Local Government (Superannuation) Bill, 1947—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."— (Minister for Local Government.)

Dr. O'Higgins

In dealing with this particular Bill I would like to make an open confession at the start. Some months ago when the Bill was first circulated I read it with much interest and with very close attention, but I had not time to read it since. I intended to read it to-day but I had not time. I am giving these few words of explanation so that if my memory is faulty any misrepresentation or faulty deductions on the details of the Bill may be attributed to faulty memory rather than a design to misinterpret any section.

Briefly this is a Bill to replace for the future the existing pension Act dealing with Local Government officials. The existing pension Act entitles officials to one-sixtieth of a year's pay for each year's service, but it carries with it no bonus or gratuity on death or retirement, and the pension is reckoned on the average salary for three years previous to retirement; there is no contribution under this scheme. This Bill allows for a smaller pension, one-eightieth of a year's pay for each year served. The maximum pension under this Bill is one half the salary as against two-thirds under the other, and for new officers the contribution is 5 per cent. of their pay under this Bill as against no contribution under the last. But against this, this Bill carries a bonus of one-thirtieth of a year's pay for each year's service, a bonus to be paid on death or retirement. Existing officers are being treated very very fairly and very generously under this particular Bill as they are given the option of remaining on under the old Bill or, by making application in writing, of coming under the new Bill.

But there is one very big defect in this Bill and I think it is a defect for which there does not occur to me to be any justification or reasonable defence. That is that this Bill carries on an old-time precedent that has at least application to the existing officers, that their pension is only reckoned on continuous service rather than on their aggregate or cumulative service. I and colleagues of mine and others have repeatedly put to the Minister, to legal men and to higher officials to explain what is the reason why a person is not pensioned on the amount or the number of years' service which he has given to the State rather than on the number of years of continuous service. I have never got any reply but one, namely, that this is the precedent laid down in the 1864 or the 1884 Act and carried into subsequent legislation. I do not see any other explanation or justification. Surely the idea of a pension is for the years of service rendered to the State or to the organisation and pension should be reckoned on the number of years' service given. In this particular Bill before us for future entrants you are brushing aside completely this precedent. You are giving a pension based on years of service but for other existing officials the old word "continuous" is carried on, instead of aggregate or cumulative service. Let us take the case of two colleagues in the same office. One of them has served the local authority for 30 years and gets a pension of 30/60ths or 30/80ths, dependent on the Act under which he elects to take his pension. The other officer has served the same local authority in the same capacity for 20 years but, at the end of 15 years, he left that employment for a month and came back. He is pensionable on the basis of 15 years' service. The other officer is pensionable on the basis of 30 years' service although the service rendered by each of them to the same authority was similar in type and in quality.

I should be interested to hear the justification for the continuance of that particular wrong. Quite evidently, it is regarded as a wrong. You are departing from that in the case of the registered officer and servant of the future. They will get their pensionable service carried on from one local authority to another. It appears to me that we are just following precedent in respect of an indefensible and unjust position.

The question is of more importance in this State than, I think, in any other country inasmuch as this State is wedded to the system of appointment by the machinery of the Local Appointments Commission. The Local Appointments Commission aim at getting the most highly qualified type of officer or servant for any vacancy which they are called upon to fill. Heretofore, people got into various offices on what I might call a basic qualification. With the initiation of the Appointments Commission machinery, an ambitious young man or woman, anxious to secure advancement and a better type of position, clearly understood that the only way to secure appointment was by obtaining the highest possible qualifications. In the case of many people down the country, particularly, their only chance of securing those higher qualifications was to save a little money, resign, come up to one of the university or teaching centres, take a post-graduate course and, with the higher qualifications thus obtained, go back into the public service. That is exactly the type of officer or servant who should be encouraged by a Government Department. That officer or servant sacrificed the number of years' service he had up to that date for pensionable purposes. On the day he returned to employment, he ranked as one without an hour's service for pensionable purposes. Section 18 (4) makes that point particularly clear. The term "continuous service" is used there. Under Section 35 (3) a person is pensionable according to the amount of pensionable service he enjoys under Part IV of the Local Officers Pension Act. Part IV of that Act lays down that a pension can be reckoned only on the basis of continuous service.

I submit that particular point to the Minister as a fair and reasonable one. I submit it with a certain amount of confidence that it will get fair and reasonable consideration. I should rather have an apparent injustice, such as this, rectified from the Government Front Bench than by an amendment from any other corner of the House. I think that the intention in this Bill is to improve the pension code of the country, to put it on a more reasonable basis, to make it watertight and to provide a bonus or gratuity for the person retiring so as to meet the expense of a possible change of abode, while including in the pension scheme the workers as well as the officers. All that is sound and worthy of commendation but it would be unfortunate if the injustices of an old-time pension code, enacted in the British House of Commons 60 or 70 years ago, were to be carried into the future pension scheme of this State. I do not think that any Deputy or Minister would contest the point that a pension is earned by the years of service given to a particular authority and that it should not matter one fig whether those years of service were temporarily interrupted or not.

There is another point which, I think, is worthy of attention. The existing officials get the option of remaining under the old pension scheme or coming under this scheme. Everybody may have a different point of view. I think that this scheme is more attractive than the old one. It all depends on how long a person hopes to live after he is pensioned. If he is optimistic and says: "I am going to retire at 65 and live to 85", it would be more profitable to remain under the old scheme and take 1/60th of a year's pay for each year of service than to take 1/80th and a lump sum. If a person be a pessimist and looks forward to a short life and a gay one, then I think it is better business to accept the lump sum and a smaller pension. Be that as it may, this Bill leaves it open to the bulk of the existing officers either to remain under the old scheme or come under this scheme. Officers who have reached the age of 60 years are, however, excepted from that option. I do not quite see the justification for denying the option to officers or servants who have reached 60 years. There can always be the old argument based on those immediately on one side or the other side of the line.

Compare the case of the person who is 59 years and 11 months with that of the person who is 60 years and one month. I do not see any great point in denying the benefit of the option to a small minority of officials who may be past 60 years of age on the date this Bill becomes law. I do not see that public funds are going to be committed to any greater sum because, as against the option of the person taking the gratuity, he takes a much smaller pension—a pension based on 1/80th as against a pension based on 1/60th. I do not see and I have not learned from the Minister what justification there is for paragraph (b) of Section 35, that is, that if a person has passed 60 years of age he cannot enjoy the benefit of having an option as between one Act and the next. That is a point that I would certainly urge the Minister to look into and to consider before the next stage of the Bill.

There is one other point which I consider is of very great importance, particularly in this year. A great number of officers, officials, servants, have been retired in the course of this year, having reached the age of 65. Some of them retired even, we will say, as late as a week or a fortnight ago. In addition to that all pay was altered last January. It was increased 30 per cent., 40 per cent., 60 per cent. The pension a person retiring to-day would receive is based on the average of his pay over the last three years. The pension of a person retiring under this Bill is based on the pay he would be in receipt of on the date of retiral. Seeing that, following the removal of the standstill Order and in view of the increased cost of living, it was found to be sound State policy to increase the salaries of officers and officials according to a graded scale—those on the smaller scale of salary getting the highest percentage increase—I think that, whether over 60 years of age and eligible to opt under this Bill or not, the pensions of at least those who retired since the scales of salary were raised should be based on the scale of salary on the date of retiral.

I understand that those who retired within a month or two of the new rates of salary, basing their pension on the average of three previous years' income, got no benefit by way of pension through the increase of salary just secured before their resignation. That particular point matters to a very considerable number of officials who have retired not only directly under the Minister's Department but also under the Department of his colleague, the Minister for Health. I think, if consideration of that particular point is put up to the Minister's colleague, he will find that the view is that the benefits at least of having their pension based on their present rates of pay rather than on that which prevailed two or three years back is a reasonable thing to urge on the Minister. Again, on that point of denying benefits in the case of a person who is 60 years of age on the date of the passing of the Bill, I consider that if the full benefits of the new Bill were given to those who are past 60 years of age they would at least be given the benefits of retiring on a pension based on the scale of pay on the date of their retiral.

With regard to the portion of the Bill that deals with established servants, I wish to state that I consider it to be a step in the right direction to endeavour to include them within the pensions scheme but I can see very great difficulties. The work of a great number of these people is interrupted work. They are a servant or an employee of a local authority for five months, seven months, or one year; for perhaps ten months in the next year, and so on. The Bill lays down that on retiral, or on ceasing to be an employee, where they have not reached the pensionable grade of service, contributions made will be returned. That means that a person who has been employed for ten months, say, then gets a return of his contribution.

With the poor people there is always a very great demand for any pound that happens to be in their pockets. This means that their contributions are returned in a lump sum. The contributions are distributed or spent. Then, if they return perhaps a year or two years later to the local authority I take it they are either non-pensionable or they have to refund that portion of their contributions which had previously been restored to them. That would be a financial impossibility in most such cases. I would like to see the registered servant end of the pensions scheme working smoothly, simply, satisfactorily and efficiently, but I can see very great difficulties. The main difficulties are the application of the contributory system of 5 per cent. in the case of workers. I submit to the Minister that the game is not worth the candle, that in the servants' end of this matter the wisest action would be to make them pensionable on the aggregate of their service and to drop the contributory end. If it is to be collected at all the only satisfactory way of collecting from workers is to collect weekly. I submit that the volume of accountancy and the amount of work in connection with the number of pennies to be secured weekly from the workers' contributions is scarcely worth the effort. Then if these contributions have to be returned every time an employee ceases to be an employee it means increased work, increased worrying with regard to the accountancy and very little public gain.

These points are, briefly, what I wanted to bring to the Minister's attention. On the whole, I think, the Bill is a very sound Bill. The aims and objects of the Bill are entirely commendable. The perpetuation of that old blunder of 60 or 80 years ago to pension a person only on continuous service and to deny him a pension for years of service if there was a month's interruption in his service is, to my mind, unfair. I cannot see any reason why the option to go under this Bill or remain under the present Act should be denied to officials who have passed 60 years of age on the date of the passing of the Bill. I do not see the justification for that particular thing. Thirdly, I think the pension of any official or servant who resigned since the salaries were readjusted should be based on the salary at the date of retirement rather than on the average salary for three years back. As I said, these are points that I am referring to the Minister with a certain degree of confidence that they will be seriously and sympathetically looked into. I would prefer that adjustments of this kind should be made from the Ministerial bench rather than forced through the House by amendments from the Opposition benches.

Mr. Larkin

Naturally, one is constrained to welcome a Bill which has for its purpose the extension of what is now recognised as a modern and humane principle of giving not only recognition to service but some security in old age to those who have served a particular employer, whether he be a private or a public employer. Because of that fact, the Bill is to be welcomed, not only by this Party but, I presume, by all Parties in the House. At the same time, there are many details of it that will require more minute examination in Committee and to which it is idle to make reference at this stage. There are, however, certain general features of the Bill which call for comment, particularly, features which constitute many of the main principles in the Bill. I want briefly to refer to them because unless the Minister gives further consideration to the matter in the meantime, it will be necessary to try to rectify them on the Committee Stage.

One feature of the Bill that strikes me as peculiar is the difference in the treatment the Bill proposes to give to officers and servants. First, in so far as Part II is concerned, dealing with officers, it is laid down that that portion of the Bill will operate as from the date contained in an Order made by the Minister whereas Part III, under which provision will be made for the superannuation of servants, is left as at the discretion of a local authority. I would be the last to suggest that the local authority must be dragooned, regardless of its views in the matter, by Ministerial order. At the same time, from experience, I am very well aware that it is possible, and it has happened repeatedly, that because of the constitution of a local authority, their sympathy with their ordinary work people was very much less than their sympathy with their higher officials. Therefore, while leaving it at the discretion of a local authority to decide whether or not the provisions of the Bill should be applied to their servants, where they decide not to give effect to Part III of the Bill, there should be some provision whereby an inquiry might be held into their decision so as to afford their servants and their representatives an opportunity of having the position examined in public.

It is quite clear that one of the factors operating in the Minister's mind in connection with the machinery bringing Part III into operation is the question of cost, but the service given by the servant or workman is just as valuable as that given by the officer and is entitled to the same recognition. If there is to be a superannuation scheme for officers, which is denied to the ordinary worker of the same local authority, something more than a formal debate and the passing of a formal resolution by the local authority should be the means whereby this discrimination is considered and decided upon.

There seems to be running through the Bill a tendency to deal somewhat differently with the officer and the servant. In the case of the officer whose employment is terminated for one reason or another and who has a minimum of ten years' service, additional years' service can be granted to that officer, whereas in the case of a servant having a minimum of ten years' service, whose employment is terminated, he receives no consideration unless he is retiring under the age limit of 65. The question can be asked, if for reasons outside the control of either the officer or the servant his service is terminated, why should there be different treatment for the officer and the servant? In both cases the award of pension is based on recognition of service and on the fact that some consideration should be given to the employee when he is leaving his employment and has to make a new start in life. The difficulties facing the servant in such a position are not very different from those facing the officer and inasmuch as his income over a period of years has been much lower than that of the officer, he has not had the same opportunity of accumulating a reserve to meet such a contingency.

One of the difficulties in dealing with the general principles of the Bill is that possibly every Deputy has to consider the Bill in relation to his own particular area and the effect of the Bill will probably appear different in relation to existing provisions in the various areas. In that connection, some of the provisions of the Bill are in glaring contrast to existing pension provisions, say, in the case of employees of the Dublin Corporation, and it seems that some consideration is necessary because of the anomalous effect of the provisions of the Bill. While, in general, existing superannuation provisions in the Dublin Corporation would appear on paper not to be as favourable from the point of view of the employees as those provided in the Bill, in actual practice, because of the approach by the corporation and by the Minister, in his supervisory capacity, the provision made by the Dublin Corporation does in fact appear to be more generous. One of the particular difficulties we are faced with under the Bill is that in the Dublin Corporation all continuous and unbroken service, whether it be of a permanent or temporary character, counts for pension purposes whereas, under the Bill, it is provided, in the first place, that an employee shall have to wait for a period of three years before he can be appointed to the established staff, can only be appointed if there is a vacancy on that staff, and may have to wait for a period of seven or eight years before he is appointed and his service counts only from the date of that appointment. I submit that if we are going to condition his appointment to the established staff by the fact that there is a vacancy, when that vacancy does arise and the employee has given service over a number of years, he should be credited with that previous service and should not be penalised by virtue of the fact that he has had to wait for a vacancy to arise.

Similarly, in the calculation of wages under the Bill it is proposed that only wages and definite emoluments will be taken into account whereas, up to the present, the practice has been to base the calculation of pension on wages, including overtime earned, sick pay, and other emoluments. Again, there is a departure from existing practice which is not commendable.

One particular feature that should receive further consideration is the principle of the contribution and the amount that is set down in the Bill, namely, 5 per cent. It is quite clear that where there is already a free pension provided, that will create for at least a number of years the anomaly of different groups, one enjoying a free pension and the other paying a certain figure. That is not the strongest objection; it is the actual amount that is required. There are many cases in which private employers out of their own source of income, their own business, provide a pension just as generous as that proposed in this Bill, at much less cost, if it is not provided free. The 5 per cent. that we now propose to charge under the Bill, in the case of a labourer in Dublin City, will involve him in the payment of anything from 5/- to 8/- a week. That, I submit, is an excessive charge to make on the weekly income of any labourer. To levy the same percentage on the wages of a road worker in the rural areas is even more objectionable. I suggest to the Minister that he might give further consideration to reducing the percentage even if he must insist on the principle of contribution.

Another feature in the Bill that somewhat surprises me, because it is a feature we often meet with in the case of private employers, is the proposition that where an employee has not served with diligence or fidelity it shall be permissive for the local authority to reduce his pension. More important still, that reduction is mandatory to the extent of 50 per cent. It seems to me that that is a highly objectionable provision, and for this reason, that if an employee has not given diligent and effective service then the time to call attention to that is when the failure on his part is supposed to have occurred. That failure should not be allowed to lie over until the time comes when his pension is to be calculated, and then mulct him in his pension payment. That is the type of thing that we frequently meet with when we approach private employers—the suggestion that things have taken place in the past that must now be held against an employee even though there is no record of it and, therefore, no means of checking it.

If that system is going to be operated under this Bill, and if it is going to be held by local authorities that an officer or servant has been guilty of a lack of diligence, there should be an actual record made of that at the time. It should not be left in doubt to be recalled to mind some years later perhaps. The matter should be investigated at once the person becomes involved. That person should be afforded an opportunity of defending himself against the charge. It is only when the charge is clearly proved that any record should be made of it.

I would suggest that even though there may be charges preferred of lack of diligence and fidelity some discretion should be left as to the actual amount of the deduction to be made. As far as I can gather from the Bill, the deduction is fixed at not less than 50 per cent. I suggest that unless the charges of lack of diligence and fidelity are of a somewhat grave nature some discretion should be left to the local authority, subject to the final decision of the Minister.

There is one other point that I want to touch on. It was emphasised by the Minister in his introductory speech yesterday. I refer to the effect of a pension claim by servants and employees who are guilty of strike action and the withdrawal of their labour. There seems to be a growing practice of taking the view that because an employee withdraws his labour from a public authority he automatically severs all claim for a pension on that particular authority. Do we not all realise that we are not operating in a perfect system of society, and still less a perfect system of local government? We have the peculiar position that here we are dealing with a sections of citizens who are denied all the methods which are open to other sections of workers in the State of having their claims and grievances considered by methods of mediation and conciliation. Having debarred them from that, we now propose to take from them their right to make any effective protest by the ordinary recognised method of withdrawing their labour. If we wish to say that an employee of a local authority shall forfeit his claim to a pension if he withdraws his labour, then we should provide for him a reasonable and acceptable system of machinery through which his claims can be considered and adjudicated upon. At the present moment we have the somewhat arbitrary decision on matters of the manager and the final decision of the Minister.

It may be quite true to argue, as it has been, that the Government has got the ultimate responsibility, and that in view of that the local authorities have the solution in their hands by changing the Government. That, of course, is farcical. You cannot change a Government on the question of an injustice being done to a small group of employees in Dublin or in some other part of the country. It is not fair or proper to try to argue the matter on that line. The point is that, if we expect to get reasonable and satisfactory service from employees in any employment, we must not only afford them reasonable conditions of employment but also a reasonable opportunity of having their claims and grievances considered and adjudicated upon from time to time. That cannot be done by machinery which consists on the one hand of employers having complete and dictatorial powers, and on the other a single individual. I suggest that if this section in the Bill is to be insisted upon the Minister should recall the debate that took place in the House when the Industrial Relations Act was going through. In that debate the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave a definite undertaking that the practice and the working of the Labour Court would be examined in the period following its establishment to see whether machinery of that type could be applied to local authorities—not perhaps machinery of the same composition— but something of that nature to meet, what was very clearly recognised in the debate at that time, the needs and requirements of these particular employees.

With regard to fire brigade officers and servants who are covered by the Bill, there is a suggestion that I want to make to the Minister. It is now provided that they will be entitled to retire at 55 years of age. Might I suggest at this stage, since it is a question of voluntary retirement—having completed a certain minimum number of years' service—that the retiral age for them might be fixed as low as 50? It is quite clear that the work of a fire brigade officer or servant is of an entirely different character from that performed by the ordinary servants of a local authority. These fire brigade officers and servants run particular risks, not only the ordinary risks of accidents and of a continuous physical strain, but the danger of a breakdown through disease caused by the nature of the operations they are called upon to perform. Since we recognise that particular conditions attach to the work they perform by agreeing that they may retire at 55, I suggest that they should be permitted to retire at the age of 50, in view of the hardships they undergo and the special risks attached to their duties. Finally, I suggest that as a considerable amount of detail will have to be considered in connection with this Bill the Minister might give as much time as possible between this and the Committee Stage for the preparation of amendments.

Mr. Colley

I think it will be generally agreed that, in the main, the provisions of this Bill represent a great advance. The Bill provides for the great majority of employees of local authorities. It has been a long time in preparation. That fact, in itself, has created difficulties in connection with some of the sections in it. One of these difficulties has already been touched on by other Deputies, namely, that men who are over 60 years of age are to be excluded from the option in participating in this measure, if they so desire. There are men who have just turned 60 to-day who ten years ago thought such a measure would be in operation. On account of the small number who are to be excluded, those between 60 and 65, I appeal to the Minister to drop that clause so that these officers would be allowed, like other existing officers and servants, to avail of the provisions of this measure if they so desire.

There is a point I should like the Minister to make clear. Are officers such as rate collectors in the country who are employed, say, for six months of every year and some of whom have been employed in that way for upwards of 25 years excluded from this measure? After studying the Bill I am not clear on that point. If that is so, I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider the cases of such officials as rate collectors, rate clerks and others who are employed in that way. The contribution provision so far as local authorities are concerned is a new principle. I do not think there will be much objection to that, but there is some objection to the 5 per cent. fixed. In the Mental Treatment Bill the contribution was fixed at 3 per cent. Every year of service over 20 years counted for two years for pension purposes, yet the contribution was only 3 per cent. The Minister should reconsider that matter and reduce the rate of contribution.

Undoubtedly the death gratuity is the big consideration which will make a number of officers accept this measure as against the existing legislation. But a number of men who thought they would enjoy the benefits of this measure have unfortunately died during the period of its preparation. I know of a few cases of officials in Dublin who have died within the last two years and have left big families in very sorry circumstances. I think the Minister should introduce a retrospective clause to cover these cases. I think it is as far back as 1933 since this measure was promised. It is only coming along now and, in the circumstances, I think that what I ask for should be done.

The Minister mentioned that this Bill puts local officers on much the same basis as civil servants. In the case of civil servants, I think the death gratuity is free of death duties. I do not think that that is provided for in this measure. I take it that the idea is to put it on the same basis as in the case of civil servants. I ask the Minister to consider these few points between this and the Committee Stage as sympathetically as he can. On the whole, I welcome the measure. I think it is a very good Bill and will make for much more contentment in the local services.

Mr. Hughes

Like other Deputies who have spoken, I support the measure. I agree that the provisions are generally good and favourable. I just want to make one or two points. So far as the 60 years of age is concerned, I think it is unfair to exclude officers who serve beyond 60 years of age—not to permit the lump sum to increase proportionately. There may be cases of men who intend to go out at that age voluntarily and who may be pressed to remain on because of their capacity to serve. These officers should be encouraged to remain on if it is in the interests of the local authority that they should do so and there should be no penalty attached to the continued service.

So far as road workers are concerned, I think that the 5 per cent. contribution is rather high. With the present rates of wages and the high cost of living it may be difficult for them to make a contribution of 5 per cent. I think the State ought to make some contribution to this particular pension scheme in the case of road workers, because the State will be saved the paying of old age pensions in their case. Whatever saving is effected so far as the State is concerned in that way, to that extent at any rate the State should provide that money for the local authorities. The tendency is to throw back too much responsibility on the local authorities. While the scheme is a favourable one it is placing no financial burden on the State. These pensions may amount to a considerable sum. The sum may grow to pretty substantial dimensions so far as local authorities are concerned. In the last analysis, the bulk of that will have to be found by the agricultural community.

I join with the last speaker in asking the Minister to make the provisions of the measure retrospective to the time the Bill was circulated at all events. The Bill was circulated last May or June. I have in mind the case of one particular officer in Carlow who died recently after giving lifelong service to the county as an agricultural instructor. Under the existing legislation his widow gets no benefit. If we had discussed this Bill when it was circulated, the chances are that it would have become law before that officer died and before the officer that Deputy Colley referred to died. We were engaged here in looking after ourselves, in increasing our own allowances. Therefore I suggest to the Minister that he might consider making the Bill retrospective, say, to the 1st January when the increased rates came into operation. When the Bill was circulated a number of people were very pleased when they heard of the terms of the measure and they were looking forward to benefiting by it. There is, however, no provision for the widows or families of those who died in the meantime. I press the Minister to make the measure retrospective.

Mr. Corish

The announcement some time ago by the Minister that he intended to introduce a Superannuation Bill especially for established servants was welcomed generally throughout the country, but the Bill as presented to us is not as attractive as we expected. It is not attractive to established servants especially. The main body of workers under local authorities who have been concerned about that new Superannuation Bill are the road workers and other minor officers of local authorities, and the big objection these people will have, and I have spoken to a large number of them since the Bill was presented to the Dáil, is that this 5 per cent. contribution is a huge joke because it means that a man down in County Wexford and in most other counties with £2 10s. per week will have to contribute to the superannuation fund 2/6 per week, plus the insurance he normally pays of 1/5. It means that a man in receipt of £2 10s. per week will have to pay 3/11 and I can assure the Minister and the House that the road workers will not take too kindly to the Bill, if it is the intention of the Minister to insist on a 5 per cent. reduction from the weekly wage.

To a worker with £3 a week, it means, including insurance, 4/5 deduction from his weekly wages for the purpose of entitling him to a pension at the age of 65 or 70. It must also be remembered that the man who gets a pension of 12/6 per week under the terms of this Bill will be penalised by the Minister for Social Welfare when he reaches the age of 70, because that pension will act against him when the investigation officer comes to investigate his means. The pension he gets will be taken into consideration in assessing his means, and, from that point of view, the road workers will not take too kindly to the measure, unless there are some modifications, first, in the matter of the contribution, and, secondly, in the matter of the means test when they come to the age at which they receive an old age pension.

Another matter which the Minister ought to consider with regard to both the established servants and officers is the stipulation that the local authority —I suppose the county manager in this case—must be satisfied as to the diligence and fidelity of the servant or officer during the period of his employment with the local authority. Diligence and fidelity are rather vague terms to me, but I should imagine that diligence and fidelity would be essential qualifications of a man's daily work, of the servant or officer while in the employment of the local authority. Surely if a man is not diligent, is not carrying out his duties properly and not acting in accordance with the terms of his appointment, the county manager or the Minister will take steps to have him removed, but it is not fair that a man should have to carry on for 20, 30 or 40 years in suspense, so to speak, about whether he will get a certificate that he has been diligent and faithful during his service with the local authority. That provision should be deleted because a man must look forward to his pension, but, in this case, he cannot, until the actual date on which it is allowed by the local authority or the Minister.

Another feature which is objectionable in respect of both eestablished servants and officers is the section which says that any period before 18 years of age will not be reckoned as pensionable service. I want to point out that it is the practice in some areas to employ people under 18 years of age on road repair and more especially is it the practice of local authorities to engage typists, clerks and other officials of that type at 16 years of age. In the case of most applications which are invited for positions as typists and clerical officers, the age ranges from 16 years upwards. I do not think it matters whether they are employed before the age of 18 because the maximum number of years which can be reckoned for pension purposes is fixed and it does not make any difference whether a person works that maximum from the age of 16 or the age of 18. From that point of view, this provision with regard to service before 18 years of age not being reckoned for pension purposes should be scrapped entirely.

In the case of established officers, up to this I think local officials must agree that they have enjoyed pretty favourable pension schemes, schemes which are all the more favourable in that they are not contributory. As Deputy Larkin pointed out, when the Bill becomes law, we will have a position in which officials with the very same status and in receipt of the very same salary as other officials and working side by side with them will not have to contribute to their pensions while the others will have to contribute 5 per cent. I am sure it will cause a lot of discontent and I suggest that the pension scheme introduced and made effective in the Act of 1925 should still continue for the officers of local authorities.

I should like to ask the Minister how this figure of 5 per cent. was arrived at. So far as I know, in commercial firms which have pension schemes, and even contributory pension schemes, a figure as high as 5 per cent. is not asked of the employee. Certain businesses in the City of Dublin have pension schemes and no contribution at all is asked from the employee who participates. I seriously suggest to the Minister that many road workers and minor officers will not avail of this scheme if the contribution of 5 per cent. is adhered to. Everybody in the House and in the country will realise that 4/11 per week from road workers with £2 10s. 0d. per week is an absolutely fantastic sum. I am sure they will not participate in this scheme and will not be anxious to take up work on the roads at all if this stipulation is adhered to. I suggest to the Minister that most people in the House and even members of his own Party are in agreement that it is far too high. If it could be modified, the Bill for me at least would be less objectionable.

Mr. Murphy

I want to add my voice to what has been said in relation to this Bill, with particular reference to the road workers. I speak on behalf of a certain section of the members of one local authority which probably employs the highest number of road workers in the country. The number of road workers in Cork County would substantially exceed 2,000, apart from other sections of public employees.

One welcomes the departure in this Bill so as to make some provision of security by way of pension for public employees. One is impressed with the proposals in relation to contributory pensions. It has been pointed out, and strongly emphasised, that the restrictions in regard to the amount to be contributed, the waiting period before entering into the register, the condition regarding diligence of service and generally the whole atmosphere surrounding the granting of pensions to those people, make for a good deal of uncertainty and, I am afraid, ultimately a good deal of dissatisfaction. It is true that a very substantial number of road workers who have reached 60 years are still in possession of their faculties and their physical strength and they are able to do their work quite well, but the fact that there is no provision made for them will be a source of great disappointment to members of local authorities who know the record of service of these men and are aware of what they have done for the local authorities.

I do not want to disparage the principle underlying the Bill. It is an excellent one and it is one that we all welcome. I hope that on the Committee Stage the Minister will remedy the points to which objection has properly been taken. I desire to support the plea made for the retrospective effect of this measure in regard to the dependents of public officials who died before the measure was introduced. No doubt the Minister will be informed that there are tragic cases of this kind. There are quite a number in the county from which I come. I do not want to mention particular cases, but the Minister could be given details of such cases. I feel he will have the unanimous support of the people, no matter how concerned some may be about public expenditure, in helping to maintain homes very sadly affected by such circumstances as I have mentioned.

There are some cases of persons in very humble circumstances who had their positions abolished and who will, I am afraid, have no rights under this Bill unless the Minister is in a position to make some provision for them. I have in mind the case of a widow in West Cork who, following her husband's death, took over the position of rate collector. That position was abolished following the transfer of the work of the town commissioners in that district to the Cork County Council. This is a case that will commend itself to the sympathetic attention of the Minister. There are, perhaps, other cases of the same kind. I hope the Minister will be able to do something to meet the situation that has been created for those people.

As this Bill provides for the fixing of an age limit for the employees of the fever hospital in Cork, may I make a passing reference to what I feel is a very notable omission from this measure? It is the absence of some provision for dealing with the officers of the voluntary hospitals. I realise that I am not entitled to develop this point, but I should like to bring to the Minister's attention the position of the employees of the voluntary hospitals in Cork and in the north and south infirmaries. A number of them have given very long service. If it is not possible to do something for them on this occasion, I hope the Minister will avail of some opportunity to give those very faithful and diligent employees of these hospitals, from the secretary down to the most humble worker in the hospitals, some measure of security in the future. I hope the Minister will find it possible to bear in mind the points put forward in this discussion. If he does, I feel sure that in its later stages this Bill will be much more acceptable than it is in its present form.

Mr. Anthony

Like other Deputies I welcome the introduction of this Bill. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on the whole set-up of the measure that we have before us. I hope some attempt will be made by the Minister to react in some way to the suggestions that have been put to him by previous speakers. I am not so much concerned with the question of deductions in relation to the contributory scheme. I hope that this measure will be the forerunner of a more comprehensive Bill which will include not only the workers employed by public authorities but others. I trust it will have a wider scope and a more general application.

All of us who have any contacts with the workers must know that there is the eternal nightmare of approaching old age, when they will be no longer fit for any strenuous work and in 99 cases out of 100 they will be cast aside, thrown on the scrap heap, allowed to live on the rates or on the charity of their friends. We have to have regard to the fact that many of our people have emigrated to the Six Counties or to Great Britain. We know, too, that many people are attracted by the relatively adequate pensions given across the Border and on the other side of the Channel to persons who attain the age of 65 years.

I welcome this measure for many reasons. It removes from the minds of many people the terrible nightmare of poverty which is staring them in the face when they reach 65 or 70 years. I feel it will prove to be a very useful antidote in so far as it relates to emigration. We have from time to time granted pensions to workers who come under the heading of established servants here. I understand that has been done for a period of years and it was regarded as being quite illegal. Nevertheless, the Department of Local Government was very sympathetic and there was no question of a surcharge.

I understand the Minister is contemplating the introduction of legislation which will give Cork the same right as Dublin with reference to being able to pension some of these servants. A number of labourers and other workers who have given long service to the municipality are debarred from receiving pensions. Some of them were laidoff and they got a pension of 10/- a week and they were thus enabled to draw 6/- as an old age pension.

Section 18 states that an established officer in Dublin "shall be entitled to reckon as service", and so on. Subsection (2) of the same section also lays down that an established officer of the Corporation of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire "shall be entitled to reckon as service", and so on. I would like the Minister to clear up any misconception that may have arisen and be present still. The White Paper states that "local authorities which may adopt Part III will be empowered to grant retiring allowances to their established servants and the power to adopt this Part will be a reserved function under the County Management Acts". That reserved function is somewhat similar to reserved functions under the Cork City Management Act. We have a very admirable city manager in Cork and I am not even suggesting that he will not adopt Part III, but I would like to know if a majority of the members of the council would be sufficient.

Mr. MacEntee

It is a reserved function.

Mr. Anthony

To the city manager?

Mr. MacEntee

It is reserved to the elected body. The Cork Council can adopt it.

Mr. Anthony

Some suggestions were made here this evening by Deputy Larkin and Deputy Murphy which I regard as very useful and practical. I would not cavil whether the contribution is 3 per cent. or 5 per cent. from the wages of any of the parties mentioned, as I feel that getting something for nothing, as in the case of some of the pension schemes I have heard of, is undesirable. I would much prefer a contributory pension scheme. After all, I do not believe we have road workers all over the country working for £2 10s. I know they get more in other centres. Perhaps the Minister, in view of what Deputy Corish said a moment ago, would have regard to some unfortunate people who may have to work at £2 10s. in present circumstances and see that some elasticity is provided in the measure so as to cover cases where workers may be getting only £2 10s. a week. It might be arranged that they pay something less than those getting £3 10s. or £4. While throwing out that suggestion, I can assure the Minister that I give a very hearty welcome to the measure. I think that he has retrieved a lot of his good name. He has done himself real justice on this occasion and I wish him every success.

Mr. Davin

I subscribe without any reservation or qualification of any kind to the policy of contributory pensions. If the workers generally—industrial, agricultural and others—had the good sense to take out insurance policies or contribute to funds of this kind, there would be less trouble about looking after the welfare of their families when some of them pass out of this world without making any proper provision. I would encourage the Minister to cut out as many snags as he possibly can, for the purpose of saving himself and the officials of the Department and the officers of local authorities trouble in administering this measure. This provision, more or less putting responsibility back on the local authority for fixing the pension of an officer or servant with regard to the manner in which he has carried out his duties, is an unheard of provision. If a man makes a contribution for a pension, under any law I ever heard of before, he has a moral and legal right to draw that pension, unless he has been found guilty of some criminal lapse.

In the case of the Military Service Pensions Acts and other Acts, we have a definite provision that when a man goes on pension he cannot be deprived of that pension without being found guilty in a court and sentenced to hard labour. It would be a queer state of affairs if this provision were maintained and it would cause a good deal of contention amongst members of local authorities. Different members of a local authority may take different views in regard to the manner in which an officer or servant has discharged his duties. The Minister should save himself trouble by cutting out this objectionable condition. The obligation should not be imposed upon any members of a local authority to interpret the words in the manner intended by the Minister.

I would like to hear more from him as to why that provision was inserted in the Bill. An existing officer or servant will, I presume, get his pension without this matter being brought in, whereas another man who pays a contribution will be brought under crossexamination when it comes to the period for retiring.

Regarding the figure of 5 per cent., I could understand that figure being laid down in the Bill and insisted upon if it were put there for the purpose of keeping a superannuation fund in a solvent condition, but there is no question here of the solvency of a fund. It is not a superannuation fund proper: the contribution, whatever may be finally fixed, will be treated merely as part of the revenue of the local authority and is not fixed to maintain the solvency of a fund. The figure is ridiculously high in the case of low paid workers. I had a good deal to do with tendering advice over a period in connection with the administration of a superannuation fund which has a membership of 48,000 persons, of which I happen to be a member myself, and I have taken a great interest in the working of the fund. In considering the solvency of a superannuation fund or any pension fund, whether solvent or insolvent, the members generally pay on the basis of a graduated scale and that is done on actuarial advice. I know of a case of a fund which has close on £20,000,000 and in the earlier stage of the service the members pay 2½ per cent. and on a graduated basis up to 4 per cent. But I have yet to hear from the Minister or from anyone the name of any superannuation fund where the contribution paid by the members is as high as 5 per cent. I know of superannuation funds where the percentage of the contribution has been increased since the beginning of the emergency but that was done in accordance with the wishes of actuaries to maintain solvency on the same basis as it was fixed pre-war.

I would like the Minister to give careful consideration to the suggestion made by Deputy Anthony that lowerpaid workers of the local authority brought into this scheme should pay a smaller contribution than those who are lucky enough to be in receipt of something like a living wage in existing circumstances. There would be a good case for asking a man with £500 a year to pay 5 per cent. but there is no case for asking a man with wages of £2 10s. a week and the responsibilities attaching to a married man to pay even 2½ per cent. However, I do not want to elaborate on this, but I would like the Minister to look into this matter sympathetically before it reaches the Committee Stage.

There is another objectionable section in the Bill, the section that proposes to penalise a prospective pensioner, if in his wisdom he decides to exercise his constitutional right to withdraw his labour. I have had some experience regarding this side of pension schemes before—and the Minister can get confirmation of this statement. Following the imprisonment of several persons occupied in public companies during the time known as the Black-and-Tan period—people who were members of a superannuation fund associated with public concerns such as railways—they were put off the pension list. There was considerable trouble in some cases in getting these people restored to membership of pension funds to which they had been previously attached and at the same time in getting credit for the contributions they had previously made to the pension fund.

In a number of cases only after considerable political pressure did these railways allow these persons who came out of jail to return to the pension funds. They wanted to cut them out from any right to a pension and if that had taken place they would have suffered considerably when they came to the pension period, or if they had died before reaching the pension period their dependents would be severely penalised. The Minister may have a certain point of view in connection with the rights of workers of the local authority to withdraw their labour but he must admit that it is a constitutional right and whether they exercise it or not in certain circumstances is a matter for consideration whenever those circumstances arise. I would warn him that he may be creating a good deal of trouble for himself by insisting on insertion of a penal clause like that. I am submitting that it is an attempt to penalise the officers or servants of the local authority in certain circumstances for the exercise of their constitutional rights.

On the whole I welcome the Bill and the policy enshrined in it and hope when it has passed through the Final Stage that it will make provision as far as possible and as far as can be reasonably done to make provision for pensions for the majority of officers and servants of the local authorities.

Mr. Commons

I have not got an awful lot to say about this Bill, but the average taxpayer looks with a certain amount of distrust on any pension Bill introduced into this House, and I think I can assure the Minister that there will not be a good reception from the taxpayers all over the country for this Bill.

But the Bill has this good point that the pensions are paid from contributions paid by the different officials and workers employed by the local authorities and this will ease the minds of those people who would be inclined to grumble and grouse at the Bill. There is no doubt that the workers of the local authority have not got sufficient consideration for a number of years past; while all the lower paid officials of the local authority are entitled to pensions on retirement because they can easily claim that they have given such long service to the State or to the local body that they have neglected to become skilful in any other means of livelihood. They are entitled to a fund to enable them to live peacefully and with a fair amount of prosperity in their old age. When we look at the other side of the ledger we see people who lived all their lives by private enterprise and who need not fall back on the State but go out at the beginning of each week to provide their own means of livelihood and at the age of 70 are denied the old age pension to which they are entitled because by hard work they had saved some money for their later years. We wonder if Bills introduced to pay pensions to local officials do anything to help the advancement of the country. If every person in this State decided to look to the Government for a means of livelihood and no one looked to his own energy or initiative for his livelihood then no wealth would be contributed by anybody and if the State would be paying pensions to everybody there would be very little private enterprise. I am not totally opposed to the Bill because I understand that the pensions are paid from the contributions paid by those who are to benefit by them and this will save it from the hard comments which it would otherwise get. There are a few things that I am opposed to.

The average road worker, I understand, under this Bill is by no means entitled to a pension unless he puts in a certain number of days per year in the employment of the local authority. A young man of 18, for example, gets employment as an ordinary labourer from the county council. Some of us who are in constant touch with people who take up such employment—small farmers' sons—know that they cannot possibly be given the number of days' employment by the county council which would entitle them to benefit from this scheme. On the other hand, for every week these men work they are supposed to make a contribution of 5 per cent. I have no doubt that the contribution of 5 per cent. is rather high, but let us take it that they would be willing to make a contribution of 5 per cent. and after ten years of casual employment in the county council they would still find that at the end of each year they had not got the necessary number of days to entitle them to reap any benefit from the payment. Yet they paid every week in order to help to give pensions to other officials and nothing to themselves. That is the problem that I would like to get an explanation on from the Minister.

We all know that the amount of money at the disposal of a county council cannot possibly give permanent employment for eight or ten months of the year to every road worker and road ganger. I know men who must give 2/6 a week, plus insurance, which makes a total of 4/11 out of £2 10s. 0d. a week. Such men have definitely a grievance and now is the time, before this Bill becomes law, to get an explanation of what their position will be.

Again, we have the case of the young man who commences employment as a clerical officer in a county council. These appointments are generally on a temporary basis at the commencement. In nine cases out of ten, the individuals find themselves employed almost permanently. At least, they are employed for nine months of the year and, after a period, are made permanent. It cannot be said of a young man who started off as a clerical officer in a county council that, after 20 years, he was still a clerical officer. For those young ment, there is advancement and promotion. If they are energetic and intelligent enough, there is no doubt that, even in this country with all its drawbacks, they will improve their position. But the man who starts life as a road worker will, generally, find himself, after 20 years, still a road worker. The average ganger employed by a county council will still be a ganger after 15 or 20 years. There is no advancement for him or, if there is, it is very limited. In only one case out of 100 will such a man advance himself, even though he has excellent qualifications. The Minister may have ideas of his own on these matters but I should like to see some attention given to these individuals.

Many pension schemes have been introduced in recent years in the interest of different types of officials of county councils. Some men who would be entitled to get pensions will not benefit by this scheme at all. They may be in a happy position as regards security but it will be not so beneficial to them when they come to retire. Those too old for protection will have to pay their contributions whether they are to benefit or not. The people will look at any pension scheme with a certain amount of disfavour because they have been fleeced for pension schemes for the past 25 years. They will say that this is a measure to take more money out of the ratepayers' pockets.

On the whole, however, the Bill is a worthy one, because a contribution is demanded from those who will benefit. I listened with interest to the speakers who suggested that a 5 per cent. contribution was too high. It is too high for the lowly-paid worker, even if he has permanent employment. Two and a half per cent. or 3½ per cent. would be sufficient in the case of a man earning £2 10s. a week. The 5 per cent. could be deducted from the man earning £6 or £7 a week. The person earning 50/- a week will not get anything like the pension which will be payable to the person earning £6 or £7 a week. Therefore, I do not think he should be asked to pay the same contribution as a man with a large salary. This Bill will be welcomed, particularly by the persons concerned. Whether or not it will be welcomed by the people of the country is another matter. While it may deserve a certain amount of criticism, I do not think that it would be right completely to oppose it.

Mr. O'Leary rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy spoke yesterday on this Bill.

Mr. O'Leary

I merely raised an objection to one part of it—that if a man went on strike he would lose his pension rights. I merely want to make a few remarks now. I welcome the Bill. Road workers and others employed by the county council of which I am a member, as well as employees of the urban council, have been looking forward to this Bill since they saw the announcement in the Press. I am glad that the Minister introduced it because we have old employees who are going out, after 40 years' service, without a pension. A plumber in Enniscorthy who has given his whole life to the council has to go out without a pension. Many others have gone out with nothing but the old age pension. All we could do was to give them a day's work. The Bill will be welcomed by workers because it will make for security. While one section of officials were receiving big pensions on leaving the service of local bodies, the vast majority of the road men and quarry men had nothing to rely upon but the old age pension.

With regard to the payment of 2/6 per week, when I was a flour mill worker, the flour millers offered, through our union, a pension scheme which provided for a deduction of 1/- per week. A national ballot was taken on that proposal and it was turned down. A deduction of 2/6 from a wage of 50/- is too much. Deputy Anthony says that some county councils pay more than 50/- and he is probably right. If the Minister could see his way to reduce the contribution to 1/- per week, no man or woman employed by a local authority would object. A deduction of 2/6 a week means £6 a year. Many of the staffs of the mental hospitals and other institutions have not been sanctioned but I gather that they will be covered by this Bill. As regards the ratepayers, I do not think there can be any objection. Deputy Commons referred to the opinion of the ratepayers, but the men in the employment of a local authority will now have something to look forward to. It will give them an interest in their work and they will do it well so that they may be able to retire on pension. That will be something which the majority of workers do not enjoy. Of course, some private employers, such as Guinness, give pensions to their employees. Why should not the local authorities be put on the same basis? The workers are very glad this scheme has been introduced. I welcome it on behalf of the labour class employed by Wexford County Council and other public bodies.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. MacEntee)

First of all, I should like to thank the House for the manner in which they received the Bill and for the criticisms which for my own benefit and advantage they have offered in regard to its provisions. I do not accept or agree with all of them, but I shall certainly consider them because I know they have been advanced with the idea of being helpful.

There is one aspect of the Bill about which the greater part of the discussion has centred and I think I should say something in regard to it because many Deputies seem to be under a misapprehension as to what exactly the Bill does in this respect. The feature of the Bill to which I refer is the fact that it is a contributory one. There have been a number of erroneous assumptions made about that. First of all it has been assumed that the Bill is purely a superannuation Bill. However, it does more than provide mere superannuation for a retired officer or a retired servant of any local authority. It provides him with a certain measure of assurance. As will be seen under Section 73 and other sections a gratuity is payable to the representatives of an officer or a servant in the event of his death. Let me be quite clear about that. It is something more than paying for a pension. It is also paying for that. Under Section 73 particularly advantageous terms are conceded in the case of an officer who may be injured or who may die from injuries arising in the course or out of the nature of his employment. These things, again, are something over and above the mere provision of a superannuation allowance to a person on retirement. There is another point in this connection. The contribution does not meet the full cost of the benefits to be given under the Bill. Deputy Commons who, with Deputy Roddy and some others, seems to be concerned for the position of the people who will be paying the major part of the benefits to be granted under this Bill should perhaps, with myself, have considerable regard for that fact. The contributions which we are asking will scarcely pay more than one-third of the total cost of the benefits that are to be given. While it is all very well for us to say that a private employer may do very much more for his employees than it is proposed to ask the county councils to do under this Bill we have to remember that there is a very vital distinction between the private employer and the county councils.

The private employer in a matter of that sort, if he wants to be generous to his employees and if he wants to play reasonably fair with them, does so, nevertheless, at his own expense or at the expense of his competitive position in trade and at the risk of reducing his income if his costs should go too high. But the public authority, on the other hand, pays with other people's money. Therefore we, who are here as representatives of the community as a whole, ought to be very much concerned with the fact that these benefits are not coming out of our pockets nor out of the pockets of the nine, 12 or 21 people who constitute the councils of the local authorities, but out of the pockets of the ratepayers and the producers of this country. It is with regard not merely to that fact but also to the desirability of enabling servants of local authorities to have a measure of security that we have tried to strike the fair compromise between all these interests which are embodied in this Bill.

Again, it has been said that the contribution which we are asking the established servants of the local authorities to pay is excessive, having regard to their means. I think in relation to that, we must also consider the fact that they are allowed to become pensionable upon very favourable terms. Take the case of an established officer. He has to be in continuous whole-time employment, day in day out, for the whole of the five or five and a half days of the week that he is required to discharge his duties. In the case of an established servant, on the other hand, the conditions are much less stringent because we are only asking that he will be in employment for at least 200 out of the, roughly, 300 working days of the year. It is hard to express, but it means that he need only be in what might be described as two-thirds constant employment. That is a very considerable difference and a fair approach to meet the particular conditions of the vast body of servants or manual employees of local authorities. I think we should not, when we are criticising the amount of the contribution we are asking, in all fairness to the people who will ultimately have to foot the Bill, leave that out of consideration.

Deputy Commons seems, furthermore, to be under a misapprehension as to the position of young men who are taken on as casual employees by the local authorities in regard to this contribution. This contribution is not going to be asked for from any person except an established servant, that is, a person who, by reason of the fact that he has been employed for not less than 200 days a year for three consecutive years by the local authority, has earned the right to have his name placed upon the register of established servants. If he has not got that employment over the three preceding years he will not have fulfilled the basic condition to permit him to be registered and during that period no contribution will be asked from him. On the other hand, if his name is entered upon the register of established servants he will be asked to pay his contribution, but if he leaves the employment of the local authority —due to any cause except his own wilful default—if he leaves because there is not work for him, he will be entitled to a return of his contribution. In such an event the local authority could be described as merely acting as a savings bank for him and he would be no worse off from that point of view than if he had never been asked to make a contribution. That has to be borne in mind when we are considering some of the criticisms of Deputy Larkin and Deputy Davin. They quite overlooked the fact that under Sections 30 and 53 the contributions will be returnable in the circumstances where a person leaves the employment of the council due to any other cause than his voluntary resignation or dismissal. I was going to deal here with some of the points raised by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, but some of them may be covered by what I say in relation to the points made by Deputy Roddy.

I am afraid I would have to look into that. I have not considered the case of a person who retired otherwise than by the effluxion of time. I will look into it and see if it is necessary to cover it between now and Committee Stage. The only cases I had before my mind were the cases of people who were compelled to retire by the Order which was made by the Minister for Local Government before the new scales came in. My mind has been exercised about their position and I think they are fully covered in the Bill but if the Deputy has any reason to think they are not, I will look into it again. There is, of course, this question of people who retire on grounds of ill-health.

Deputy Roddy also expressed the fear that the name of an officer or servant could be removed arbitrarily from the register. I do not see how the Deputy has formed that impression because it seems to me that Section 10 and Section 38 fully cover that point. First of all, I may point out, that the register is to be open to inspection. Section 10 deals with this question of the removal from the register and subsection (3) of that section provides that a person aggrieved by the removal of his name by a local authority from the register may appeal against the removal to the appropriate Minister. So that they have the right of appeal under Section 10 and also under Section 38. Therefore, I do not think there is any fear that the name of a person will be arbitrarily removed from the register.

Deputy O'Higgins asked why continuous service is insisted on in the case of officers who remain under the 1925 Act. He indicated that he could not understand why continuous service had been insisted on.

Now, the insistence arises from the fact that the grant of superannuation rights had two purposes, both of them advantageous from the employers' point of view. One is that the prospect of securing a pension, dependent on giving continuous service for a definite period, is an inducement to an officer to remain in the service. Occasions may arise in which an officer would see some personal benefit if he left the service and tried his luck elsewhere. As we know, the departure of a trained and experienced officer may give rise to considerable inconvenience indeed and great expense. At the moment, we have a great demand in outside employment for certain classes of officers, particularly technical officers. They might earn something more outside the service than they are at present earning in it. I think that, while the inducement might be strong for an officer to leave the service in these circumstances, he will hesitate to do so if he forfeits his previous service. I think that is a consideration which officers have to keep in mind. We cannot put officers in existing circumstances into the position in which they can leave the service at any time without the consent of the appropriate Minister and re-enter it when it becomes advantageous for them to do so, and then lump all their services together as continuous.

Dr. O'Higgins

Are they doing so?

Mr. MacEntee

At the moment they cannot leave without the consent of the Minister and of the local authority and, as I have said, that consent will not be lightly given. In fact, it may not be given at all if the officer is leaving the service to enter into outside employment. If he is leaving the service to go from one local authority to another or if, in exceptional circumstances, he were leaving in order to secure experience which might be advantageous and on the understanding that he was coming back to the service of the local authority, then the consent of the Minister would be given. As it stands at the moment, if we were to allow all existing officers who do not opt for the terms of this Bill to lump all their services together, then I think we should be simply inviting them to take advantage of the exceptional position which exists outside to leave the service when, as I have said, they thought it was to their advantage to do so, and then try to get back into it when they found it was more advantageous for them to be in the service than outside it.

Dr. O'Higgins

That applies to the past and not to the future.

Mr. MacEntee

Again, we have safeguards for the future because no period of less than two years will be regarded as continuous if the person has left the employment of a local authority in that period. In addition to that, as I have pointed out, we should bear in mind that the new scheme is contributory and that the officer will not be able to get a refund of his contributions in certain circumstances, so that he may lose his contributions when he leaves the service.

Deputy Corish and some other Deputies referred to the fact that an officer is bound to serve with diligence and fidelity. I think we are entitled to ask that. If a local authority is going to pay two-thirds in the case of officers and perhaps more than two-thirds in the case of established servants, of the cost of the benefits that are being guaranteed to officers and servants under this Bill, then I think the local authority before giving a pension is entitled to satisfy itself that the officer has served it with diligence and fidelity.

Mr. Davin

If he does not do that is he not penalised or sacked?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is very guileless if he feels that all officers of local authorities serve their employers with the same diligence and fidelity as they would if they were in private employment. Naturally, public bodies and such organisations are more lenient, I think, in the standards of service which they exact from their officers and servants than private employers are. In any event, I think this is a sound principle. If local authorities are going to pay two-thirds of the cost of the benefits under the Bill, I think they are entitled to get something in return for it. They should at least have the satisfaction of feeling that their officers had served them with diligence and fidelity.

Mr. Corish

Does that mean that on the day an officer's pension is to be fixed his whole career in the service will be reviewed? If that were so, he would be in suspense for a certain period of time to know whether he had fulfilled his duties with diligence and fidelity. Could he not get a certificate every year?

Mr. MacEntee

Well, if we were to start granting certificates then, in some of the cases which I have seen coming before me, I am afraid it is his passport he would get. However, the fundamental thing is that it is there because I think the local authority is entitled to insist on that provision. It raises a point which, of course, if we want to be strictly logical, can be very awkward. There is a provision in the Bill that where a local authority is not satisfied as to the diligence and fidelity with which one of its servants has served it in the past, it may give him a lesser pension. That is a compassionate provision. It will enable us to deal with those hard cases which we sometimes meet where a man has given very good service over a number of years and then for one reason or another has begun to deteriorate, due to ill-health or perhaps the undue cultivation of convivial habits. We all know of such cases. We are not so innocent here. I have often had the very difficult task of having to determine that, no matter what pleas might be offered for sympathetic consideration, in justice to the local service a man had to be removed from office without any pension at all.

This provision has been included to enable local authorities, if they like, to pension men who, for one reason or another, are no longer in a position to give satisfactory service rather than to keep carrying them on, not only as passengers, which is bad enough, but as a very bad influence on and as a bad example to the other members of the staff. It is a very awkward factor in the management and control of any organisation. If you have a man who, obviously, is not pulling his weight in the team or earning his money and, because of family circumstances or something else, you do not want to deal harshly with him and you keep carrying him on, there is the suggestion to every other officer and employee: "If I follow his example, I will be treated with the same compassionate regard." Therefore, as I said, we put in this provision which will enable local authorities and the Minister to deal with these hard and, I will say frankly; exceptional cases.

However, this is a Bill which is so complicated that I think we can better deal with it in Committee, because upon most of the provisions there may be differences of opinion as to what is the best line to take. As Deputies know, it has been a long time in incubation. It is, I think, 14 years or more since a Bill of this sort was promised first. It has received a great deal of consideration in the Department and from successive Ministers. I do not say that it represents the last word in these matters; indeed, so far as Part III is concerned, it is a tentative attempt to deal with a very complicated problem and one which I am very anxious, if I can, to find a reasonable solution for.

We have a number of official amendments, which will be circulated later, in relation to the Bill. None of them will be of very great significance from the point of view of principle. But, when they are circulated, Deputies will have an opportunity of considering them and I will undertake to give them a sufficient amount of time thereafter to formulate their own amendments. In that connection, I am sure we are all anxious, since the Bill has been before the House now quite a long time, that we should try to get it enacted before Christmas if we can. For that reason, I would ask, while putting down the Committee Stage for this day fortnight, that at any rate it should not be taken later than this day three weeks.

Dr. O'Higgins

I wish to put one point to the Minister. In Section 75 power is given where persons retired between the 1st November last year and the passage of the Bill to give them a higher pension than normal. Now, say, a person over the age of 60 years retired last month as a result of ill-health. He can get a higher pension than normal. If a person retires through ill-health the day after the passing of the Bill he cannot get a higher pension than normal.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 9 Oct 1947