I would like to ask what is the position of a man whose case has been brought to my notice. He is a Technical Instructor with nearly ten years' service. He resigned his position on a County Council which recognised the old L.G.B., and went to the Limerick Corporation, which refused to recognise that Board, and was carrying on his technical instruction work under a grant from Dáil Eireann. In 1920 his services were dispensed with because of military necessities, the school being taken over by the British military. By resigning his original position under the old British L.G.B., he seems to have sacrificed his legal right to a pension. From a moral point of view the Government would hardly think that, as he had resigned to take up a post under a body financed and approved by Dáil Eireann. As those who actually worked under the old Local Government Board and resigned because the Limerick Corporation refused to recognise that Board are getting pensions under this Bill, it would seem rather unjust to this man if he were left without a pension. At present I understand he has a temporary post in a Government Department, but his applications to be placed on the established staff have been repeatedly refused, notwithstanding promises made to him to that extent. I would like to know from the President if it is possible to meet a case of that kind. He is in a very precarious position, because he may be dismissed at any moment, and he gets no pension under this Bill, while people who acted in a more selfish or less patriotic manner are fully protected under the Bill.
SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL OFFICERS COMPENSATION (WAR PERIOD) BILL, 1924—(COMMITTEE STAGE).
I would like to ask if the President would explain on what principle the people mentioned in this Bill have been selected. I know some of the people in the West of Ireland who are put down here for pensions for life, while others whom I know have suffered at least equally and have got nothing. I do not wish to go into personal questions, but I am puzzled to know on what principle these people are selected, while others who have suffered equally are getting nothing.
I should like to explain how this particular matter has arisen. It is well known that in the year 1920 a conflict arose between what has come to be described in this country as the British Local Government Board, functioning at the Custom House, and the local authorities throughout the country. As a result of the conflict, certain officials refused to obey the instructions of the Dáil Department of Local Government or of their local authorities. In consequence a number of them either resigned or were dismissed. The British Local Government Board fixed the pensions of those who resigned or were dismissed under either Section 8 or Section 10 of the Act of 1919. That particular Act was a Criminal and Malicious Act, but its main clause dealt with the rights of these officials of local authorities. The rights were put forward by representatives of these officials about 1919, immediately prior to the Local Government elections which took place in January, 1920, and May, 1920. These officials had apprehensions that if the new councils were of the same political complexion as those returned at the General Election of 1918 their rights would be prejudiced and their offices might be terminated. In order to safeguard them a clause was put in entitling any officer of a local authority who resigned with the sanction of the Local Government Board to have a pension fixed for him by that Board, with an addition to his service of whatever number of years the Local Government Board thought fit up to forty years.
In the majority of cases dealt with here the officials are going out with two-thirds of their salaries and emoluments. In respect of those who have less than ten years' service, it was arranged that they would get, I think, up to five years' purchase of their annual salary and emoluments as a maximum sum, which would run somewhat like this: one year for each year's service, and a half-year for every subsequent year of service, making in all not more than five years' purchase. A number of these officials, whose names are in the Schedule, were dismissed or resigned, and had their pensions fixed by the Local Government Board. The local authorities refused to pay the pensions in the majority of cases, and, after the Treaty was signed, when negotiations took place between the Provisional Government of the time and the British Government with regard to grants withheld, the British Government generously restored all the money that had been withheld from local authorities, or which had been spent by that Government in paying decrees that had been obtained by persons under the Malicious Injury Act. As far as the local authorities were concerned in respect of the period from 1920 up to the date of the signing of the Treaty, they came out of the war—if it can be called such—without the loss of a single penny. All their money was restored.
At the negotiations the British Government put it up to the representatives of the Provisional Government that we should discharge our obligations to the officials who had resigned, or who had been dismissed, and to whom pensions had been awarded by the Local Government Board of the time. We undertook to discharge these obligations, and for the past two years we have put it up to the local authorities that they should discharge these obligations. In some cases they did so, but in other cases they objected. In the cases in which they did, they accepted the bargain we had made, just as they accepted the money we got back for them. In other cases they objected. I must say there was some reason for the objection, because in certain areas the burden which would have been placed upon local authorities by reason of this agreement was much greater than it was in other cases. I think it will be observed from the Schedule that certain counties escaped altogether, and they were in the struggle to keep their money safe just as much as any other county. In other counties the amount is very large, and I should say, to the credit of the Dublin Corporation, that although the amount is very considerable they undertook to discharge their liabilities and actually did so in the cases referred to. Others did not. An agitation sprung up, and we came to the conclusion that this was properly a national charge. It has been spread now over the entire country.
During the period that these moneys were being disbursed, some in respect of decrees and some in respect of other liabilities, the Local Taxation Account got very much complicated. An official of the Local Government Board, who had experience of auditing, was directed to regulate this particular Fund. With characteristic financial perspicacity he lodged the whole of the sum available on deposit receipt, and, as a result, £20,000 or £30,000 was earned in interest. In respect of that interest there is no proper claimant, and we are disposing of it in this manner, by paying some of these liabilities and apportioning the liability in respect of the remainder over the whole of the Local Taxation Account, so that no part of the country can say it is bearing more than its own share. I think that is rather a satisfactory conclusion.
What appeared for a long time to be a difficulty has been arranged. With regard to the case mentioned by Senator O'Farrell, I admit that there is a hardship there, but the circumstances were a little different to what I have described. About 1918 an official was appointed by the Limerick Technical Committee to the position of head of the Technical Institute. This official had been engaged in some operations against the Government of the time, and his appointment would not be sanctioned. The Technical Committee adhered to the appointment, and the result was the Department refused to furnish moneys. Subsequently members of the Corporation came before Dáil Eireann and explained that this was a case where a man had served his country and would not be sanctioned. They asked for some money to enable them to carry on the schools so that they might not be placed in what they considered would be the humiliating position of having to annul the appointment and appoint another person. About £2,000 was given by Dáil Eireann to enable the Corporation to carry on the schools. As will be seen by the Bill, a number of the officials resigned and asked to have their pensions fixed. Other officials remained on, but in the case mentioned by Senator O'Farrell the man actually resigned his appointment, I think in Sligo, and came down and took up duty under the Limerick Technical Committee. After some twelve months difficulties also arose there. A scheme was not put up, I think, within twelve months or two years, to Dáil Eireann to carry on the work of the technical institute, and this man, with the other officials who remained loyal to the local authority, found himself in the position of having no occupation. He is now in the service of the Government. I do not know that the Government can be charged with having let him down. If a promise was made to him that he would be made permanent, I believe it was made by some person who had no authority to make it. If he has a case against the Limerick Technical Instruction Committee or the Government, it is a case in which I think some of the responsibility must rest upon himself. Officials like him have done nothing. The officials mentioned in the Bill have done something—they have made my life very uncomfortable for a considerable period, I should say from 1920— and now they have achieved some purpose. They did something positive, but this man and the others affected have done nothing. I do not know if they have applied even to the Local Government Department or the Department of Agriculture to see that justice would be done to them. Unless they make a move in that direction, I do not think they can call upon me to sponsor them.
In this Bill we are carrying out the pledge that the representatives of the Provisional Government gave to the British Government in good faith. The British Government discharged their liabilities, and although belated we are discharging ours. A question may arise in connection with the pensions granted, that they were exorbitant. Some of the officials mentioned in the schedule had only twelve, fourteen, or sixteen years' service, and, I think, with one exception, the Local Government Board of the time, which was the authority responsible for fixing the pensions, added a sufficient number of years to make the period up to forty years. In our negotiations with the British we put it to them that that was an extravagance which we ought not be called upon to bear. The British Government undertook to bear any sum which a committee we have set up considers is in excess of the amounts that should be equitably awarded. With that explanation I hope that the Seanad will be satisfied that we have done our duty in this matter.