Local Government (Superannuation) Bill, 1955—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 6, line 34, to delete "Force of the Defence Forces" and substitute "Defence Force on full pay".
This amendment is purely a drafting point. It is intended to provide that a servant should be allowed to reckon, as a service day, any day when he is attending or performing his duty as a member of any of the Reserve Forces of the Defence Forces. The wording that appears in the Bill might be held to exclude such a duty while he is performing his duty for training or the like with the F.C.A. or An Sluagh Muirí. The new wording will ensure that those services are covered also. It is merely a drafting point.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 6, to delete lines 40 to 45, and substitute the following:—
"wages" means, subject to Section 46, payments as wages to a servant as such for his own use and—
(a) in the case of a servant who is suspended or absent on leave and who, as respects the period of suspension or absence, does not receive a part of the payments as wages to him for his own use which he would have received if he had not been suspended or absent on leave, includes that part, and
(b) in the case of a servant being paid compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1934 to 1955, by a local authority, includes the wages that he would have received if he had not been in receipt of such compensation.
This amendment is a repetition of the definition of "wages" in Section 2 of the Bill with the addition of paragraph (b) of the amendment. A servant can reckon as a service day any day up to one year at a time when he was drawing workmen's compensation. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that should any such day fall into the reckoning for calculation of his pensionable remuneration for the purpose of granting him an allowance or a gratuity his wages on that day will be taken to be what he would have drawn in wages on that day had he not been in receipt of workmen's compensation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (2), line 33, to add at the end of the sub-section "and shall notify him accordingly within one month".
This amendment is inserted at the request of the Irish Local Government Officials' Union. The purpose of it is to make it clear to an officer where he stands, whether he is pensionable or not. If his name has not been entered and he thinks it should, he can appeal to the appropriate Minister to remedy his grievance under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1), line 49, to add at the end of the sub-section "within one month".
This amendment is also inserted at the request of the Irish Local Government Officials' Union and will bring the procedure for removal from the register into line with that for entry on it. Should an officer's name be removed when he thinks it should not, he will have the right to appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 8.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (e), line 19, before "being" to insert "(or which, had it continued until the commencement of Section 7 of the Social Welfare Act, 1950 (No. 14 of 1950), would have been reckoned by virtue of that section for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts)".
The purpose of this amendment is to cover two officers of local authorities who had their service with the former National Health Insurance Society which was incorporated in the Civil Service by the Social Welfare Act, 1950. That Act provides that pensionable service under the society would be reckoned to the same extent as pensionable service in the Civil Service. However, both these officers left the society before 1950. Had they remained until 1950 and had they then transferred to the Local Government service they would have been under this provision in the Bill, that is, sub-section (1) of Section 11, entitled to reckon their service in full. The purpose of the amendment is to close this small loophole.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (f), line 24, before "in" to insert "(to such extent as the Minister either generally or in any particular case may approve)".
Under paragraph (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 11, an officer of a local authority may reckon pensionable service with a body approved by the Minister which grants reciprocal rights to officers of local authorities. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce a safeguard as to the kind of service that may be reckoned in such circumstances should there be a marked difference between the pension practice of the reciprocating body and the local authority.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (g), sub-paragraph (ii), lines 43 and 44 to delete "(including payment of contributions to the local authority)" and substitute "regarding payment of contributions to the local authority".
I think there is possibly no difference of opinion between the Minister and ourselves on what he seeks to do in this particular section, but we do think that the manner in which it is stated at the moment leaves it open to abuse in so far as while we think the Minister has in mind only the making of conditions in relation to contributions, by the way it stands at the moment, he could also make other conditions which might be regarded as obnoxious. If the Minister sees my point, I am sure he will agree to amend it on Report Stage.
I promise the Deputy to look into the matter between now and the Report Stage. While I cannot give any definite, affirmative reply, I shall look into it.
Does the Minister not see the weakness in the section as it stands? Does he not see that conditions could be laid down by the Minister other than those relating to contributions? I am quite sure this sub-section was meant by the Minister to cover conditions only in relation to contributions?
Then, we are withdrawing the amendment.
In case we should reach the Report Stage to-day, will the Deputy be satisfied if I look into the point before the Bill is finally enacted?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (2), lines 14 and 15, to delete "and in accordance with regulations made by the Minister".
I think I can be very brief on this. It has cropped up on other occasions and from other Deputies with regard to other Acts and it embodies our fundamental objection to legislation by regulation. We feel that if the Minister has certain regulations in mind, which I have no doubt he has, that they should be embodied in the Bill now, so that this House should not find itself in the position of passing the shell of a Bill and leaving the real essence to be filled in by someone in the Custom House. In the 1948 Act there was the same stipulation and there issued from the Custom House on the 21st May, 1951, a notorious circular known as Circular 5/51.
Which had no statutory effect.
It had effect in this way —that the Act of 1948 said that certain things could be done and the circular issued set down what might or might not be done by local authorities. I have no doubt now that the Minister has certain things in his mind and these things will be embodied in the regulations. If that is so, these regulations should find their way into this Bill so that every Deputy would know where he stood and that Deputies could move amendments about the more obnoxious features of such regulations.
I would support Deputy Casey in this amendment. We all know the serious effect which that circular had in regard to officers of local authorities and the question of added service.
The House will appreciate and I appreciate what Deputy Casey and Deputy McGrath have said. I was opposed to legislation by regulation but the Deputies will recollect that under the Local Government Amendment Act, 1955, all such regulations must now be laid before the House. However, that does not concern this Bill. I refer the Deputy to Section 3 of the Bill which says:—
"Every regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
That section provides that regulations made must be laid before the House. The House then has 21 days in which to annul or amend regulations laid before it.
Apparently the people, or certain people, in the Custom House have their minds made up with regard to certain regulations in connection with the employees of local authorities. They have applied these regulations since 1948 and I can see no reason why they should not now be put into this Bill so as to give Deputies a chance to amend them.
The House will have that opportunity under Section 3.
I do not think we should have to go that roundabout way about it.
Why should a circular letter from the Minister take from local authorities the power of giving added service which is allowed to them?
That will not be the case when this Bill becomes law and Section 3 is passed by the House.
What is the necessity of putting it in this Bill? Is this not giving power to the Minister to tell local authorities that they can only add a lesser number of years to an official service?
Yes, provided that this House endorses the regulations laid before it. They will have that privilege under Section 3.
What is the necessity for putting it in?
The House may vary the regulations from time to time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (3), line 54, to delete "paragraph (e)" and substitute "paragraph (d)".
This amendment is merely for the purpose of correcting a misprint in the Bill as it stands.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15.
In sub-section (3), line 55, to delete "paragraph (f) or paragraph (g)" and substitute "paragraph (e) or paragraph (f)".
The same applies to amendment No. 15 as to amendment No. 14. It is for the purpose of correcting a misprint.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the section, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I would like to know from the Minister whether we can discuss the problems of some of the people who, under previous Acts, had certain benefits and will not have these benefits under this Act, such as law clerks and also such people as nurses who will not be given added years of service. There are advantages being given to certain sections under this Bill which are, what I might call, the professional classes. If the professional classes are to get certain advantages why should other people, who might be considered technical classes, not be allowed the same advantages?
The Minister may say that the case of nurses would come under the authority of the Minister for Health. When a nurse qualifies after three years she still, in order to get a position with a local authority, must also have experience, which is of great importance in securing a position of responsibility under a local authority. Why should it be that, whereas, under Section 13, a person who might be classified as technical as against professional will not get the advantages which I believe he should get for the years which he has spent in securing the knowledge which may be considered technical but which is, at the same time, of the utmost importance, and may be far harder to grasp than it is in the case of some of those who are grouped within what is termed the professional category? In fairness to everyone concerned, particularly those in the nursing profession and others who can be affected in their local authority employment, I think this is a matter in which the Minister should clarify the position.
The position, so far as I see it, is that no matter what law clerk enters the service — I think the Deputy was really referring to law clerks — he will have at least seven to eight years' experience when he does enter; he will then be only 25 years of age. Law clerks usually enter solicitors' offices at the age of 16 or 17, or less; at the age of 25 years they are eligible and qualified to take up a position with a local authority and they are entitled to their full pension having completed their full service. There would, therefore, be no necessity for added years. I can agree with the Deputy's point of view in the case of a professional man, such as a doctor, who does not qualify until 23 or 24 years of age; he will require experience, such as that to which the Deputy referred, and he will have at least ten years' practical experience before reaching 35. If he comes into the service of the local authority at 35 years of age he will qualify for a full pension. I think all classes are equally provided for; the law clerk qualifies much earlier and he will require less practical experience than the professional man. I think both justice and equity are being done in the matter.
What is the position in relation to the nursing staff?
The position in relation to the nursing staff is the very same. A nurse usually qualifies at 21 years of age. I understand that is the average age at which a nurse qualifies unless she intends to specialise in some particular branch. She is eligible to take up a local appointment immediately she qualifies; most of them, I understand, take up such an appointment within two, three or four years, at the outside, after qualifying; they would, therefore, be in the service of the local authority well before reaching 30 years of age.
Is that correct? Does the Minister realise that should such a girl wish to take up a position as a staff nurse or theatre sister, it is absurd to suggest she can ever hope to get such a position under 28 or 30 years of age, and she gives ten years' service then——
She usually gives it in the service of the local authority.
No. Very often it is in the voluntary hospitals.
I know it. I would like the Minister to clarify this for the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, the amendment tabled in the name of the Labour Party has been ruled out of order. We feel that this paragraph (b) in sub-section (1) is one that might well be omitted. The section provides that the local authority may award a lump sum and a pension if they are of the opinion that, in general, a servant has served with diligence and fidelity and to their satisfaction. All of us would encourage all employees of local authorities to serve with diligence and to the best of their ability. We feel that this particular sub-paragraph gives an opportunity to petty dictators. A city or a county manager may be the best man in the world and very favourably disposed towards employees, but he can get a report of how a man has served only from the head of the particular section in which the man served. Now, while no one might go out of his way ultimately to deprive a man of his lump sum and his pension, this particular stipulation could be used unjustly and wrongfully as a big stick over the heads of employees. We find petty dictators in all walks of life, men who try to impress themselves upon the lesser fry over whom they have some authority. I think the Bill would not lose anything by omitting this particular sub-paragraph. Section 66 provides that if a man feels aggrieved or does not get his lump sum and pension he may appeal to the Minister. I have no doubt at all that in such cases, if they did arise, justice would be done; the objection we have is that, while this sub-paragraph remains, it may be used by small-minded and narrow-minded petty dictators in the employment of local authorities. I ask the Minister to consider that.
The pattern of this Bill follows the pattern of Civil Service legislation. A civil servant finding himself in the position quoted by the Deputy must procure a certificate that he has given diligent and faithful service. It has never been alleged at any time that that certificate has been withheld or that the right to give a certificate has been abused. I think it is a mistake to anticipate that the local authority would in any way abuse the giving of such a certificate. As the Deputy pointed out, there is provision in Section 66 of the Bill and a certain amount of protection. In view of that, I feel the section should be allowed to stand as it is.
I had an amendment down, but I understand it has been ruled out of order. On the section, I would ask the Minister if he would allow officials who have served for 40 years, well and faithfully, to retire before reaching 60 years of age. There are some employees in our local authority who have the full 40 years' service. If they hang on for another year or so they will retard promotion, and the prospective promotee may have gone beyond the particular age for promotion when the former retire. I appeal to the Minister to give the benefit of the Bill to officials who have given the requisite 40 years' service. By letting these people out he will be doing a good turn to those in line for promotion, who are approaching the age limit.
I appreciate what the Deputy says. We may be retarding promotion but, on the other hand, I am mainly concerned with keeping down the burden on the taxpayer. While a man is fit to serve, I think he should be permitted to serve.
Permitted or forced? With regard to being forced, if he is physically fit, I think the taxpayers should not be asked to superannuate him and put someone else in his place. After all, we should bear in mind that this State does not provide superannuation for any person, other than in exceptional cases, under the age of 60. We have servants in the service of local authorities at the age of 16 and 17 and, were we to accept the proposition put forward by Deputy Alfred Byrne, we would have these people retiring under the age of 60 with full pension rights and the taxpayer would have to pay for some person to replace them in the local authority service. The only case I know where a man may retire at the age of 55 is that of a fireman but we all appreciate that there are exceptional circumstances there. In the fire service we want young active men and it would be unfair to the ratepayers to ask these men over 55 years to remain on. I think we would be going beyond all accepted principles of superannuation if we accepted the suggestion of Deputy Alfred Byrne, although I appreciate his point of view.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (2), lines 14 to 17, to delete "but in ascertaining that number of whole years, there shall be deducted, from the pensionable local service referred to in the said sub-section (6), so much (if any) thereof as was service in the Civil Service".
Under the Act of 1948 an officer who is pensionable on 1st April, 1948, was entitled to have added to his lump sum on retirement an increased amount calculated at the rate of ½ per cent. per annum for each year of service up to 1st April, 1948. This was to compensate him for those years before 1948 when he had not been covered by the life assurance of a death gratuity to his dependents should he die in office. However, civil servants who entered the local service before April, 1948, had this cover while they were civil servants and it was inappropriate to give them the benefit in question. The purpose of the words that it is now proposed to delete was to deprive them of this extra benefit.
Further consideration, however, shows that it would be wrong to deprive existing officers of a benefit to which they became statutorily entitled under the Act of 1948, and it is accordingly proposed to delete the words in question.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 17 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In paragraph (a), lines 42 to 44, to delete "if the local authority are of opinion that she has served in her office with diligence and fidelity and to their satisfaction".
The arguments I would apply in this case are the ones I raised in connection with Section 15 and to repeat them now ad nauseam would not convince the Minister.
I still think there is something to be said in this connection. Section 22 (a) states:—
"if the local authority are of opinion that she has served in her office with diligence and fidelity..."
I notice "local authority" is used in the plural. The local authority, we know, is the manager. We may be told that we can ask the manager to do a certain thing, but I believe like my colleague, Deputy Casey, if we are going to leave things as they are it will be a case of whether the manager likes or dislikes it or whether the manager's friends in other quarters may like or dislike it. We know, from our own experience, that if an officer has reason to complain about a decision of the manager — and there are very good reasons to complain about some of the decisions of the manager — if there is an appeal to another quarter in Dublin, the manager will be completely upheld. I believe the Minister should look at this in a more serious light. We can be told as members of the local authority that because the filling of vacancies is a function of the manager he can do what he likes, which undoubtedly he will do. It is up to us in this Bill dealing with superannuation and dealing with local authorities to see that the power of the manager, their association, and the Custom House is not going to strangle the members. If the Minister does not consider this question between now and the Report Stage more closely than just saying that a note will be taken of what is said, we will have a very serious obstacle confronting the local authorities on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the staff, the managers' association and the Custom House in Dublin.
I would like to support this amendment. We have all had experience from time to time of officers being transferred from one department to another in the public service allegedly because they have not being carrying on their work to the satisfaction of the manager. Then in their new department they may be excellent men and it may be held against them subsequently that they have not carried on their work to the satisfaction of their superiors. The very fact that they are retained in the public service, to my mind, ought to be sufficient to guarantee them the pensions and emoluments to which at the end of their service the law entitles them. Sometimes a man may be transferred from a department, and made a scapegoat due to the failures of others.
That feeling very often arises where there is not unanimity between the public representatives and the manager or his senior officials about the particular matter in question. But the manager has full and final authority on the question and no matter what information the local authorities might have either from their personal knowledge or supplied to them otherwise, as to the grievance under which these particular officers may labour, they have no remedy whatever. The fact that a man is retained in the public service ought to be sufficient guarantee that he is entitled to whatever pension or rights the law provides for.
I think the Deputy who spoke last has put his finger on the important point. It is required that the service must be with diligence and fidelity. Surely if somebody has served with the local authority until such time as to qualify for pension, that is evidence enough that his service has been with diligence and fidelity. I do know myself of at least one case — this is something that is apparently being overlooked in this House or being rushed — where petty spite between the officials has prevented a man from receiving what he was justly entitled to. I would go further and say that it followed him to the grave because even after he died, his dependents, because of petty spite, did not get what they were entitled to get. For that reason I would appeal to the Minister to consider this matter again. I also agree with Deputy Desmond that the term "local authority" should be singular and not plural. After all it is the county manager we are dealing with. Whether we say local authority or not it is the manager who is the representative of the local authority.
I think it is unfair to suggest that the county manager would act in an arbitrary way in this matter. It should be borne in mind that paragraph (a) of Section 22 is for the purpose of ensuring that an officer cannot get a full pension unless he serves with diligence and fidelity. This is the very same provision that has appeared in the Act of 1948 and it derives from the Civil Service Superannuation Act of 1859.
Since the 1948 Act was enacted it has been invoked only in one case. This section, in my opinion, is a safeguard to the officer. Take the case of an officer who is not diligent. He can be retired on full pension or can be sacked there and then without a pension. That is, if we delete the wording of the section, he can be sacked without a pension. But, here, we are making provision for the in-between case, namely, for the man who has served diligently and the man who has not served diligently in the opinion of the local authority.
It is sub-section (a) we are dealing with, not (b).
I understood Deputy MacCarthy was dealing with this one. Is Deputy Tully dealing with the marriage gratuity?
He is dealing with sub-section (a).
It is the same point in both.
It is, except that there is no question of granting a smaller pension in (a).
The point I make is that an officer may be considered to be guilty of an error of judgment. In discharging his duties with what he considered all diligence and fidelity he might be guilty of an error of judgment and that might, for example, result in a strike, or something like that. The officer may then be held responsible. He may be degraded and offered another appointment, which he refuses to accept. He feels that he has a grievance. In consequence, his whole career is jeopardised. That has happened to our knowledge. Deputy Desmond knows that as well as I do.
This section is exactly the same as the section in the 1948 Act, with the exception that a marriage certificate is required. Remember, the aggrieved party has always the right to appeal to the appropriate Minister and so long as that right remains I do not think it is right that we should anticipate that county managers will victimise their servants or ex-servants. As I said, it has been invoked only once since the passing of the 1948 Act.
The argument that the section is copied from the 1948 Act which, according to the Minister, was copied from the 1854 Act, is not a valid reason for enacting it now.
One hundred years' precedent is pretty good. We have not had one case down through the years that I know.
There is another point to which the Minister has not adverted. Why is the phrase used, in sub-section (a) of Section 22, "if the local authority are of opinion that she has served in her office with diligence and fidelity and to their satisfaction"? To whom does that refer? Many of us who are members of local authorities know that it is not to our satisfaction; it is to the satisfaction of the county manager. That is where our grievance lies.
We thrashed all that out on the County Management (Amendment) Bill last year.
It is still not straightened out.
It was accepted by this House.
Fortunately for him, a Minister does not have to worry about Bills when they become law. It is the members of local authorities who are confronted with the problems arising out of Acts passed by Parliament. It is no use telling us that the officer must serve to the satisfaction of the members of local authorities.
Those are the draftsman's words, not mine.
We are told, very severely at times, that we dare not attack the people whom we would often like to attack. It is the Minister who must take the brunt. We know the difficulty. We, being in glass-houses, cannot throw stones. This matter should be straightened out. There is no sense in putting in the word "their" when it really means "his"— the county manager's. The Minister should consider, between this and the Report Stage, some method of easing the problem that arises, where a county manager does not like an official, and even the members are not able to act as a bulwark between the offender and the offended.
I promise that I will look into the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (2), line 11, before ",but" to insert "and emoluments".
The purpose of this amendment is that an officer must contribute on both his salary and any other emoluments he may have and it will be open to the local authority to make deductions from emoluments as well as from salary, in other words, the deductions may be from the salary and the emoluments and the local authority will have power to deduct from the income.
I think the Minister should not make this addition. The Minister stated some time ago that Section 22 was derived from the Civil Service (Superannuation) Act. Now, officers appointed since 1st April, 1948, must pay contributions at the rate of 5 per cent. of their salaries for superannuation purposes. Civil servants need not make such contributions. Recently, a custom has grown up of applying increases in salaries of local authority officers on the same basis as Civil Service awards. If the Minister introduces this amendment, it means, apart from any other faults that may be found with the section, that local authority officers will receive 5 per cent. less than civil servants. I would ask the Minister to consider that point and to make sure that anomaly will not arise. If the provision is left that the local authority officer pays 5 per cent. of his basic salary, he is still making a contribution which those serving the State do not make towards their pensions. I think that distinction should be made.
I would ask the Deputy to look at the definition section. There you are given emoluments as meaning, subject to Sections 26 and 46, any apartments, rations, or other perquisites in kind (or, as the case may require, a monetary payment given in lieu of such apartments, rations, or other perquisites) appertaining to an office or employment and all fees, poundage and commission of an officer or servant as such for his own use. I could imagine the case of a rate collector who would be paid on poundage alone, which would be an emolument. If I accept the Deputy's suggestion that man would be required to contribute. In view of the definition section, I think the Deputy should be satisfied this is necessary. It is certainly the same as Section 31 of the 1948 Act.
I am sorry I cannot agree. The distinction is still there.
The Deputy sees the difficulties.
These increases are looked upon as increases in salary and consequently they are subject to the 5 per cent. deduction whereas they are made on the basis of being Civil Service awards. At the same time they are subject to that deduction whereas the Civil Service awards are not so subject.
The Deputy will appreciate that increases in the cost of living are pensionable as well as the salary itself. The Deputy appreciates that.
And the Deputy will appreciate what would happen, in view of the definition section, were I to accept his suggestion.
They apply to those paid on a poundage basis merely but when it suits, the fact that this law derives from the Civil Service Pensions Act can be used to operate against the officials of local authorities. We have some other interpretations which are also to the detriment of local authority officials and I do not think that should prevail. Local authority officials are sufficiently penalised already by having to pay 5 per cent. on their basic salaries when civil servants have not to make such a contribution and, at the same time, the local authority officials get the Civil Service award on which they must pay a deduction of 5 per cent.
At any rate, would the Minister consider amending Section 2, the definition section; then his reason would hardly apply?
We have passed Section 2.
I should like to support Deputy MacCarthy in the case he has made. In support of his objection I shall quote a case from Cork. There are certain officials in the Cork fire brigade who formerly lived in the fire station. Because of the growth of the brigade, that part of the premises was needed for other purposes and a few of the officials were asked to leave the station. Now they are getting a rent allowance in lieu of the accommodation they formerly enjoyed as part of their conditions of employment. It appears they now, because of the Minister's amendment, will have this deduction made from their rent allowance which was nothing but a compensatory allowance. I think that is an injustice. The rent allowance is being paid to them for the disturbance of their living and I do not think a percentage of it should be deducted.
They will get a pension on their rent allowance.
But why make the distinction? Why apply the Civil Service award, so to speak, in one case and operate it against the local authority officials? This is a provision which operates to the detriment of the local authority officials.
We are taking the best of both.
I do not agree. It is not consistent anyway. It is quite the contrary and I think that should be quite obvious. Deputy Casey has given a specific instance where emoluments given as compensation for a change of conditions or circumstances will be subjected to the 5 per cent. deduction. I gave an instance of where a Civil Service award is given to local authority officials, coming down as policy from the Department, and while the civil servants get that full award the local authority officials will have to pay 5 per cent. on it. The civil servant is pensioned without a deduction whereas the local authority official gets a pension towards which he pays 5 per cent. during his career.
I think this is a much better system of remuneration than the old British system.
I am not disputing that but I want it to be consistent. This provision is being applied to the detriment of the local authority officials.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (2), line 13, before "is" to insert "and emoluments".
The same remarks apply to this as to the previous amendment. Both are merely drafting amendments.
Will the Minister look into this whole problem?
I would have to look into it in conjunction with the definition section and the Deputy will appreciate that if we were to change the definition of emoluments now for the purpose of this section, we would have to do it for many more sections. It would be most difficult at this stage.
I am afraid an injustice has been done.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the section as amended stand part of the Bill".
On the section, I should like to ask the Minister to consider the case of a very small group about whom, I think, representations have been made to him. I refer to people recruited as officers in training before the coming into operation of the 1948 Act. These people went in as officers in training under the Department of Education. They had to complete a course and before attending that course they had to undertake that they would serve for five years. They were given to understand there would be a non-contributory superannuation scheme for them when eventually they became officers of local vocational education bodies. Unfortunately, when they came out of training and took up their employment, the 1948 Act was in operation with its stipulation as to contributions. These people now find themselves in the position where they have to make contributions towards their pensions, even though they were in prior to 1948 in so far as they were teachers in training. Has the Minister considered their case?
I have seriously considered it, but I have come to the conclusion that teachers in training are not teachers. They are students just the same as any university graduate who becomes a vocational teacher, as many do. A university graduate could always say that before the 1st April, 1948, he was in training — he was doing his degree course. He has spent five years doing that course and he could, in the same way, claim exemption. If you look at it in that way it would be very unfair to treat students as if they were teachers, just it would be unfair to treat undergraduates as if they were graduates who had entered into an office.
Many of the people referred to by Deputy Casey gave up posts in order to attend these training courses.
And a lot of them were very glad to give up those posts.
It was very difficult to get teachers at the time.
There is a distinction between the case of the university undergraduate and the teacher in training because the teachers in training had to give an undertaking that they would enter certain employment.
Obviously they were very glad to enter such employment.
You have the same thing arising regarding local government officers who were temporary full time officers — on probation more or less — on the 1st April, 1948, and who, because they were not appointed at that date, are now having to pay the 5 per cent. contribution.
They must have been permanently appointed prior to the 1st April.
That is what I am pointing out. Even though men or women officials of a local authority may be discharging duties in a temporary whole-time capacity, more or less on a probationary basis, because they were not definitely appointed or established until after the 1st April, 1948, they have to pay the contribution. I think some of them are rather badly affected.
I can assure the Deputy that his colleagues from Cork in all political Parties spent considerable time with me in going into this matter.
Well, I think I convinced you on the points I could not accept. I think the Deputies were quite satisfied. After all, where are we going to draw the line? We fixed the 1st April and anyone who was permanently appointed before that is free. If they are appointed after that date, it is just their bad luck. I would not like to tell the Deputy that I did not introduce this thing originally.
Some of them have been kept 20 years as temporary officials.
And some of them subsequently got credit for that. I would like the Deputies to remember that my predecessor, Deputy Smith, tried to rectify those matters by issuing a circular telling local authorities they should not employ certain types of employee for longer than two years in a temporary capacity. I think he was doing a good thing, particularly in view of the superannuation problem, but does the House not remember the outcry there was here when the two years expired? There was such an outcry that I had to extend it for a third year. I am very anxious to see local authorities make permanent appointments if permanent appointments are necessary and do away with makeshift jobs and temporary appointments. I understand there was one case of an engineer who was employed for 28 years in a temporary capacity—I do not think that is fair.
The Minister knows that the local authority has not any say in it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 24, 25 and 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (a), line 33, before "grade" to insert "class, description or".
In paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) an officer can have the benefit of having his pension calculated on his retiring rate of pay if he has got no special advancement within the grade of officers to which he belonged at the appropriate time. A few officers do not, however, belong to specific grades and it is accordingly proposed to give them the same benefit (that is where they get no special advancement peculiar to themselves as distinct from the class or description of officers to which they belong) as officers who belong to a grade enjoy. The expression "class description or grade" is the term used generally in the Local Government Act to describe an officer in the various groupings and it is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
I move amendment No. 26 in the name of Liam Mac Cuinneagáin:—
In sub-section (10), to delete paragraph (a).
Under the 1948 Act an officer had two options on retirement. Some people who opted at that time under one heading now want to get the option to be free to change horses so to speak, in view of experience of the operation of that Act which at the time was new. The retiring officers were faced with the situation where they had to make quick decisions. Some of them would now like to have the option, as I say, of making a decision one way or another still under the provisions which were made in 1948 but which came on them pretty suddenly. A decision had to be made without consideration at the time as to what the effect of the operation of the provisions would be.
This gives them the right now to opt and if we accept the amendment of Deputy Cunningham I think we would annul the section and they would not have the right to opt back.
They have the right now, again?
Even those who have already opted?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In sub-section (10), paragraph (b), line 31, before ", give", to insert "has been notified to him".
An existing officer whose name is entered on the register under Section 28, but who wishes to stick to a pension based on sixtieths rather than eightieths plus lump sum or death gratuity may give notice accordingly under sub-section (10), Section 28. In the normal case, he has a clear 12 months from the commencement of Part II of the Act to give that notice. However, where there is a dispute between him and the local authority as to whether his name should be entered on the register at all and an appeal has been made to the appropriate Minister and determined in his favour, he has six months in which to notify the local authority as to whether he prefers to remain with the benefit of sixtieths. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the six months will reckon from the time he is notified of the decision of the appeal, not from the time the appeal itself is decided. I think we had a considerable argument on a somewhat similar amendment in the Local Government Act of 1955 and it was agreed that this was a much preferable procedure.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the section, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
May I ask the Minister one question? It may have some bearing on what was discussed a while ago about people who had been permanent in the service before 1938. I would like to know from the Minister what would be the position in relation to persons who would have been qualified if permanent in the Civil Service in 1946 but who, because of changed circumstances, entered the local authority service in 1950 or 1951? Now it seems these years of Civil Service service are not going to be linked with their local authority service and there is no interrelation between the Civil Service and the local authority service. Evidently in such a case the contribution will have to be paid?
The Deputy is not referring to broken service?
No. I am pointing to a case of a permanent civil servant who applied for a position through the Appointments Commission.
After 1948 the contribution must be paid by him.
We heard a while ago in the case of the local authority that if the officers were in on the day before April fool's day in 1948 they were O.K., but here is the case of a man who is in the Civil Service since 1946. It seems that there is no sense of comradeship between the two services and no direct interrelation between them in the sense that if a person after some years in the Civil Service moves into the local authority service in 1950 he will——
He is doing it with his eyes open. He knows what is in store for him.
The particular person about whom I am speaking was one of the civil servants we were proud to have come into the service of the local authority. The person in question is a county-man of the Minister. It is not fair to a civil servant who went before the Local Appointments Commission and who got a job in Cork, that he should now be denied by this Bill the benefits which would have been his if he had stayed in the Civil Service.
He would probably have less pay if he had remained in the Civil Service.
That is the position. I cannot make exceptions for civil servants. Again you are back to the position of the trainee teacher. If a person is in training for a position with the local authority I do not see why he should be treated as permanent until he goes into employment. A civil servant who goes into a local authority will have acquired certain training while in the Civil Service and if he had not got that training he would not get the position with the local authority. I do not think it would be fair to treat him in any different way than we would treat the trainee teacher.
Are any favours being granted to employees of local authorities who entered the Civil Service under Section 11?
His position in the Civil Service will be pensionable by the Government and when he enters the employment of the local authority he is taking up a new type of employment which, after 1st April, requires a contribution. I do not think we can do anything about it. Deputies from Cork have put up a strong case to me as to why certain people should be exempt, but I am following what was laid down in the Act of 1948 and I cannot do anything about it.
There are certain exceptions under Section 11, which has already been agreed to by this House.
There are no exemptions from contributions.
In regard to the relationship between officers of local authorities and the Civil Service, are there any exceptions under Section 11?
I can assure the Deputy that there are no exceptions.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 29 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 33 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, provision is made in this section that a man who works for a local authority for a period of less than 200 days will not have these days put to his credit towards his pension. In other words, a man who might work for 190 days and who has had contributions for that period will get his contributions back and will not get credit for pension purposes. Similarly in a further section a man who works for more than 300 days will not have the additional day accredited to him for pension purposes. We feel that where a man finds himself on the register of employees of a local authority and has less than 200 days' work, those days should not be just written off.
We think the fairer way to deal with this matter would be that having got his name on the register all the days that he would subsequently work would be aggregated so that if he worked 190 days in one year and 305 days in the next year the total of these two years would be aggregated and that he would get the benefit of every day on which he worked and for which a deduction had been made from his wages for pension purposes.
The whole principle in Part III of the Bill is based on the principle that if a man devotes approximately two-thirds of his time to the employment of a local authority he should be entitled to superannuation but that if he gives less — if he is employed for the remainder of the time somewhere else or is self employed— that he should not be so entitled. That is the principle settled in the Bill and we have gone a considerable distance further than was intended under the Act of 1948. Suppose we said that the limit was 190 days then we would have suggestions that it should be made 180 days. I think that two-thirds is a reasonable period of service to look for from a permanent employee — two-thirds of the full 12 months — and I think the section as it stands is a vast improvement on the 1948 section.
Even allowing that this is a vast improvement I thought that that was just what the Bill was intended to be.
In this particular case we have the position that a man who has 40 years' service in the employment of a local authority may have had ten of those years with less than 200 days' work. He may not have been working elsewhere and may have been unemployed but instead of getting credit for the days he worked in those ten years he simply gets credit for 30 years' service which makes a very big difference in regard to pensionable matters. I will appeal to the Minister to consider the arguments which are being put up on behalf of the man who, through no fault of his own, has only spent a few months of the year working with a local authority and who is getting no credit for that work. Our amendment, which we had intended moving, was for the purpose of ensuring that a man would receive credit for all the days on which he works. I would ask the Minister to have another look at this matter.
There is a broad, but precise, definition in the definition section. That says that all an employee will require from now on is 200 service days' employment in the 12 months; and a "service day" means:—
(a) a day on which the servant worked in a wholetime capacity for one or more than one local authority, the work not being work (other than work in a supervisory capacity or work calling for special experience or skill which is not given to him by reference to the provision of employment for him or the relief of his distress) on any work or scheme of works the expenses of which are in whole or in part met from moneys provided by the Oireachtas for the provision of employment and the relief of distress.
(b) a day (other than a Sunday) in respect of which the servant was given paid leave.
(c) a day (other than a Sunday) in respect of which the servant was paid compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1934 to 1955 by a local authority, provided that the accident occurred on a day such as is referred to in paragraph (a) of this definition and that either—
(i) the whole of the period in respect of which the compensation was paid was not more than one year, or
(ii) where the whole of the period in respect of which the compensation was paid was more than one year, the day occurred during such portion of the period as was before the expiration of one year from its commencement, or
(d) a day (other than a Sunday) on which the servant was attending and performing his duty as a member of the Reserve Force of the Defence Forces.
Now I think we have gone a long distance there. Nevertheless, Deputy James Tully suggests we should count as a service day a day on which a man is drawing unemployment assistance because he cannot get employment.
The Minister knows perfectly well I do not intend any such thing.
If the man is not employed, then he is entitled to unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. Is that not so?
We are not asking that a day on which a man is drawing unemployment assistance, or is not working, should be counted. We are simply asking that, if a man has 200 days in one year and 100 days in the next year, those 300 days together should constitute one year. Surely it is reasonable to ask for that when 200 days the year after will again count as a year. Surely he should be entitled to total the days he works. Never mind the days he is drawing unemployment assistance or catching rabbits. We simply want such a man to get the credit for the days he works. The Minister can accede to that if he so wishes.
The Deputy knows I went very fully into that on a former occasion. It is no use going into all the arguments again now. The Deputy will agree we have been generous in our definition of service days. The Deputy may be a little chary of accepting my word, but I have received deputations from the farming community and I have been told by such deputations that we have been more than generous, because what the road workers seek to-morrow the farm labourer may seek the day after.
Is not that a further argument why it should be done properly now?
I think it is being done very well. I am very, very serious about that.
The Minister is inclined to forget that when he is finished with this Bill, and has done his part in securing added advantages and benefits over and above those contained in the 1948 Act in relation to the number of days these men have to work, that is not the end of the story; it is but the commencement of the story where the local authorities are concerned. If he looks over the ditch at the farmers who, apparently, have come to him and pointed out the inherent dangers, he will remember that many of these people are members of local authorities.
Elected by a majority of voters.
Quite so, but the majority in some counties may be very narrow-minded. Now, should it happen that there is a close relationship between these elected representatives and the members of the engineering staff, or even with the county manager, it will be quite easy to introduce a system in some counties under which the vast majority of the road workers will find themselves with not even 200 days in any year. The Minister may not agree with that. The Minister would not do that; he would not be a party to such a system. But there are plenty of people on local authorities who would be a party to it. Let us forget the particular counties we represent ourselves; we have a composite obligation towards protecting the people in every county. Should it happen that, subsequent to the passage of this measure, a new system is devised whereby none of the employees will secure 200 days' work every year it automatically follows that none of the employees will ever get a pension. We do not see why the total number of days worked should not be taken into consideration to give the workers a right to at least some part of the pension they may be denied by elected representatives in certain counties.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 34.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (f), line 21, before "in" to insert "(to such extent as the Minister either generally or in any particular case may approve)".
This amendment is to bring paragraph (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 into line with paragraph (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 11, as altered by amendment No. 10.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Section 36 agreed to.
Sections 37 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 40.
I move amendment No. 32:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) The Minister shall make regulations prescribing the manner and form in which the legal personal representative of a deceased pensionable servant may claim without legal cost any gratuity in respect of the said servant.
We have put down this amendment because of experiences we have had when servants of local authorities have died. When their personal representatives, who are in very poor circumstances in many cases, apply for the pension due to the deceased member, they find that the local authority insists on certain legal formalities being carried out, at considerable cost to the people concerned. We hope that the Minister will consider adding this amendment to Section 40 so that officials of local authorities will have the right, if necessary, to pay these moneys to the legal personal representative of a deceased pensionable servant without going through the usual legal tangle.
I do not know what a legal tangle is.
The Minister does not know?
If the Deputy is referring to the extraction of a grant of administration as a legal tangle, I am afraid we will disagree.
It is a financial tangle.
Let me explain the financial impact on the personal representative: 15/- or, in certain cases, £1. That is all. The Deputies will agree that were we to permit an official in a local authority to pay over the lump sum to what at first sight appears to be be prima facie the legal personal representatives, and it later turns out that the particular person to whom that money was paid was not the legal personal representative, then the local authority may have to pay a second time an amount similar to what was paid the first time. To ensure against that situation, if the legal personal representative visits the local officer of customs and excise, for the sum of 15/- or £1 in certain cases, that gentleman is obliged to extract a grant of administration on behalf of the legal personal representative. Possibly on behalf of some professions I should not advertise that fact to this House but it is proper that the true legal position should be known.
That is the point. Will the true legal position be known again when the Bill becomes law? It is true that if a widow of any such employee comes to a member of any political Party or the Independents of this House she will be told, but there are many unfortunate persons who may not be in a position to get that information. If the Minister will not agree to this amendment will he meet us half way and arrange that, in booklet form or otherwise, people will be in a position to know of the special advantage available to them? At the present time only a very small percentage of people are aware that that advantage is there.
When the Bill is enacted it might be possible to send out one of these infamous circulars to which Deputies refer on certain occasions, setting out the procedure whereby a person can secure payment of the lump sum in the case of death.
That would be a circular worth getting.
I am glad the Deputy appreciates we do send out some circulars.
No, but if that comes out it will be useful.
We can send it out to the local authorities so that it can be brought to the notice of the members of the local authorities and also to the dependents of officials that this advantage is available if they wish to take it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 40 to 42 inclusive put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
SECTION 43.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (1), line 48, to add at the end of the section "or in respect of which he was paid compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1934 to 1955, by such local authority."
This follows from the new definition of "wages" under amendment No. 2. It is to ensure that although a servant may reckon, in calculating his pensionable remuneration, the wages he would have earned while he was accruing a service day on workmen's compensation, he will not be required to pay contributions in respect of those notional wages.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:—
In sub-section (2), line 51, before ", but" to insert "and emoluments".
This is the same drafting point as has been met by amendments Nos. 10 and 11. The former amendment dealt with officers. This makes the corresponding change for servants. It is to ensure that contributions may be deducted from emoluments as well as wages. It does not pose any new liability on servants, but merely makes it possible for the local authority to spread the contributions to emoluments, instead of making wages bear them all. Amendment No. 36 is the same.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In sub-section (2), line 53, before "is" to insert "and emoluments".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 43, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I would ask the Minister to consider reducing the 4?th to 2 1/12th. The amount as it stands is based on the assumption that the employee is working for 52 weeks in the year when, as a matter of fact, it is agreed by the Minister that many of the people who would be working slightly over 200 days in the year would have far less than 52 weeks' pay. The amount of the contribution would be a fairly substantial one to such a man. It is not fair in our opinion to have a halfpenny in the shilling collected from people who are working for three months perhaps, off for one month, back again for three months, and off again for a fortnight. That is the way a very large number of local authority employees are employed and we consider that the fact that the stamp deduction is 4?th should not enter into this particular case. I would ask the Minister to go into this matter and, if at all possible, to reduce the amount.
I appreciate the arguments put forward by Deputy Tully and his colleagues, but I would like the Deputies to bear in mind that wages and salaries of local authorities in the Twenty-Six Counties at the moment amount to about £17,000,000 and about £9,000,000 of that is accounted for by officers and £8,000,000 by servants. Not all servants will eventually retire on pension but supposing half or two-thirds of them retire, representing an annual wages bill of £5,000,000, their contributions amount to £208,000 in the year. If we are going to reduce that by half, as has been suggested, the amount would be £104,000 only. We must bear in mind the impact which superannuation will have on the rates. The only source for superannuation is the rates, State grants and the contributions of the servants and officers. If we reduce the contributions of the servants we must put an additional burden on the rates or State grants. Let us compare the benefits in this Bill with the benefits which have been afforded elsewhere where the contributions are much higher — the contributions of local authorities in Great Britain are 6 per cent. and employees 5 per cent. Teachers in Great Britain contribute 6 per cent. If you compare the position of the ratepayers with C.I.E. I think we are treating ourselves very generously under the Bill and I ask Deputies to bear that in mind. The Deputy and his colleagues did mention that some local authorities may be hostile to their own, but if we try to load too much on them we might make them more hostile and I would ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.
Again let me point out that the Minister has in my opinion given us an argument against himself because the local authority employees are people who are working for 52 weeks in the year, are paid for 52 weeks and in most cases are also permanent employees. There is very little difference between the 4?th and the 5 which the Minister quoted. The figures which he has given as to the cost do not bear any relation at all to the matter because if you take the cost for the 27 county councils along with the urban councils and break down that cost the amount for each local authority is a relatively small sum. The Minister will also agree that a number of people will come under this Bill who are not under the present Act. The result is that the contributions to be paid in each county or for each area will be relatively larger while the amount of pensions being paid out will not show any appreciable change for a long number of years. If you take the case of a road worker who has £5 a week you find that he has to pay 9/- out of his fortnightly sum of £10 plus 2/4 per week for his stamps. Small as his wage is the present proposal under this Bill will make it even smaller and he will have very little to live on. I think special consideration should be given to this type of worker.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 44.
I move amendment No. 37:—
In sub-section (4), line 22, before "on" to insert "consequent on paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 31 of this Act or".
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 deal with the same point. Their purpose is to make it quite clear that contributions would be returned to a servant only when he ceases to be employed by the local authority and they do not intend to re-employ him. Amendment No. 37 deals with the case of the servant who has less than ten years' pensionable service and amendment No. 38 deals with a servant who has more than ten years' pensionable service.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:—
In sub-section (5), line 29, before "on" to insert "consequent on paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 31 of this Act or".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the section, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Is there any indication that this will result in somebody who has pensionable contributions returned being debarred from further employment with the local authority?
No. They will know before they return the contributions. There will be reasons why he should not be re-employed. He may be emigrating. They will know in advance. He may be leaving the area.
The Minister knows that under the present Act a number of people, who, because of the fact that they did not get employment from the local authority for a number of years had contributions returned, were told that they were debarred from receiving further employment with the council. That has caused considerable annoyance.
That would be a completely different case.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 45 and 46 agreed to.
SECTION 47.
I move amendment No. 39:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (a), line 21, before "grade" to insert "class, description or".
This is the same drafting point as has been dealt with in amendment No. 24. It is to protect a servant who does not belong to a grade of servants and does not get special advancement in the period immediately before retirement so that his pension may be based on his retiring rate of wages.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 48.
I move amendment No. 40:—
In sub-section (3), paragraph (a), line 43, to delete "he shall contribute to the local authority" and substitute "the service day shall not be reckoned as such unless he makes to the local authority in respect of the service day".
This is a small drafting change to paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 48. The paragraph as drafted puts absolute obligation on the servant to contribute to the local authority in respect of service newly reckonable under the Bill between the commencement in relation to him of Part III of the Act of 1948 and the commencement of Part III of this Act. The amendment changes this, merely requiring him to contribute if he wants to reckon that service. The change makes the provision more into conformity with the general tenor of Part III of the Bill. It will also make the arrangements for collecting such arrears of contributions more flexible as between the local authority and the servant.
That might amount to a fairly considerable sum.
If an officer of a local authority has 40 years' service and £250 a year, it would mean £500 during his term of service. An officer earning £600 will have £1,000 paid towards his pension rights.
He will have an option. He need not bother if he does not want to. It is optional.
The option is there but the amount might be beyond his capacity to pay.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 41 to 43, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 48, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On Second Reading I raised the question of a number of employees in the Dublin Vocational Education Committee. There are 25 persons who were permanent employees between 1930 and 1948 but who, under some section of the 1948 Act, were and have been forced to pay contributions. I put down an amendment but it was ruled out of order. I should like to know if the Minister has gone into the question and if he would tell me the reasons why these men have been treated differently from every other permanent employee in the corporation and in the vocational education service. They are, I understand, the only people who have not parity with corporation and vocational education committee employees. It seems unreasonable that, when they were permanent and taken off stamps, some as early as 1932 and 1933, which would imply that they were pensionable, they are forced to pay contributions, in contrast to all other pensionable servants. It is very unfair that these men should be treated in this manner. The Minister promised to look into the case but he has not put down an amendment to cover the point. Therefore, I should like to know what is the case for the differentiation.
I should like to support the case made by Deputy Colley. The position of these particular employees is anomalous and seems to have been the result of an oversight following upon the enactment of the Vocational Education Act and the taking over of the technical school employees. It is quite anomalous that this particular group of corporation officials should be put in a different category from other employees of the corporation. They are a small group and it will remove quite a substantial grievance if the Minister can see his way, on Report Stage, to remedy the position. I think amendment No. 42, or some such amendment, would cover the position if the Minister felt that he could deal with it.
I do not know if the House knows the facts of this particular case. Since the beginning of the century, servants of Dublin Corporation have had a pension scheme. Up to 1930, Dublin Vocational Education Committee never had a pension scheme. For some reason, which I need not go into now, for one month in the year 1930 the employees of Dublin Vocational Education Committee became employees of Dublin Corporation —merely for one month—and, as a result of that employment for a month, they became entitled to pension. They had that right. They were employees of Dublin Corporation for a particular period in 1930 and that gave them pension rights which they would never have had were it not for this coincidence.
Under the 1948 Act, in view of the fact that these employees of the vocational education committee, who were employees of Dublin Corporation for one month in 1930, had acquired pension status, they exempted them from contribution, and I think rightly so, but what is sought here is, in the case of all employees who came into the vocational education committee since 1930 up to 1948, to exempt them also from contributions.
I think everybody will agree that if any persons were fortunate it was those who were presented with pensions in 1930 through this peculiar coincidence. It would be unfair now to exempt the others who did not acquire such status until the 1948 Act. I think Deputy Colley and Deputy MacBride will agree that instead of fighting for the class on whose behalf they are now fighting they should rather agree to make the other class contribute.
Were these people not permanent and pensionable even though appointed following 1930, and would they, who were permanent employees before 1948, not be entitled to exemption? Are the officials of the committees who were appointed during that period—between 1930 and 1948— not exempt from contribution?
Because they were pensionable officers of the Dublin Corporation for one month in 1930.
I am talking about the officers appointed subsequent to 1930 and before 1948, who were made permanent and who were exempt from contributions under the Social Welfare Act.
Officers were pensionable but servants were not.
There are cases so exempt from contribution under the Social Welfare Act from 1933 onwards. I cannot see the reason for the difference.
I think we would say they were very lucky.
Is the position this as far as the officers of vocational education committees are concerned: they were pensionable and they had been exempted from contributions now?
And the only category excluded from the benefits were the servants including caretakers? Is there any reason why such a division was made?
There was no pension scheme for servants until 1948.
They were on pensions up to the 14th November, 1930.
I am not in a position to say that.
That is the month in which the division between officers and servants seems to have taken place. The officers who get to be pensionable are exempted from contributions but the unfortunate lower grades were left out in the cold and have to pay. Is there any reason why this should have occurred?
They had not to pay them up to 1948 because there was no pension scheme for them until then. When the 1948 Bill was introduced, the servants were given superannuation provision for the first time and they were asked to contribute.
But the officers were not asked.
No, because they had pension rights from 1930.
As far as the officers were concerned, whether by virtue of being taken over for a month or more or less, they were entitled to pensions as from the 14th November, 1930. It does seem anomalous that such provisions should be made on their behalf.
The 1948 Act was the first attempt ever made to bring the two classes together.
Will the Minister not complete the job now?
I am afraid we could not.
Would the Minister have another look at it?
At the request of Deputy Colley, I said I would do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 44:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (b), page 31, line 1, before "this" to insert "Section 15 of".
This is purely a drafting point to ensure that the allowance referred to in paragraph (6) and in sub-paragraph (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 50 is a normal superannuation allowance and not an injury allowance granted under another provision of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (ii), page 31, line 11, before "this" to insert "Section 15 of".
This is the same type of amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the section, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wonder if the Minister would consider a slight change in the provisions? I would be very glad if he would consider making retrospective provision for the dependents of people who have been debarred from receiving the full gratuity because of the three years' qualification period. I have in mind a person who was an employee of a local authority for six years and because of the fact that there were three qualifying years his dependents were given the benefit of only three years' service when he died. The Minister has made regulations under which, retrospectively, the qualifying period has been reduced to one year. Would he consider inserting in this section a clause which would cover people like the person I have in mind? Very few cases would arise under it. These people suffer sufficient hardship as it is without this extra burden of the three years' qualifying period.
The Deputy will appreciate that the person did not qualify because he was not on the register. Were we to adopt his suggestion, we would have to amend many other sections as well as this one. The mere fact that he was on the register——
He was three years on the register.
I cannot understand that.
If he had five years' service his dependents would have been entitled to one year's salary. He had six years' service, but, because of the qualifying period under the 1948 Act, he is still affected by this Bill. He was three years outside.
That is under the 1948 Act.
That is so. Is there any reason why his dependents should suffer such a hardship?
I shall look into it. I think the Deputy raised this question before.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 51 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 66.
I move amendment No. 46:—
In sub-section (3), line 54, to add at the end of the sub-section "has been notified to the appellant".
This point is similar to that which arose on amendment No. 27 to paragraph (b) of sub-section (10) of Section 28. An appeal under Section 66 must be brought not later than six months after the decision appealed from and the purpose of the amendment is to have the six months reckon from the date on which the decision was notified to the appellant.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 67 and 68 agreed to.
SECTION 69.
I move amendment No. 47:—
To delete lines 40 to 48, page 42, and substitute "that corporation shall pay such contributions to him or, if he has died, to his legal personal representative".
I think we can devote but a brief period of discussion to this matter. All of the Cork Deputies have discussed this already with the Minister. This section is designed to remove an injustice under which certain employees of the Cork Corporation are labouring since the passing of the 1948 Act. A dispute arose between the Cork City Manager and the employees as to whether or not certain employees should be liable for contributions towards the superannuation scheme and as the Minister and everybody else know the parties eventually went to the courts and the decision was given for the city manager by a majority in the Supreme Court. All Ministers between then and now were aware that, while the Cork City Manager got the decision in the court, it was never intended that the people concerned should have to pay contributions towards their pension schemes. Accordingly, all of us welcome this particular section in that it recognised the principle that these people should not have to contribute. This amendment seeks that these people would be repaid the contributions which were wrongfully taken from them. That is really the one object of the amendment. There are two amendments down, No. 46 which has become No. 47, and No. 49 is also tied up in it.
The Deputy may speak on both amendments.
The section as it stands, while recognising that these moneys are due to the people involved, makes provision that in the case of the man who resigns or dies in the meantime the moneys will be paid back to him or to his legal personal representatives. We have no quibble with that, but in relation to people who are still serving Cork Corporation, this section provides that these moneys shall not be returned to them until they go on pension at normal retiring age. There are something like 170 employees involved and the average amount payable to them, I think, would be something in the nature of £100 per man. In very many cases these people will have to wait years before they would get their £100 back under the terms of the section as it stands. I think it would be very unfair to say to a man, as we are saying in this section: "We agree the deductions should not have been made; we agree we owe you £100, but we are not going to give it to you until 20, 25 or 30 years' time."
The amendment is designed to ensure that at least Cork Corporation will have the option as to when these moneys will be paid back. Personally, I feel — and I believe other Deputies also feel—that the moneys should be paid back forthwith, but this amendment is not going as far as that, particularly in view of what the Minister said on the Second Stage of the Bill— that he was concerned with the impact on the rates. I think he was not disposed towards making it obligatory on Cork Corporation to refund the moneys forthwith. This particular amendment simply asks the Minister to throw it back into the lap of Cork Corporation and the elected representatives of the corporation, representing the ratepayers as well as the corporation employees. Let the decision as regards what is just and equitable in relation to the time these men would have to wait for their money rest on the corporation. I submit it is a reasonable amendment and I hope the Minister will accept it.
I have tried to be specific and careful in the wording of this amendment because we certainly do not want to see this case going to the Supreme Court again, or going to the courts at all, and because of that I have endeavoured to make it abundantly clear that while the option is being given to Cork Corporation, it is being given to the elected representatives of Cork Corporation and not to the city manager. I know in some legislation a reference to the local authority means in fact a reference to the local county or city manager. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, and I would ask him for his advice as to whether it is water-tight and would do what we want it to do.
I would like to say that I agree with every word that Deputy Casey has said. Five city representatives of the corporation met the Minister and he agreed that it was a matter for the Cork Corporation and he felt that if they were satisfied he would readily accept it, but his reason for putting in the paragraph about not paying back until the people were retiring was in order to cushion — as he described it — the impact on the ratepayers. I would like to point out that the contributions made by those men over the last seven or eight years have gone to relieve the rates to the extent of about £3,000 a year. They were not put into any superannuation fund or anything like that, but just used to relieve rates generally. I will agree with cushioning the impact on the ratepayers, but, at the same time, I would go a bit further than Deputy Casey. There are some men with 42 years to go and — assuming the retiring age to be 70 — they would be waiting 42 years for the return of their money. Some of these men are rearing families, sending children to school — perhaps five or six children — and they are at the most difficult period of their lives. To ask a man to wait 30 or 42 years, as some of them will have to do if the retiring age is 70, is going a bit too far. I do not see any reason why the local authority could not raise a loan of £23,000 to pay off these men straight away.
It has been said that the amount was between £23,000 and £30,000, but on questioning the manager he said that £23,000 had been paid up to date. I do not think there is much more to say on this as Deputy Casey has clearly pointed out that this money was held up due to—I do not know whether the Minister will accept the term or not—a legal quibble as to whether these men's names were entered on the register or not, or whether the wages book should be the register. That was not the fault of the employees; neither was it the fault of the public representatives because they were unaware of anything until this case was brought into the courts in the first instance.
The manager appealed cases and eventually they went to the Supreme Court and, by a majority of the judges, they decided that the wages book which set out all the people's names was not a register. We do not want this to be another cause of legal controversy, costing the ratepayers a good deal of money and eventually having the position reversed. We want to make it quite clear that by local authority we mean the elected representatives of the people. I would like to ask if the Minister is satisfied that Deputy Casey's amendment makes that quite clear. Otherwise, it would just mean that there would be quibbling for another couple of years. The period when workers are in the position of sending their children to school and trying to rear them is the hardest time of their lives. Even if he should never marry, it is a most ridiculous thing to suggest that a man should have to wait 30 or 40 or 42 years to get back £120.
I intervene only to give evidence of the unanimity of the Cork Deputies in this matter. The case we make is that this refund is morally due in a shorter period than the Minister suggests in the White Paper. If the Minister leaves the matter in the hands of the Cork Corporation they will devise a more equitable period.
The idea at the back of the section, of staggering the period, is to ease the burden on the ratepayers. Exemption from contributions now is going to work out at 3d. in the £ on the Cork ratepayers. To repay the £23,000 at once would mean that the rates would be increased by 2/- in the £ next year. Even spread over 7 years, it would mean 3d. in the £ extra on the rates over that period and spreading the burden in that way would have the immediate effect of increasing the rates by 6d. in the £.
I am influenced by the fact that Deputies of all political Parties are anxious that the members of Cork Corporation should themselves decide this matter, and I am prepared to leave the matter to the House. If the House likes to leave the matter to the Cork Corporation, I will agree that the amendments are in order.
Would it not be an immoral thing to leave these men out of their money for 42 years?
I am no judge of morals. We let you decide that in Cork.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.
I formally move amendment No. 49:—
To add the following new subsections:—
(2) A payment required by sub-section (1) of this section shall be made—
(a) in case the person in question is not in the service of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Cork at the passing of this Act, within the period of two months beginning on such passing, and,
(b) in any other case, within a period to be fixed by that corporation by resolution.
(3) The passing of a resolution under this section shall be a reserved function for the purposes of the Cork City Management Acts, 1929 to 1955.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 69, as amended, agreed to.
Section 70 agreed.
Amendment No. 50 not moved.
Section 71 agreed.
Title agreed.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd February, 1956.
