Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Feb 1951

Vol. 124 No. 2

Court Officers Bill, 1950—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is a Bill with no single fundamental principle underlying its provisions but which deals rather with a number of separate and quite distinct matters, and it is consequently the sort of Bill upon which I venture to think the House will not find it necessary to dwell at any great length on Second Reading. It may well be otherwise on Committee Stage when the House comes to consider in detail the separate proposals contained in the Bill.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide the necessary legislative authoity for the establishment of existing District Court clerks. I need scarcely recall that the position of these clerks has been frequently the subject of discussion in this House, and Deputies on all sides of the House have been vocal in their support of the claim of the clerks to be given established status. I may, perhaps, be permitted to express my personal gratification on introducing this Bill, which will, I hope, go far to remove any sense of grievance which the District Court clerks may have in consequence of their present, admittedly unsatisfactory, position.

Under Section 3 of the Bill it is proposed to take power to enable clerks who are regarded as being employed whole-time to be established without the necessity of undergoing a competitive or even qualifying test at the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners. Furthermore, power is being taken to enable certificates of qualification granted under the section to be ante-dated so that unestablished whole-time service may be reckonable for pension purposes. Provision is also made for the payment of gratuities on retirement to any whole-time District Court clerk who may for any reason not secure establishment under the section, as, for example, in the case of a clerk who might be considered ineligible for establishment on account of his age or for reasons of health.

The section follows generally the lines of Section 62 of the Court Officers Act, 1926, with one important difference. A serious defect in the 1926 Act provision was that it stopped short at providing for persons who were employed in a whole-time capacity at the date of the passing of the Act. Since the Act was passed a number of clerks have become whole-time, but it was not possible to establish these clerks because of the defect to which I have referred. In Section 3 we now propose to provide that any clerk who is at present only a part-time clerk may be established under the section if at any time subsequently he becomes a whole-time clerk.

Deputies will doubtless wish to know how exactly the provisions of the section are going to operate in practice. One thing I want to make clear at once is, that the enactment of these provisions is not going to mean that every existing District Court clerk is going to secure establishment, because there are some clerks who cannot possibly be regarded as fulfilling the requirement of whole-time service. On the other hand, I can assure the House that the powers under the section will be operated in as generous and liberal a manner as is consistent with the preservation of the idea of whole-time service as a sine qua non for establishment, which idea it is necessary to preserve because of the reactions which any departure from that principle would have on the Civil Service generally. While certain final administrative details have still to be worked out, I think I can say that the majority of the existing unestablished clerks will secure establishment and in all these cases establishment will carry with it recognition for pension purposes of some at least of the clerk's previous unestablished service. In many cases unestablished service for as far back as the 1st January, 1927, and in other cases for as far back as the 1st January, 1931, will count for pension.

Before I leave this particular part of the Bill, there is only one other observation I wish to make and that is with regard to those clerks who may not secure establishment under Section 3. By agreement with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, I am in a position to state that the request of any such clerk to be retained in the service after attaining the normal retiring age will be sympathetically considered and it may be taken that in practice any such clerk will be retained for so long as he continues to be capable of efficiently and satisfactorily discharging his duties.

I propose now to deal briefly with the remaining provisions of the Bill, most of which are minor technical amendments of the existing Court Officers Acts which experience has shown to be necessary or desirable.

Section 2 of the Bill is intended to remove any possible doubt as to the liability of a county registrar to surrender to the Exchequer any fees which he may receive in his capacity as under-sheriff. As Deputies are probably aware, Section 54 of the Court Officers Act, 1926, provided that when an under-sheriff died or otherwise ceased to hold office, his duties should automatically become transferred to and vested in the county registrar for the county. The under-sheriff's remuneration consisted in the main of the fees which he collected under the Under-Sheriff's Fees Orders in connection with the execution of court orders, and under the provisions of Section 54 of the 1926 Act it might conceivably be arguable that the right to collect and retain such fees was a right that became transferred to the county registrar. The county registrar, unlike the former under-sheriff, is a whole-time officer whose remuneration is fixed on the basis that he will perform all the duties of the office including the duties of under-sheriff and the practice in fact is to specify a particular portion of the gross remuneration as an allowance in respect of the performance of the under-sheriff's duties. Every county registrar has, in point of fact, at all times surrendered to the Exchequer the fees collected on foot of execution orders but it is considered desirable, nevertheless, to avail of the present opportunity to remove any doubts that may exist as to the strict legal position in the matter.

Section 4 of the Bill scarcely calls for any comment as it is self-explanatory. It sometimes is necessary, as Deputies may well imagine, to appoint a deputy for a District Court clerk during the latter's absence through illness or other cause or pending the filling of a vacancy. As District Court clerks, by virtue of their office, exercise functions under statute and rules of court, it is important that there should be a clear power to appoint a deputy and that there should be no doubt as to a deputy's power to exercise all the powers of a clerk. The section provides for these matters.

Section 5 is intended to remedy a technical defect in the existing law relating to district probate registries. There are in all seven such registries, namely Castlebar, Cavan, Cork, Kilkenny, Limerick, Mullingar and Waterford. Since the passing of the Court Officers Act, 1926, according as vacancies occurred in the office of district probate registrar, the duties of the office were transferred to the county registrar. It was always considered very doubtful whether, in fact, there was strictly any power to do this and, accordingly, a provision was included in Section 9 of the Court Officers Act, 1945, which, in very general terms, empowered the Minister for Justice, in the case of a vacancy in an office attached to any court or in case the holder of such an office was absent or incapacitated, to require and authorise any officer attached to the same or any other court to perform the duties of such office for a specified period or until otherwise directed. This power has been relied upon to enable the duties of the district probate registrar to be discharged by the county registrar. Incidentally, Section 9 of the 1945 Act validated the acts of county registrars, prior to the passing of the 1945 Act, in purported execution of the office of district probate registrar.

It was, however, overlooked in 1945 that Section 33 of the Court Officers Act, 1926, provided, inter alia, that for the purposes of that Act (save as regards one particular section) none of the district probate registries should be deemed to be an office attached to the High Court. The Court Officers Act, 1945, in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 (3), must be construed as one with the Act of 1926 and, consequently, it would appear as if the district probate registries are not offices attached to the High Court (or, indeed, any court) for the purposes of Section 9 of the 1945 Act. This is a serious defect, and one which must be remedied with retrospective effect, and the simplest way of doing this is to provide, as proposed in Section 5, that the district probate registries shall, for the purposes of Section 9 of the 1945 Act, be deemed to be, and to have been since the passing of the 1945 Act, offices attached to the High Court.

Finally, in Section 6 of the Bill we are providing for two amendments of Section 12 of the Court Officers Act, 1945, which deals with the office of sheriff. The first of these amendments, set out in sub-section (1) of the section, remedies a flaw in sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the 1945 Act. The matter is somewhat technical and, if the House will bear with me, I shall endeavour to explain it as briefly as possible.

Section 23 (3) of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, provided that, so long as the then under-sheriff of the County of Dublin held office, his area of jurisdiction should continue as if the Act had not been passed, but that upon his ceasing to hold office the added urban districts (Pembroke and Rathmines and Rathgar) and the added rural area (as specified in the First Schedule to the Act) should be detached from his area of jurisdiction and he added to the area of the city under-sheriff. The Local Government (Dublin) (Amendment) Act, 1940 (which provided for the inclusion of Howth Urban District in the City of Dublin) contained a similar provision (sub-section (2) of Section 9), which preserved the area of jurisdiction of the county under-sheriff until a vacancy occurred in that office.

Section 12 of the Court Officers Act, 1945 (which, in practice, resulted in the creation of a new office of sheriff in the City of Dublin), contained a provision (sub-section (4)) designed to preserve the status quo in so far as the existing county under-sheriff's area of jurisdiction was concerned by providing that the operation of sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Local Government Act, 1930, should not be affected by any Order in relation to the county borough made under Section 12. Through what appears to have been a pure oversight, sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the 1945 Act made no reference to Section 9 (2) of the Local Government (Dublin) (Amendment) Act, 1940, so that it is a moot point whether, when an Order was made in 1945 under Section 12 of the Act of that year which resulted in the creation of an office of sheriff for the County Borough of Dublin, it did not operate, notwithstanding Section 9 (2) of the 1940 Act, to transfer the Howth Urban District to the area of jurisdiction of the city sheriff.

It is now proposed to remedy this situation and, in order to remove any possible doubts as to whether or not the Howth area has continued, since the passing of the 1945 Act, to be included in the area of jurisdiction of the county under-sheriff, it is proposed that the amendment of sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the 1945 Act should be given retrospective effect as from the date of the passing of that Act.

Sub-section (2) of Section 6 seeks to make provision of a purely ad hoc character in relation to the retiring age of the present Sheriff of the County Borough of Dublin, who is due to attain the age of seventy years in April next and who would then, as the law stands, have to vacate office. The present sheriff is the first holder of that new office which was created under the Act of 1945, having been appointed in that year to the office by the then Government. He has given very satisfactory service and, as he enjoys excellent health, both bodily and mentally, it is proposed that he should be retained in office until he reaches the age of seventy-two, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12 of the 1945 Act. I do not think that this is a proposal to which the House is likely to raise any objection. I might mention, in order to anticipate a query as to the possible effect in other directions of the proposal, that there are only two other sheriffs and there are never likely to be more than four sheriffs in all, and the question of the retiring age in the case of these officers is not likely to arise again for another twenty-five years. I suggest that what it is proposed to do now is, in these circumstances, not calculated to have any repercussions in other directions with which we, at all events, need to concern themselves.

I must congratulate the Minister on finally bringing this vexed question to a satisfactory conclusion. I know there was a strong agitation in favour of it during most of my time as Minister. I had several deputations both from my own Party and from other sides of the House. Apparently, it has taken an extra three years to bring it to a finish, but better late than never. I congratulate the Minister on getting over the difficulties which I am sure he had to face.

There is one thing that I would like to mention. During our time there was always exception taken to retrospective legislation. I want to point out that we have it here again. That being the case, I think the Minister ought to make another attempt to bring into the Order that he made concerning guards who are injured going on duty, the four in respect of whom the whole case was raised. They were left out of the Order which is quite satisfactory now. It is too bad, however, that these four should have been left out. As the Minister had power and influence enough with the Department of Finance to get over the retrospective aspect of this other question, he ought to be able to do the same in the case of these four men. They had to retire as a result of injuries they sustained on their way to work. I would ask him now to make a special effort in their regard. I raised it before, but apparently he took no notice of me.

Mr. Boland

The certificates in the case of these men say that they were retired through incapacity. Therefore, they are in the position that, when they go looking for a job, they have to show their discharge, and the discharge paper indicates that they were retired through incapacity. That is a real handicap on them so far as getting work is concerned.

With regard to Section 6, I think the Minister is expecting too much if he thinks that we are going to approve of what it proposes. In the last Courts of Justice Act that was passed in my time, we actually got strong support from the Labour Party for the proposal to reduce the retiring ages of future Circuit Court judges from 72 to 70. The age of 72 was the limit that was fixed in that Act. There was a somewhat similar proposal many years ago to what we find in Section 6. It happened before our time as a Government. It was the case of a particular judge. In order to give him sufficient time to qualify for a pension, the age for the retirement of all Circuit Court judges was extended to 72. As I have said, in our time the retiring age for Circuit Court judges was reduced from 72 to 70 years of age. There was general agreement that 70 is a good retiring age. When that proposal came before the House we got strong support for it from the Labour Party. As well as I remember, there was not a division on it.

Under the Land Bill which was passed last year, the retiring age for Land Commissioners in the future was reduced from 72 to 65 years of age. Previous to that they could remain on in office until they had reached the age of 72. They held office on the same tenure as a Circuit Court judge. The Government knew then that they were entitled to hang on to office until they had reached the age of 72 years. But, as I say, under the Land Bill the Minister for Lands took power to retire future Land Commissioners at the age of 65. In this Bill we have a proposal to extend the tenure of office of the Sheriff of Dublin City from 70 to 72 years. I know the sheriff personally. He is an old acquaintance and an old friend of mine.

I would not hold that against him.

I do not think there is any case for this proposal at all. Not only is he a friend of mine, but he is a friend of people on the other side of the House. He is, and always has been, a very efficient and painstaking officer. He has been very well treated indeed. He retired as county registrar at the age of 65 years. I suppose we were not justified in it, but for special reasons he was appointed part-time to this position, as well as I recollect, and allowed to remain on with an extra salary up to 70 years. I think that was treating him handsomely.

What case can there be now for reversing engines and for keeping an official on until he reaches the age of 72 when we find other Ministers under their legislation reducing the retiring age from 70 to 65? I certainly cannot understand that. I think the Minister made no case at all for this proposal. He expressed the wish that it would not be objected to. I say there is no case for it. There is the belief, I understand, that the expectation of life is increasing, and that people are more virile now at 70 than they used to be at 65. We must not forget, however, that civil sevants, and very efficient civil servants, have to retire at the age of 65.

In view of the fact that some months ago the Government brought in a Bill providing that people who could remain on until they were 72 will in future have to retire at 65, what case can the Minister make for sub-section (2) of Section 6? We are certainly going to oppose that section. We are not voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. We accept the Bill in the main as being a very satisfactory one, but we will not stand for that proposal. This is not a question of personalities but a question of principle. As far as the personal side of it is concerned all my inclination would be in favour of it, but as I say it is not a question of personalities but of principle. Therefore, I say it is a bad move and one in the wrong direction. As I have said, in one case we have the Government legislating to retire people at 65, while in this Bill they are proposing to increase the retiring age from 70 to 72. This Party is not going to support that.

For years the District Court clerks throughout the country have been waiting with patience for a Bill to be introduced which might be regarded as easing their grievances in a satisfactory manner. Their patience was conditioned by the fact that they had assurances from successive Administrations that their claims would be reasonably considered. Those of them who will qualify under Section 3 will, naturally, receive this Bill with gratification. I would like to say a word, however, on behalf of that considerable number of District Court clerks who, as indicated by the Minister, will be left outside the the scope of this Bill. It has been a pleasing feature of debates here during my time, whether on the Estimate for the Department or on other special occasions, to find members of all Parties taking an interest in this small body of men.

They have given very valuable service to the country over the last 25 or 26 years, and tributes have been paid to the manner in which they organised and administered the work of the courts. There are records in the Department of Justice as well as declarations to the effect that, at a certain stage, they would be more or less entitled to pensions. Naturally, they have been waiting for the introduction of this Bill and for the fulfilment of the promises made to them.

I want to say with Deputy Boland that the Minister is to be congratulated in bringing forward the Bill. It has been his pleasure and privilege to do so. It is a Bill which will go a long way towards easing the grievances of a number of those men. But, neither I nor any other member of the House, knows how many of them are being left outside the scope of the Bill. There are two omissions to which I want to refer. Section 3 refers to the question of certificates of qualification. There is no standard set in the section as to what the qualification will be. I am at a loss to know whether in fact, that standard has to be written into the Bill and, if so, at what stage. The Minister only touched lightly on that. The second omission is that we do not know how many men will be left outside the scope of the Bill. I think the Minister's phrase was that not every one will be entitled to be established. That statement indicates that some will be left outside its scope.

It was the fear that there would be such a section in the Bill when introduced which created the feeling all round this House that justice should be done even to that small minority. The Minister has indicated, and there will be a certain amount of relief as a result of the statement he made, that their case will be dealt with sympathetically. He went on to indicate how it might be dealt with by retaining them in the service after the normal retiring age. I suggest that has certain disadvantages. If a man, having given long service, finds himself incapacitated or in bad health and is forced to retire, there is nothing in this Bill or in the Minister's declaration to indicate that he will get a gratuity on retirement. There is a provision in the Bill that certain clerks will get a gratuity in the event of their not getting a certificate of qualification; but the people who will get that gratuity must have been established whole-time officials. I repeat that a number of them, notwithstanding the change that has been made, will remain outside that category.

Will the Minister do what he did when he became Minister for Justice, will he take into consideration the representations of the people who are competent to deal with the grievances of these officials? There is a very well established organisation which is conducted on very good lines, the District Court Clerks' Association. I have had preliminary word from them, at any rate, that they are disquieted on account of the terms of the Bill because of the number of people likely to be left outside it. Their disappointment in that respect can be understood because they had not the benefit of hearing the Minister's statement in the matter. Is it possible to have from the Minister an indication of what will be the qualification for a certificate and whether he is prepared to deal with the section who will be left out in a manner which will ensure that, if there is disability owing to illness or otherwise, a person beyond a certain age will be entitled to a gratuity and that the dependants of those who die after giving long service will get a gratuity as well? While this Bill was being drafted I believe there was a number of cases of such individuals dying and their dependants getting no gratuity.

I suggest to the Minister that he should receive, through the All-Party Committee of the House which has been functioning for some years, representatives of that organisation so as to ensure that the defects in this Bill will be dealt with on the Committee Stage. If amendments are put down in the name of a private Deputy they might be ruled out of order because they may impose a charge on the Exchequer. The only person who has that prerogative is the Minister. If the Minister would be prepared to meet Deputies in the way I have suggested, with representatives of the organisation, this matter might be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The people who understand the grievances will be able to put them before the Minister. That is a democratic procedure and it would ensure that there would be no bitterness afterwards and that provision would be made for those who may possibly be left out under the Bill.

So far as it goes, I welcome the first part of the Bill. As the last speaker pointed out, some of us for many years have been endeavouring to get something like this over the Department of Finance. If I have to express any regret about the first part of this Bill, it is that I got undertakings both from the Minister and his predecessor that when a Bill of this kind was being introduced the Circuit Court officers, who are nobody's children, would be covered. I see no reference to them in this Bill, and I regret that the Minister did not include them. Like the last speaker, I am not quite sure and I do not know whether it is clear to the House who are the people who will be covered by this Bill. There is a completely woolly expression in Section 3, about a District Court clerk being employed during the whole of his time as a District Court clerk. I should like the Minister to give some of his time explaining what that means. Does it means that a clerk has to get his wife and family into the office and live there?

I want the Minister to deal with this Bill from a common sense point of view and not from the point of view of the Department of Finance. Due to the complex legislation which this House has been passing, the functions of a District Court clerk have become more complicated and involved year after year. A District Court clerk's job to-day is a different proposition from what it was 15 or 20 years ago. They have even to draft summonses for Civic Guards. They have to draft charges and they have to be on tap all the time in their office. Where a District Court clerk's job 20 years ago was a sinecure, it is now a different proposition. He must of necessity be a hard-working man. I fail to appreciate what is meant by this expression "the whole of his time". The House should insist on some explanation of what is meant by this wide and woolly expression. Is he supposed to work eight hours or 18 hours or 24 hours a day? What functions is he supposed to perform? Who are the people to decide whether a District Court clerk devoted the whole of his time to his job? I want the Minister or the Department to decide it. I certainly do not want it left to the tender mercy of the Department of Finance because I have a shrewd idea as to how these people would decide this question.

The section puts Deputies in this position, that we do not really know what is going to be covered by Section 3. Before the Bill comes to the Committee Stage I hope the Minister will be able to elaborate what is meant by a man devoting the whole of his time to the performance of his functions as a District Court clerk.

Up to Section 6, if we knew who was to be covered by the Bill, I do not think the House will have many quarrels with the Minister. But when it comes to Section 6, which makes special provision for one individual, I think the House will quarrel with it. I do not mind whether the individual is a golfing pal of the Taoiseach or not, but his handicap is being raised to 72 under this Bill which is called the "Court Officer's Bill, 1950", and I take exception to that. Why should this special provision be made in this Bill for Mr. O'Connor? What about the other officers of the same type throughout the country? Why should the House be asked to shove in this particular provision here for this particular sheriff, increasing his handicap to 72? I do not think any case can be made for it. Notwithstanding the rather technical explanation offered by the Minister, I still maintain that what the Minister proposes to do under this particular section is to pick out a particular individual for special treatment. That is what the House is being invited to do by the Minister. Why should there be a special section for the sheriff in Dublin while the other sheriffs throughout the country are put in an entirely different category? If there is some argument to be advanced for this provision, then let the Minister make it. If there are special reasons why the Minister should make a special case for Mr. O'Connor, let the Minister give those reasons and make that case. All he has done up to this is to shove him in under this particular section without advancing any arguments other than those he advanced to-night.

None of his arguments has convinced me, and I am sure they have not convinced the House. This is a deliberate attempt to mete out special treatment to the sheriff in Dublin and to carve out a specially comfortable niche for this particular officer. There is no logical or sensible reason why that should be done. I think the House should reject Section 6 in so far as it applies to an extension of the age limit for a golfing pal of the Taoiseach's. I propose to put down an amendment on the Committee Stage to ensure that this section will be rejected.

This particular provision is unique in legislation. I see no reason why one particular individual should be covered. There are many individuals that I want covered. I want the District Court clerks, whose position is still doubtful under Section 3, covered. I want certain categories of certain court clerks to be covered. I have been agitating to have some provision made for them for years past. I will oppose this Section 6 in so far as it applies to the Sheriff of Dublin when the Bill comes to the Committee Stage. Evidently, the Minister is anxious to put the Sheriff of Dublin out of his worries. I would appeal to him to put the coalition supporters in Mayo out of their worries and give us a county registrar in Mayo, if the Minister is capable of making up his mind as between the opposing factions down there. That will lead to peace in Mayo and, possibly, to better administration too. If the Minister can make up his mind so definitely about the Taoiseach's golfing pal, surely he can make up his mind about the county registrar in Mayo.

Surely we could have a decent discussion on this Bill without the Deputy dragging in that; I think there is something "gutty" in that kind of thing.

I think Deputy Moran is to be congratulated on the very careful examination he has made of this Bill, though his concluding remarks detracted somewhat from the benefits his contribution might have had in regard to this discussion. Be that as it may, I think we can give a qualified approval to the Bill as it stands and an unqualified approval to the action of the Minister in introducing this much-wanted measure. Judging by the remarks made by Deputy Moran, this Bill is very badly needed. The defect in the Bill is that it does not state fully and explicitly all those whom it is proposed to cover under its provisions.

I would ask the Minister to consider broadening the basis of the Bill to include a very deserving class of functionaries who seem to have escaped his notice. The Bill proposes to establish certain officers of the District Courts and it proposes, by granting certificates of qualification to these officers, to enable them to qualify for pension. There is, however, a class of functionary which did good service to this country in the past and I think it is a shame that they have been omitted from the scope of this particular measure. I refer to the clerks of the courts of the First Dáil and to the registrars of those courts. It should be possible to bring these in either under the present Section 3 or under a new section in the same way as the Courts of Justice Acts from 1926 to 1945 dealt with the British clerks of petty sessions. I think the officers of the courts under the First Dáil are deserving of recognition under a Bill such as this in which there are miscellaneous provisions covering certain types of persons, notably Section 6. Section 3 applies to those persons who at the passing of the Act are employed whole-time. I think we can agree generally with Deputy Moran's scathing indictment of that form of expression, particularly in a measure emanating from the Department of Justice which has available to it not only the benefit and advice of the legal luminaries but also the full co-operation of the drafting office and a number of precedents in other Departments. For instance, there is a distinction drawn here between a whole-time District Court clerk and a part-time District Court clerk.

The part-time District Court clerk can accede to the position of whole-time District Court clerk and in doing so he becomes qualified if he has so acceded after the passing of this Act. As an analogy to put before the Minister, to make constructive criticism, there are part-time teachers and whole-time teachers, particularly in the vocational education service, and it is laid down in the Department's regulations which is which. It is measured as it should be measured in a term of years. I think the Minister might consider incorporating some such expression either in the Bill or in the regulations made by him to the effect that the whole-time clerk is one who gives at least 800 hours per annum or 1,000 hours per annum to his duties.

You want to rule the poor fellow if you start saying what is whole-time and what is part-time. You are going to set a standard if you say 800 hours or 1,000 hours constitute part-time or whole-time. I am trying to be as woolly as I can.

As long as we have that undertaking from the Minister that this is a device by which we can overcome the frustrating tactics of the Department of Finance, we will all withdraw the objection. We will conspire with the Minister if it is intended that such is the purpose of this Section 3 and sub-section (a). It has, of course, its dangers. If this thing is to be done properly by the Minister, then there may be some substance in taking us into his confidence as he has done. Of course, there are other Ministers for Justice to come and if he unduly delays the implementation of this measure how can we rely on the good wishes of any succeeding Ministers for Justice? We might have the utmost confidence in the present occupant of that office but we do not know who might succeed him.

Apart from that, I would like to emphasise that it could be granted by the Minister that there is a case to be made for these clerks of the First Dáil and I strongly urge him to give his favourable consideration to incorporating them or having some measure to deal with the cases of the not very many who remain of that category.

Finally, let me say in regard to Section 6 that I am in accord with the line of Deputy Moran while of course, I do not in any way approve of the personal bias of the words that he used in the matter. I think he detracted from the value of his statement—completely so. I object to this. I know the gentleman who holds the office, as Deputy Moran gave his name.

Séamus O'Connor.

A most estimable gentleman he may be. It is a most extraordinary development of legislation, as a layman it occurs to me, to have this incorporation of a one person position by legislative action. It may be necessary, but I think the general principle of all or none should apply to cases like this. It is a very weak argument put up by the Minister to say that we will not have any further cases of this kind troubling us for 25 years to come, but our successors may be troubled by it. That is a very weak argument because what is good for the gentleman who holds the office at present—what argument may be adduced to extend his time of office by a couple of years—could surely with equal force apply to the other gentleman who may come under the view of this matter in 25 years' time. As Deputy Boland said, in 1951 evidently, owing to the greater expectation of life, we can assume that a man at 72 years of age is much more active than a man some years ago was at the age of 65. If you carry that line of argument to a proper conclusion, in 25 years from now, in 1976, a man at 72 years of age, will be just coming to maturity.

With the advance of medical science, we may make these judges, etc., properly inoculated with glandular treatment to have extreme longevity. It is a very bad legislative instrument that a paragraph or a part of any Act should come before the House dealing with one individual and one individual only. It was also commented upon that the reason for it, according to the Minister, was due to an oversight—a complete oversight—in the drafting of a previous Act. That is a serious matter indeed, with which members of this House should concern themselves, that owing to the lack of attention to their duty on the part of the officers who are employed for the purpose of drafting these Bills it becomes necessary, in a short Act of this sort, to draft a section and a couple of subsections—altogether about 28 lines— dealing with one particular man's case. This individual legislation is one which this House should hold against. Unless we have very much stronger reasons from the Minister in support of Section 6, I think we should record our disapproval of it.

I have not very much to say on this measure, except that I am glad that steps are being taken to improve the position of certain court clerks in the country who heretofore had no chance of superannuation. Whether this difficulty about whole-time service can be got over I do not know. It is very hard to draw the line sometimes. Deputy Connolly has mentioned the officers who officiated under the First Dáil. As far as I know, some of these were reappointed in 1922 as District Court clerks.

The question is: will they get credit for the amount of service they rendered during the time they operated as officers under the First Dáil? If they do, it will be just in keeping with what has been done for certain civil servants, for people who were brought into the Civil Service and who officiated under the First Dáil. They were given recognition for the service they gave at that time, and, not merely that, but in some cases a number of years were added on to their service. It is only right that these officers— there cannot be many of them—should be given the same consideration.

As to Section 6, the Minister should realise now that there is great hostility to it. I do not think it wise to drag in personalities, but it is the principle of the thing which should be attacked. It is a very undesirable principle to follow to pass legislation here for the sake of one individual, no matter who he is, and no matter whether he lives in Dublin, Cork or Kerry.

Might I ask the Deputy a question?

Certainly.

Did the Deputy think that when the Act was going through?

That was a different case.

It was a different case, but the same principle.

It was legislation dealing with an individual.

The age mentioned here is 72, a rather advanced age. In the case of Circuit Court judges, they have to retire at the age of 70.

A Circuit Court judge has to retire at the age of 70.

I could give you one exception.

If a Circuit Court judge is not capable of carrying on his judicial functions after the age of 70, how is it that the sheriff for the County Borough of Dublin will be able to do so?

Did you not hear that he had a very good golf handicap?

He should be a great golfer if he can keep going when he has reached the age of 72. In any case, apart altogether from the age limit mentioned here, the principle is wrong, and it is only in very exceptional circumstances, in cases of real hardship, that any exception should be made for the sake of any individual, no matter what part of the country his office may be in. If the Sheriff for the County Borough of Dublin is entitled to this consideration, should not every registrar be entitled to consideration of the same kind? No registrar will be allowed to continue in office, so far as I know, up to the age of 72, and, of course, civil servants, teachers and dispensary doctors are all compelled to retire at the age of 65. There is a great difference between 65 and 72 years. I suggest to the Minister that he reconsider the section, because he can see that, not merely is there opposition from this side, but there is opposition from the other side, because it is a bad principle. I hope that between now and the Committee Stage he will be able to settle the matter.

It is unfortunate that Deputies will occasionally say things which tend to bring the country into disrepute. Every Deputy, in approaching the problems that confront us here, should be careful not to say anything that may reflect on the country. I make these observations because of the concluding words used by Deputy Moran in his speech. It is entirely wrong that, whenever any matter comes up for discussion here, there should be a suggestion that a thing is being done simply because a particular individual happens to be a friend of another. It is a very thwarted mentality that can use the Parliament of the country for the purpose of aspersing the country.

I want to say that I entirely adopt all the arguments so forcefully put before the House by Deputy M. O'Sullivan, and there is consequently no necessity for me to repeat those very able arguments. I should like to mention, however, that we have in the City of Dublin a number of temporary District Court clerks, men who served in the Defence Forces during the emergency, men who have been doing excellent and efficient work for a number of years, whose appointment is, on the basis of six months at a time, and who have gone past the age at which they can obtain a certificate under the Bill and who may be in some danger of losing their employment in the near future.

As Deputy O'Sullivan has said, the position of a private Deputy in regard to this Bill is difficult. We can request and urge the Minister to make provision for a particular class, but we cannot put down any amendment to make provision for that class, because it would be ruled out of order. Consequently, all I can do now is to urge on the Minister that some provision ought to be made for these individuals who, I know, and who every other Deputy who has experience of the working of the Dublin District Courts knows, are doing invaluable work, so that they will not, perhaps in the very near future, become unemployed. I know some who have wives and large families and I should like to see some guarantee written into the Bill to give them security.

There has been a long discussion on the age limit. At some stage, we should face up to this question of the age limit in regard to officials. I hear declarations that when a person reaches 65 he is fit for no further work. That is absured. The heaviest work that could fall to an individual has fallen on one individual in this city in the last year and he is much older than 65. A couple of nights ago, I read of a man who was despondent at the age of 62, who felt that his life had been a failure. He was an ordinary priest living in an oratory in Birmingham. That man lived for another 25 years and became a distinguished cardinal of the Church. We need not decide the point here now, but I do not think it is right that we should say that a person on reaching 65 should be compelled to retire from an office or occupation in which he may be rendering the most valuable national service. There are too many instances around us of people who have passed the 70 mark and who are still rendering excellent national service. It is not a good thing that the nation should be deprived of their invaluable experience and ability.

As far as the particular county sheriff is concerned here, I have known him for many years in his official capacity. He is a most humane individual, who carries out certain distasteful duties with a sense of humanity and justice. As far as he can, he eases the burden of the unfortunate people whom he, because of his office, may have to evict from their homes. He goes out of his way to try to meet any reasonable request. I would like to see an individual with that humane approach to human problems in office every year if he were to live to be 100, rather than have, perhaps, some younger man who would carry out the duties in accordance with the letter of the law, no matter how harshly it may react on individuals.

This is no precedent. I can instance two cases myself in my own recollection in the last 25 years, in which Acts of Parliament were passed specially to keep able individuals in office after they had passed the age of 70. In providing this, the Minister is creating no precedent. The precedent is well established.

It is a bad principle.

It may be a bad one, but let it be examined as a principle and let it not be said that a precedent is being created here—since that is not so. Like other Deputies, I welcome the Bill. Our powers of amendment will be exceptionally slight. Nevertheless, I am glad to see that the Minister, within a reasonable time, has carried out the solemn promise he made to the House.

To-day we have passed two other important Bills which were introduced by the Minister for Justice. In the previous session, we dealt with important Bills introduced by him also. I only wish that the other Ministers would show the same activity in bringing before the Dáil important Bills of this kind that have the intention and object of doing good to a considerable section of the community.

As I outlined at the start, this has been a most contentious and difficult measure to get introduced and to get to this stage. It has been on the table of every Minister of Justice since this State was established, and I am the first one to hope to be able to bury the file. In this Bill, we deliberately avoid stating what constitutes whole-time service, since if I take any hours of service for a week I will exclude somebody. I am trying to get a definition, without creating precedents, for this particular section. I hope this will never arise again, since it is only a small section of the community who are occupying these services and when they are dealt with such a situation could never arise again. Every future appointment will be made under conditions laid down as to what will constitute whole-time service. The future appointments will depend on the size of the area to which they will be allotted. It is intended in the future— not under this Bill—to amalgamate areas, so that whole-time service can be established. This Bill deals with a certain number for whom no provision can be found in the existing law to define part-time or whole-time service. Therefore, I am doing something that is unique for these 82 people. Where the hours are too few we are doing certain things. We are not going to push a man out at 72, at 82 or at 102 if he lives. If he is able to go on he can go on until he drops, but if he is a wise man and feels he is getting a little delicate I hope that he will take his gratuity a few days before he passes off so as to get the benefit of it. I cannot take in all of them, and it is not my heart that hinders me nor a decision of the Government, but precedents would be established and I do not think it would be wise to do it.

As I said in my speech there was never a more elaborate or expansive feeling towards people than there is towards these old-timers. They are people who started with the State and for that reason these unique provisions are being brought in. I am doing that at the behest of every section in the House and I trust that this will be accepted. When I was doing that I found other gaps that had to be filled and I decided to make use of this in order to fill them. I have covered that in my speech on the Second Reading. I do not want to say the number that will qualify but it will be the highest possible number that can qualify. It is deliberately drafted to make that possible without having to tie yourself down by statute because if you tie yourself down by statute you certainly will not be able to go across that and there will be no way by which sympathetic action can be taken.

It is a rather peculiar situation. I could indeed in this Bill say that the age of sheriffs could be extended to 72 and not specifically mention this officer. There are four sheriffs as I have told you. Prior to the recent appointments and this man who was appointed in 1945 they were appointed under the 1920 Act and the Lord Lieutenant could extend the date of their retirement to any age and to-day one sheriff is acting who is now 72 but because he was appointed under the Lord Lieutenant he can go on and without any hesitation he can be extended until he is 102. One person was appointed under the law of this country which was passed by this House and was appointed only a few years ago. One man who is 72 and is still in office can go on if the Lord Lieutenant, or rather the Minister for Justice who now takes his place, decides to extend him and another person who is appointed by the power of this House must go when he reaches 70.

The Minister is doing his best to make his case.

I am not making any case. If one man can be kept until he is 72 still serving and you have another whom you are going to push out at 70, is it not reasonable that you should give them both an equal period of service?

If the first can be extended until he is 102 why not increase the period and let the second also be extended until he is 102?

He is 72½ at the moment and I do not propose to extend him for one minute, but I do intend to extend the other man's period to an equal age. Neither of them is entitled to any pension as sheriff.

We are well aware of that. One has a pension already.

What is the use of your arguing it on the basis that 65 is the retiring age? Sixty-five is the retiring age on pension and 70 for judges with a pension.

This particular person has a pension.

He has no pension as sheriff.

No, but he has another.

Is that not prevarication?

It is no such thing.

He must vacate office at 70 or at 72 with no pension.

The Minister did not make us aware of that at the beginning.

It is a part-time job.

I would forgive Deputy Connolly for not being able to understand what I say. Deputy Boland who declared he was a friend of theirs and that they appointed him——

He was not a friend of theirs. He was a friend of mine personally, which is a different matter.

I said that I did not hold it against him that he was a friend of the Deputy's.

He was not a friend of our Party. He never was and never will be.

If the Deputy had not started that hare I do not think he would have been hurt and Deputy Moran would not have opened his mouth except that Deputy Boland started it. These are facts. I do not name the person. I think it is the best and straightest way to do it without beating about the bush at all. If the House decides that they will not do it I am perfectly satisfied, but I appeal to the House not to leave it possible for a man who was appointed by the Crown to stay on while a man appointed by this State has to go. That I think is a reasonable way to put it. Nobody will go beyond 72 in the future and I think it is reasonable that we should give this provision to this man. That is why I ask you not to tie yourself down by voting against it. These are facts and I think that on consideration you will accept this proposal.

We are as well aware of the fact as the Minister is.

When you are as well aware of the fact as the Minister is surely you should be as reasonable as the Minister and say that both should get equal treatment and that when one could stay until he is 72½ the other should be allowed to do the same. Is there a single man in the world who would say that one should be let stay on and the other should get the push?

I feel that the question of District Court clerks is covered. If the clerks in Dublin district to whom Deputy Cowan referred are still there they come under this—I believe there were only four and I do not know if they are all there now. They occupy a different position to that of District Court clerks operating in towns like, say, Banagher or in rural areas where the District Court area is very small and where in some cases there is hardly eight hours a week and in others eight hours a month. It is very hard in such circumstances to constitute full-time service. If I started to lay down hard and fast rules there would be a huge number of exclusions and I want to bring in the largest possible number.

I am sorry but I was not here when the Minister started to conclude. I wonder if he dealt with my point about the four Guards?

I think I would not have to bring in legislation to cover these four people.

No, but you have to amend the Order.

That is all. I am warned not to commit myself too tightly.

That is all right. I am aware of the difficulties.

Lest there should be any misunderstanding, I should like to say that the appointment of the sheriff was made under the Act of 1919 and not by the Government. In these circumstances, I think that this is a gallant effort to meet a situation that has arisen and that was extremely difficult to handle. I hope that, in its administration, justice will be done to all these old-timers who served this country so well through a difficult period and who got very poor recompense for their labours.

Will the Minister say anything about the registrars of the First Dáil, old-timers who served this country well and whose case I have brought to his attention?

They are dealt with in various ways. Some of them qualify under the Military Service Pensions Act. Some of them have been appointed to various offices such as registrars, District Court clerks and so forth. I do not know if there are any who are out.

There are, and I have had representations from them. They have received no recompense and they have applied over a period of years for a qualification for service to rate for pension purposes.

I should be glad if the Deputy would give me the names of the people concerned so as to enable me to study the matter.

Did I hear the Minister aright when he said that certain individuals in that minority, who would be left outside the scope of the Bill in its present terms, would, in fact, get a gratuity on retirement and also that if they became disabled through illness or otherwise they would get a gratuity in such circumstances?

That is my intention. Again, I do not want to be tied down hard and fast but by the time this Bill is through I hope that the matter will be clear beyond yea or nay. However, those who do not qualify under this particular section for whole-time, because of ill health, over age or something like that, can get the gratuity. It may be possible to have something, such as the Posts and Telegraphs Act, done for the part-time fellow. Something may be done for the person who has no hope at all of qualifying, whether he is young or old.

Are we to take it that it is the Minister's intention to put it right, so far as he can?

Yes. This is an enabling Bill. It enables something to be done.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 22nd February, 1951.
Top
Share