ground that there is no necessity for these powers.
We ask the Minister even now, considering the constitution, the record and the activities of these agricultural committees, to withdraw the section. These committees are working under different circumstances in different parts of the country. They are all doing their own business. They feel that the moneys put up by the local authority and the central authority are intended for the betterment of their own interests. Surely common-sense people will not be so insane as not to avail themselves of the moneys put up. Between the contribution of the Department and the contribution from the Cork County Council, something like £80,000 is put up every year in that county in the interests of the agricultural community, who have their representatives on the committee. Are they to throw that money away for nothing? There has not been a single argument put in favour of this section that could be sustained by facts. It is in the best interests of everybody that the Minister should withdraw the section. If the Minister does not withdraw it, I shall have to challenge a division on it.
Why not have a division on it and be done with it?
That is what I want. If nobody else wants to speak when I am finished, let us have a division and be done with it. I do not know that the Deputy was so enthusiastic about a division last night. I suppose he feels that they are more secure to-night. We are inclined to be helpful in this matter. On the Minister's own admission, there is no necessity for this section. There is no analogy between the application of this dictatorial clause in the case of other Departments and its application in this case. These county committees do not come under the same heading. In the whole record of these county committees the Minister has never had any occasion to find fault with any of their activities. On these grounds I ask the Minister to withdraw the section.
Mr. Lynch
I must say that, prior to hearing Deputy Corry, my sympathies were more or less in favour of the Minister's point of view and of the inclusion of the section in the Bill. But, in view of Deputy Corry's attitude and what is in his mind, I think the Minister, in order to safeguard himself, would be well-advised to let the present difficulty remain, as, if the Minister is in possession of the power that he looks for in Section 5 of the Bill, he will find himself bombarded by the Deputy Corrys and others of the same mentality throughout the country to exercise this power, because these people do not like the politics of a county committee of agriculture. That is Deputy Corry's plain, open and candid point of view. He does not like, or did not like, the politics of a particular committee of agriculture in County Cork and therefore he did everything in his power to try to get that committee suppressed. He will be in a far stronger position to do that if the Minister has the power to do so without first dissolving the county council, including Deputy Corry. The Minister would be in a stronger position if he were able to tell Deputy Corry: "If I am to get at the county committee of agriculture, I will have to suppress you and the rest of the county council." I think the Minister would be well advised to reconsider the matter.
Normally, I am mostly in favour of provisions of this kind. I am in favour of them with regard to county councils, where county councils are obviously refusing to do their job. I am in favour of giving the Minister power to suppress such a county council and to appoint commissioners. But, in the case like this, where power is already there, even though it has to be exercised indirectly through suppression, first of all, of the county council, I think that, in view of the mentality that has been shown here, the Minister should allow that difficulty to remain in his path before he would be in a position to suppress a county committee of agriculture.
I do not wish to delay the House, but certain things which were not in them seem to have been read into my statements by Deputies who have spoken. Each Deputy in turn contended—and I give them the credit of saying that they were serious in their contentions—that they were anxious about the food drive. I say that in a time of emergency any body of men who set out to prevent food being grown for the people of the nation should be suppressed. I have no apologies to make for saying that.
Members of the old Cork Committee of Agriculture were personal friends of mine, apart from politics. Still, when I saw the county committee being prostituted as a propaganda platform for the prevention of the growing of the necessary food for this nation in a time of emergency—and that was done in that county committee for a number of years—I certainly saw no reason why that county committee should be allowed to be used for that purpose.
What is the point put up by Deputies who have spoken? They know that the Minister has the power of suppressing a county committee of agriculture without this section. The only difference is that, in order to suppress a county committee of agriculture, he must also suppress the parent body, which, perhaps, is doing its duty faithfully and well. The Minister has to go a roundabout way by suppressing the county council, not because that county council has done something wrong, but because the county committee of agriculture has done something wrong. I know that the majority of the members of the Cork County Committee of Agriculture are doing their duty faithfully and well. But I do say that at one period that county committee of agriculture was used by one individual as a propaganda platform. There were notable exceptions, however. Members of that county committee realised the harm that was being done by that committee being used as a propaganda platform to help the enemies of this country in their endeavour to starve this country into submission in a time of emergency. That was being done, and was being done deliberately over a number of years. That was the reason for my attitude in regard to that county committee. It was not because of any difference in politics.
What success had they in trying to stop the growing of food? Did not County Cork produce one-fifth of the grain grown at that time?
I have said, sir, that I am very glad that Cork County did not follow the advice that was issued by that propaganda merchant in Cork.
Then it was no harm.
Cork County has done its duty.
The Deputy is repeating his speech. He got up on a point of explanation.
Questions were asked. I think I have a right to reply.
The Deputy may not repeat his speech.
The Deputy has no intention of repeating his speech.
He has been doing so, though he intervened on a point of explanation.
If I have done so, I regret it, but certain things were put into my statement that were not there and were not intended to be there. That is the sole reason I got up for a second time—to explain them.
The Deputy has had his opportunity.
And he has done so.
Very good.
I listened to the Minister's spirited defence of this section a few minutes ago and I gather his case is that he wishes to have a short cut. Without suppressing the parent body, the county council, he wishes to have powers under this particular section to suppress and discontinue the activities of a county committee of agriculture. What I would like to ask the Minister is this—does he think that in this particular section he is taking to himself, as a member of the Executive, any greater powers than the Minister for Local Government would have under the local government code? I would like to know whether or not the Minister has explored the position from that point of view. As I interpret the Minister's remarks, the reason for this section is that he wants a short cut and that he is not seeking to take powers under this section with regard to county committees of agriculture that do not already exist with regard to county councils.
It will be the same procedure.
My question to the Minister is, is he satisfied—and has he compared the measures or has he had advice on the point—that the powers he will take under this section are limited in scope and effect to the powers already existing with regard to the suppression of county councils under the local government code, because, if these powers are greater, then I submit to the Minister, of course, that he should give way and re-draft this section? Is it exactly the same section, has it exactly the same effect, having regard to the existing code? I am not referring to any particular statute. I would like to know.
Yes, as far as I know. I do not want to be dogmatic because, naturally, I have not examined all the Acts personally, but the powers are exactly similar to those the Minister for Local Government exercises with regard to county councils.
We put it to the Minister last night that, if the House was prepared to grant this power of dissolving county committees, one thing we objected to in the provisions set out here is the extension of bureaucratic control. We do not want that. The Minister has made provision for the selection of another committee and when he was asked to agree to an amendment that he should go back, and request the county council to nominate a new body, he anticipated the difficulty that, once any suppression had occurred, it might affect the parent body. Has the Minister attempted to give us any alternative? Should not the Minister have brought in some proposal to the effect that individuals could be elected because of particular qualifications? There is no reason why we should not have an election in the event of a Minister having to dissolve a county committee. He could bring in a proposal that, for instance, you would give the people an opportunity of electing persons because of their particular valuation; that there would be groups, divided according to valuation; that persons of £10 to £15 valuation would be selected to form one group and that they would select a candidate, or candidates; that another group of persons of £20 to £30 valuation would select another candidate, or candidates, and so on, up to £100 valuation. That would give the people an opportunity in their own county of electing a new body. The Minister should be convinced from the attitude of the whole House last night that strong exception is taken to this provision because, in the event of a county committee having to be suppressed, there is the possibility, almost the certainty, that there will be bureaucratic control. Cannot the Minister make some effort to provide an alternative, to leave the power in the hands of the people?
It has been pointed out that the Minister has the whip hand there. In any case, in the event of a body being dissolved and the grants not being forthcoming, the county as a whole will lose considerably financially. It is not likely that if any difficulty arose as far as the county council was concerned, it would permeate through the county. If the Minister were prepared to bring in a provision such as I have suggested, whereby an election could be held to elect a committee or a democratic body, I believe the House would be inclined to meet the Minister on it. Is the Minister prepared to consider that matter?
Listening to Deputy Hughes, one wonders if there are any words in the English language more abused in this country than the words "democracy" and "bureaucratic control". These are stock words of Deputy Hughes, used in every argument put forward by him. Under this section of this Bill the Minister proposes to bring the law as regards county committees into line with the law that exists in respect of county councils, urban councils and all other elected authorities in the country. That is simply all. On the Second Reading of this Bill Deputy Hughes said that there was nothing in the Bill that any committee of agriculture who were properly doing their duty could object to or were afraid of. I want to echo that statement. There is nothing in Section 5 of this Bill that any committee of agriculture or any member of any committee of agriculture need be afraid of. The provision exists in respect of county councils. Deputy Hughes as a member of a county council, or any other Deputy in this House, is not one bit afraid of or has any objection to that provision because he knows quite well that, so long as the county councils are doing their duty normally and properly, they never will be suppressed. They know that quite well and every member of every local authority in the country knows it. It is utter nonsense to submit that the same law should not operate with regard to committees of agriculture.
Committees of agriculture are composed of workers, farmers, small farmers and other types of people. They are not confined to any one group of persons, any group of large farmers, or any group of persons who believe that they should be outside the law all the time. Every type is represented on the committees of agriculture and they are as democratic as any group that Deputy Hughes purports to speak for here. Deputy Hughes does not represent all the views of all the members of all the committees of agriculture in this country, in any way. No county council or urban council and no other local authority has been suppressed in this country without good reason. Deputy Hughes knows that quite well. He knows also that no Minister for Agriculture in the future, whether it is Deputy Hughes, Deputy Corish, Deputy Cogan or any other person, will dare suppress a committee of agriculture unless there is very sound and adequate reason for it. That is all that the Minister is asking for in this Bill. He is asking for the same provision as exists in regard to county councillors. No county councillor who is a member of this House ever fears the provision of the Local Government Act in that respect. They know that, and Deputy Broderick knows it, as chairman and member of a county council over a long number of years. He knows the provisions are there. But, it was not necessary to have those provisions in the Local Government Act to make Deputy Broderick do his duty properly. He has carried out his duty as a county councillor on all occasions, not because of the provisions in any Act of Parliament, but because of good citizenship, and for that reason alone. He is not a bit afraid of those provisions. Neither would he be afraid, if he were a member of a committee of agriculture, of the provisions in this section of this Bill.
On a point of explanation, my point is that the functions of the two bodies are entirely different.
The functions are in no way different.
Oh yes, they are.
They are both administering public funds, whether the funds are provided by the local authority, the county council, or by the State. In this instance, 50 per cent. of the funds is provided by the State and 50 per cent. by the county council. The funds are provided in that way. They are public funds.
There is no public service depending on the activities of the committee of agriculture; it is only their own interests. There are public services depending upon the activities of local government administration. county councils, and all the rest.
Committees of agriculture do not function for the purpose of looking after their own interests. They are there for the purpose of looking after the interests of the public good of the whole country, not the interests of any one section, because the interests of every section are closely interlocked in this and every other country. If the interests of the agricultural community cannot be improved under the schemes that are operated, the interests of every other section of the community are also affected.
But they cannot be injured.
Yes, they can. Every section in the community can be injured, sooner or later, if these committees are not prepared to do their duty, and I think that it is just pure nonsense to say that these committees of agriculture should not be included in this section.
In the event of the abolition of the Wexford County Committee of Agriculture, is the Deputy satisfied that the control of these matters should be handed over to a civil servant?
I do not think that that would happen.
It may happen.
So far as that goes, the control might be handed over to the largest farmer in County Wexford, and the Deputy knows that the bureaucratic system which he visualises can only operate over a period of about three years.
Yes, but that is quite a considerable period.
Yes, but provision is made for revision every three months or six months. I have no objection to the committee of agriculture in my county being suppressed, over a period, if they are not doing their duty; and I am quite sure that no Deputy in this House would be prepared to say that a county committee of agriculture should not be suppressed for a certain period, if they were not doing their duty.
It never happened.
Perhaps not, but it could happen.
I should like to say, Sir, that certain statements that have been made here in the House, to the effect that the Cork County Committee of Agriculture had hampered the production of food, are not true. To show that such statements are not correct, I might point out that at the beginning of this emergency the Minister for Agriculture went down to Cork, was met by the members of the county committee of agriculture, and was assured by all the members of that committee that they would give all the help that they could in the production of food for our people. I myself come from a part of that county, where the farmers have tilled almost as much land as was tilled during the last 100 years, and the farmers there are doing all that they can to produce food for our people. Accordingly, I think that the Minister has been very badly advised when he proposes to take power out of the hands of the people who have been dealing with this matter for so many years, and putting that power into the hands of an official. I think the Minister is very badly advised in going back to the system which was introduced here in or about 1924. I think that Deputy Corry stated here that there was one particular man who was interfering with food production in the Cork County Committee of Agriculture.
Nobody was named.
Not yet.
I suggest that if any other part of the country had done as well as Cork County there would be no need for this.
Or for the suppressing of these committees?
If, by means of this Bill, the Minister is trying to prevent these people from expressing their views, then I say that we are not a free country at all. We are supposed to have been a free country for the last 20 years, but I should like to say that, with regard to certain departments of life in this country, we had far more freedom 20 years ago than we have now, and so far as this matter of the county committees of agriculture is concerned, and the action that is proposed to be taken by the Minister, I can only say that they will be no longer free.
The Deputy is away from the amendment before the House.
I did not think that I was, Sir.
Yes, the Deputy is some distance from the amendment.
Very good, Sir. All I wish to say is that we in County Cork are as willing and anxious to do our part for the production of food for the people of this country as any other county in Ireland.
I want to protest against the attempt by Deputy Hughes and other speakers to convey the impression that the Minister is attempting to prevent the members of these committees from doing their duty and that he is trying to take the control of these matters away from democratic institutions and to hand it over to a kind of bureaucratic administration. This is not an attempt to deprive these committees of control over the work which they are in a position to do, any more than it is an attempt to deprive representatives of county councils of control over their work. Definitely, this measure is designed to put out of office county committees who deliberately refuse to do their duty, so far as the people who elected them are concerned. If, for instance, the county committee of agriculture in Deputy Hughes's purse-proud county refuses to do its duty, would Deputy Hughes agree that that committee should be left in control of the affairs of his county? I hardly think he would. If a committee of agriculture in, say, County Cork, refuses to perform its duty, would Deputies here, representing Cork, say that the members of that committee should not be deprived of office? Would they agree that the people in the district concerned should be left under the control of such a committee? I do not think they would. I am quite sure that they would not agree to leave the affairs of their county in the control of such a bureaucratic committee.
All that the Minister is seeking is power, in the case of a county committee of agriculture which deliberately refuses to do its duty, to remove such a committee, and I think that, in such a case, the Minister would be conferring a benefit on the community by the removal of such a committee. The whole thing is that, under present circumstances, the Minister has not the power to dissolve those committees, and I think that, in the steps which he proposes to take, he is actually going about the matter in a really democratic way. That is why I say that there is no reason whatever for trying to create this false atmosphere, to the effect that this is going to mean autocratic control, when, actually, it is going to lead to a more democratic system. There has been a lot of talk by chatterboxes in the House here to-day, trying to create that false atmosphere and to suggest that this is going to lead to autocratic control.
At the risk of being called a chatterbox, in reference to what I am going to say, I should like to ask Deputy O Cléirigh, when he talks about one of these committees refusing to do its duty, who is to determine whether or not it is doing its duty? I do not think it would be easy to get anybody on any side of this House to accept the viewpoint that has been put forward by Deputy O Cléirigh. He may sneer at the viewpoints that have been put forward by Deputies in this House, but I think it will be agreed that every Bill that has been introduced by the present Government, in connection with the administration of public bodies, has been shown to be absolutely autocratic in its tendency.
Deputy Allen reminded us that the section we are now discussing is enshrined in the Local Government Act. As one of those who voted against such a section being included in that Act, I am on pretty strong ground in opposing this section. The present Minister may not use it in a manner which would be prejudicial to the interest of a committee, or a particular county but, at any time, there might be a Minister here who, from the point of view of political bias, would scrap a county committee of agriculture. If a committee does not do its duty, is it not obvious that the people whom it represents should be permitted to determine whether it had or had not done its duty? The views of Deputy Hughes in that connection are worthy of recognition. A committee of agriculture is usually composed of eight representatives of a county council, and eight outsiders, and if it were found that such a committee was doing something which would be detrimental to the interests of a county from the agricultural point of view, a county council should be permitted to intervene and to put other members on the agricultural committee.
There are almost three times as many members on a county council as on a committee of agriculture, and for that reason the suggestion made by Deputy Hughes is a wise one. Deputies in the Farmers' Party pointed out that a committee of agriculture is one on which experts are wanted, and that, in the main, it is composed of farmers who are alive to the situation that confronts their industry, and to the needs of the people in an area. It would be found that such a committee would not often go against the best interests of the people they represented. Above all committees, I think this is the one committee which should not be interfered with by the Minister. It was pointed out in many speeches made yesterday that the Minister for Agriculture, and other Ministers, have addressed county committees of agriculture and found every one of them doing what they were asked to do to have the Minister's present policy implemented. Consequently, I cannot see the necessity for a section of this kind. The Minister said that the section might never be applied. I suggest that it should never be applied, as there will never be any reason for applying it. Then why take such power? Why visualise a situation in which the Government will step in to compel the elected representatives of the people to do something which they believe the people do not want?
Will the Minister consider the matter?
I have no more to say on it.
Question put.
The Committee divid ed: Tá, 53; Níl, 41.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Byrne, Christopher M.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred H.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Daly, Francis J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fitzgerald, Séamus.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Healy, John B.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, Séamus.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Rvan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Broderick, William J.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Cole, John J.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Larkin, James (Junior).
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Meighan, John J.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, William F.
- O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rvan, Jeremiah.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Stapleton, Richard.
- Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Bennett and Hughes.
Question declared lost.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 13:—
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute therefor the following new sub-section:—
The Minister may, after having satisfied himself that a suspension has been made by a county committee on frivolous grounds, terminate such suspension or having caused an inquiry to be held under Section 24 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act terminate such suspension and every such suspension shall continue until so terminated.
Sub-section (2) of this section states:—
"The Minister may terminate a suspension under this section and every such suspension shall continue until so terminated."
If a county committee decides that it is necessary to suspend an officer, whether the charges are serious or not, the Minister has full power to terminate that suspension. I am simply proposing that he shall terminate such a suspension only after he has satisfied himself that the charges upon which the suspension was made were frivolous.
The only thing I can say to the Deputy is that he is providing for a very obvious case. It is quite obvious that the Minister would act in the way the Deputy suggests in any case. I do not know whether the Deputy's wording would add very much to the section. I suppose if the Minister had any reason for re-instating an officer suspended by a committee, as the Deputy fears, he would say: "The charge is frivolous and I am re-instating this officer." I do not think that the wording proposed by the Deputy would help in any way but if he thinks that it is necessary to strengthen the section, I shall look into it.
The Minister's power to remove the suspension is not qualified in any way. The charge against the suspended officer might be serious from the point of view of the committee but the Minister could terminate the suspension and the committee would have no redress. Once a suspension is made by a county committee, we want it to be understood that there will be an inquiry and that the Minister will not, except in very exceptional cases, constitute himself the inquiry.
I shall look into the point before it comes up on Report.
The sub-section is weak as it stands.
The Deputy will recognise that hardly any wording would cover the situation that he has in mind.
The Minister might have drafted the section in this way: "The Minister, having satisfied himself that the charges against the officer were refuted or answered, may terminate a suspension." As it stands, it would appear that whether the official was competent or incompetent, neglectful of or attentive to his duties, the Minister has power, notwithstanding any complaint, to reinstate him. There are no grounds indicated as to how the Minister would exercise the power of removal of suspension and I think there should be some indication of that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In line 16, at the end of the section, to add the following words:—
"Provided that where the determination of the service of an officer is carried out by order of the Minister under the preceding three sections for reasons other than for neglect, inattention to the duties of his office or misconduct, the terms of the officer's superannuation will not be less favourable than he enjoyed prior to the operation of this section."
I move this amendment so that adequate compensation may be granted to those officials who took office under the scheme and who were of opinion that they had a fairly good assurance that they would be adequately remunerated for the number of years they served and adequately superannuated on retirement. Under the section as it stands, if these officials are found unsatisfactory or fail to comply with the requirements which the Minister deems necessary, he will terminate their employment. The Minister will, I am sure, admit that it is unfair to conclude a contract by terminating it on one side only. He is aware that a contract is an agreement between two parties. He is taking power to conclude the contract in this case when, in his opinion, the other contracting party is not carrying out the functions of the office to his satisfaction. It is necessary that, if the holder of the office is not carrying out his duties, the Minister should have the right to terminate his employment, but I put down this amendment so that the holders of these offices will not suffer by reason of the fact that their period of office is shorter than it would have been if this Bill had not been introduced.
I should like to explain what the law is at present because it may have escaped the notice of some Deputies. The law dealing with these superannuation cases is contained in the Local Government Act, 1925. Section 44 of that Act states that a local body shall, with the consent of the Minister, grant to a pensionable officer who has attained the age of 65 years and has at least 25 years' service or who becomes incapable of discharging the duty of his office by reason of permanent infirmity of mind or body or of old age, an annual allowance up to two-thirds of his salary. These are generous terms. Sub-section (2) of that section says:—
"A local body shall, with the consent of the Minister, grant to a pensionable officer in their employment and who has at least ten years' service, and
(a) who is removed from his office for a cause other than misconduct or incapacity....
an annual allowance....not greater than two-thirds of his yearly salary and emoluments."
I take it that, if an Order is made under Section 8 with regard to age limit, and if Section 11 is passed—that is to say, if the Act is applied to existing officers—and if they have more than ten years' service, the local authority can grant them up to two-thirds of their salary, which is more than generous when compared with the treatment of officers in the Government service. The word used there is "may". The local authority may grant less. But sub-section (6) of Section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1925, states:—
"If an officer of a local body is aggrieved by the neglect or refusal of the local body to grant him an allowance or gratuity under this section, or with the amount of any allowance or gratuity granted him by the local body, he may within six months of his ceasing to hold his office appeal to the Minister, who may thereupon grant to such officer any allowance or gratuity which in his opinion should have been granted to such officer by the local body under this section and such officer shall thereupon be entitled to receive such an allowance or gratuity from the local body."
The position is very fully dealt with there and I think that it is better to leave things as they are. I do not think that the suggested amendment would in any way alter the position because, if an officer has up to ten years' service and if he is compelled to retire by an order of this kind, he is entitled to two-thirds of his retiring salary. If granted less than two-thirds, he can appeal to the Minister, but the Minister, in that case, will be the Minister for Local Government. If I were making an Order under Section 8, Section 11 having been applied, and if I found that the local authority was not treating the officer as well as I thought he should be treated, I would confer with the Minister for Local Government with a view to his using his powers under that sub-section (6) to revise the superannuation granted by the local authority.
If things worked out exactly as the Minister says, there would be no amendment down. If the existing laws were administered in the spirit which the Minister outlined, there would be no amendment down and no objection to the section. These paragraphs in the Local Government Act are permissive paragraphs. They depend on the sanction of the Minister. In practice, how do they work out? It may not be known to the Minister, except in his capacity as a man in the street, that the two-thirds figure is a maximum and that, time and again, public boards have begged to have years added to an official's service so as to bring him near the two-thirds. In no case that I am aware of has sanction for that been granted. The Minister's interpretation would satisfy the House, but he points out that it is another Department which will deal with the officer when the question of pension arises. Two-thirds is the maximum pension and, to get the two-thirds, one must have the maximum service—40 years. That is how the Local Government Act is administered. I invite the Minister to get in touch with his colleague and ascertain if there is one case since the passing of that Act where as many as seven years have been added. I venture to say—I am not standing pat on this—that not a single officer has got the two-thirds pension since the passing of that Act who had not the full 40 years' service. If we pass this section without amendment and the Minister washes his hands of responsibility because another Department deals with pension questions, then we are taking an undue risk with regard to the future of certain officers who may have given excellent service. It has to be remembered that precedents have a certain amount of importance. The only precedent that has been pointed out to us in this Bill, and its first cousin, the Vocational Education Bill, is the precedent of the Act of 1932. There are other precedents, and other precedents that were fairer to the person deprived of office. It was the established custom in this country that, where a man was deprived of office for reasons other than misconduct, etc., where the terms of his contract were interfered with by legislation so that he could not reach the full pensionable service, very special and very generous provisions were made. In this case, these men are being lumped together and brought under the terms of the Local Government Act and it is being laid down that they must go at 65.
At an age to be prescribed.
I may, be wrong, but I am assuming it is 65, irrespective of their physical fitness, mental alertness and suitability. When these men joined the service there was no such telescoping condition. They may have joined at the age of 40 and, if they were reasonably fit and reasonably youthful, they had an estimated service of 30 years and could reckon their minimum rights as being 30-sixtieths. Now they are pushed out at 65 and it is reasonable that some compensatory provision should be made for the interference with contract. There is no argument about the conditions under which they joined when they took up service, which were that their payment would be so much and that they could serve until they were incapable of carrying out their duties, through physical or mental incapacity. Now the conditions of service are being worsened and the length of service is being shortened, so some special provision should be made in such cases. As I said on the other Bill, a man is as old as his arteries: some men of 65 are as youthful and efficient in every way as other men of 50; some men reach 70 and are as fit as any of us, either as teachers or anything else.
In the case of a secretary of a committee of agriculture who has been working for a number of years with the Department before being transferred to the committee, apparently he must go out at 65, as that will be the reckoned age. I would like to know whether the number of years he worked for the Department before he was appointed as an officer of the committee will be counted when he is qualifying for his pension. If that is not done there will be a definite hardship. The man who has worked for 15 years with the Department and becomes an officer of one of these committees must retire at 65, before he has 25 years' service there to enable him to qualify for the full pension. Under the Bill, I am afraid he will get no recognition at all for his service with the Department. He may have worked for 50 years between the committee and the Department of Agriculture, without qualifying for the maximum pension. Would the Minister add a certain number of years to the service in such a case?
I think some special provision is necessary to cover this case and that what Deputy O'Higgins has said represents the facts so far as any application for added service to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is concerned. Any Deputy with experience of serving on a local authority and dealing with applications for pensions by servants of that authority, knows that where representations were made to the local authority and they added service, it was not sanctioned. I agree with Deputy O'Higgins that the precedent is established there and that if it is left simply to the section in the Local Government Act which the Minister has read out, it will be governed by that and the precedent already established there will be applicable in those cases.
The Minister probably knows that there are particular men who first of all went to the College of Science, 30 or 40 years ago, before they were 21 and had a good deal of practical experience in farming before being taken on. In fact, the older men in the service of local authorities at present who went to the College of Science at 21 started out with several years' experience over the officers in other positions under local authorities. I know a case similar to that mentioned by Deputy Donnellan, where a man was in a temporary capacity under the Department of Agriculture for four or five years and then got a permanent appointment under a local authority. That man next year would have 35 years' service. He will be 65 years of age and, if 65 is the age fixed by the Minister, that man will have to resign next year. He is mentally as active as ever and is quite as capable as ever to advise the farmers, though he is not able to ride a bicycle as he could 20 or 30 years ago. He is still short five or six years of the 40 years' maximum service, so he will be £55 short of his maximum pension. That would more than pay his rent and is a serious matter for him. He never anticipated that he would get a knock like this, as he is quite capable of going on for another four or five years. I hope that the Minister will ensure in this Bill that men who have given good service for many years and whose services have been appreciated by the farming community will get proper compensation. Every farmer who has been associated with them will be more than anxious to see that they get ample compensation for the services rendered over that period.
Everyone would be sorry to see them dealt with harshly, and there is a danger of men in that position being harshly treated if special provision is not made to ensure that they will be protected and that service will be added in these cases where they are compelled to resign and where a contract that was duly entered into and executed is to be determined by the action of this House.
No employee, official or otherwise, of the committees of agriculture has applied to me or, to my knowledge, to any member of my Party, to look after his interests in this case. It is entirely on the merits of Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 that we are putting up this case. We let Sections 8, 9 and 10 go through. We said we would concede to the Minister the right to fix the retiring age. We conceded the Minister's right to fix the standard of efficiency, but in connection with the fixation of years there is unquestionably an interference with the original terms of appointment. If we were told it would be 70 years, there might be some grounds for it, because we have that age laid down in certain Acts for certain people. In Section 8 (4) it is stated that certain sections of an Act will apply and a person will be deemed "to have become incapable of discharging the duties of the office". An official may be quite capable, but yet he is put out at a certain age—the Minister can fix it at 60 years or 70 years; there is no question of interfering with his prerogative.
The question of putting out an official, whether or not he is capable of discharging his duties, has been raised. Our contention is that while you have a perfect right to discharge an official under a regulation, nevertheless, that official should not lose the rights he had prior to the making of this regulation. It is not a concession; it is simply seeking what is due. In Section 9 there is the phrase "or is otherwise unfit to hold such office". The same thing applies there with regard to the right of this person. What the Minister has told us with regard to the Act of 1925 has been dealt with by Deputy O'Higgins. The almost invariable rule with regard to superannuation in recent years is simply to give the number of years service—no addition.
I can quite see the Minister's difficulty in a case of this sort in having a different code for officials of the Department of Agriculture. But he is bringing in a new law and is interfering with the rights that were there, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that in those cases the persons concerned should not be placed in a less favourable position for superannuation purposes than they were before these changes take place.
In all these cases where we discuss retiral ages we must take cognisance of the interim period between the passing of an old age and the coming into being of a new age in relation to these offices. We on this side of the House are in favour of a retiral age. We do not want officials to remain in harness until they drop dead, but we want proper safeguards. We consider it correct and reasonable that a man, after performing services for the State, should be relieved of his office under certain conditions and with proper safeguards as to his pension. We do not want officers to remain in their positions so long that they act as a detriment to the younger men of the best type entering the service with prospects of promotion. We do not want it to be held that these older men are barring their way. Under the new order, if this measure comes into operation, the young men will understand quite well that a retiring age has been fixed. They will understand the age limits—it may be 65 or some age around that period—but they will understand when they enter the service at what period they are expected to retire. That is a correct procedure and we have nothing against it.
In regard to the older officers, who represent a generation that is dying out, there should be a temporary measure. Perhaps we could have an emergency Order, if we cannot have it under the Bill; perhaps we could have some temporary measure which will safeguard the rights of the older men, in many cases the pioneers of the service, without invalidating the prospects of promotion of the younger men coming in under the new order. We want to hold a fair balance between the older and the younger men, and it is for that reason that we support the idea that steps should be taken to add years to the service of the older officers in order to enable them to qualify for the maximum pension. This practice of added years has already been in force. It is laid down, as I said on another Bill, in a circular from the Department of Local Government. I quoted that circular, which gives permission to add years. There is no case made out why this principle should be dropped now, why it should not be put into force uniformly.
It has been held that the intention of the Bill is to bring the conditions of serving officers into a general line with the conditions of service of local government officers. If that is so, this circular of the Local Government Department, No. G. 15411—25, should operate in this instance as well and, in justice to the older officers going out, and as an encouragement to the new officers who will know their positions will be safeguarded, the Minister ought to make some provision under the Bill or, by a regulation of the Department, to permit added years to be taken into consideration when the older officers are going out on pension.
With regard to what Deputy O'Higgins said, I believe it is the practice of local authorities to work on the basis of one-sixtieth for each year of service. I am not sure if it is the intention to make that the established practice, but there is no doubt under the Act that the local authority or the Minister—in fact, the Minister in spite of the local authority—may give two-thirds if the person has 25 years' service.
But the local authority cannot, in spite of the Minister.
Under sub-section (2), if an official is removed for a reason other than misconduct or incapacity— that is, if he is removed under the Order that will be made by me—and if he has ten years' service, he would be entitled to a pension of two-thirds of the salary he had going out. That would be very generous. I think we are all agreed on that. It appears that the House is generally agreed that the fixing of a retiring age is a reasonable thing to do, provided we safeguard the interests of those who have acted up to this without any age limit being prescribed. I did ask for a return from the county committees of agriculture. I do not want to go into minute particulars because if I were to do so it would only identify people. There are, however, three officers who are over 70 years of age. They are employed on outdoor work. They are doing their work efficiently, considering their age, but the position is that they are supposed to do a good mileage every day on a bicycle. It would hardly be fair to expect them to do as much as a young person, if put in their place, could. One of these officers is 71, another is 73, and a third is 75.
There is, therefore, a necessity to make some Order. If a person is under 55, when coming in he will have at least ten years' service on reaching 65, if we assume that the age is going to be 65. Even if people came in at the very advanced age of 55, things could be made right for them under the present law. There is no doubt about that. In regard to what Deputy Donnellan said, I do not know of any case where officers went from the Department to the county committees. There are, of course, many cases of the reverse kind, of officers coming from the county committees to the Department.
Are you making provision for them?
Very long negotiations have been going on in regard to them between the Minister for Finance and myself. That, however, does not come into this Bill.
But the matter is being looked into?
It is being looked into as far as I can induce the Minister for Finance to consider it. As I have said, the law is quite all right, but I admit what Deputy O'Higgins has said, that it is permissive both for the local authority and the Minister. I did mention the matter to the Minister for Local Government. I do not say that I got any particular undertaking from him. I may discuss the matter further with him between now and Report Stage. Deputies will agree that, as regards these financial matters, superannuation and so on, the county council must have the last word. Therefore, the Minister for Local Government is as much concerned as I am in cases of superannuation. It would be very improper for me to put a section into this Bill without having the agreement of the Minister for Local Government who has to deal with the county council which, after all, is the rate-raising body. It is the body which is primarily concerned with financial provisions of this kind.
I may say that I have been very much impressed by the Minister's manner in dealing with this. I think that, as far as he is concerned, he is anxious to do the right thing towards these officers. It is true that it is laid down in the other Bill that the officers concerned can receive two-thirds of a pension, provided that their office is terminated for other reasons than incapacity. In fact, what is the justification for an age limit? No Minister would be justified in arbitrarily fixing an age limit for compulsory retirement unless he defended that age-fixing by saying "incapacity". If the matter is left open as it is now, we must regard it that compulsory retiral at the age of 65 is because of incapacity. That would make it impossible for an officer to get the generous terms outlined. Will the Minister, on Report Stage, bring in an amendment laying it down that a compulsory retiring age, as defined, will not be regarded as being due to incapacity?
For the purposes of section so-and-so?
Yes.
I will consider that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 11, 12, 13 and the Title agreed to.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, the 14th December.