When this section was under discussion on the last occasion we had a different Minister in charge of it. It is rather strange to relate that that position was, in fact, anticipated by Deputy Connolly, because in one of his arguments he did make the point that a different situation would arise if, at a later stage, there was a different Minister in charge of the Bill. I am happy to think, however, that there will be no great change so far as the explanation that we had of this section is concerned which was given by the former Minister.
Section 3 is the vital section of this Bill so far as court officers are concerned. Manifestly, on the face of the section there are shortcomings and defects in it, but it is difficult to criticise those defects in the light of the assurance which was given by the then Minister on the Second Reading. We have, to a very large extent, to take this Bill, which is almost unique in its terms, on trust. A number of amendments which were put down were ruled out for reasons well known to Deputies. I would like to impress on the Minister that those amendments were a very fair reflection of the desire of the House to have the Bill improved along the lines therein indicated. It is felt that such improvements would bring satisfaction to the people concerned.
It is some time now since the Bill was under discussion in the House, and for that reason it may be no harm if I run over briefly some of the points already made. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the defects in the Bill as they have been indicated by the representatives of the association concerned. First of all, they say that there is no indication of what will be the basis of qualification so far as a certificate is concerned; secondly, that there is no indication of what may happen to a part time officer who will not come within the question of certification. There is a far more serious complaint, due to something which happened in this House in 1926, and that is the position of officers who are now retired without either pension or gratuity. The fact that they are in that position is due to a defect in the Act that was passed in that year. That Act only catered for those who were then in whole-time employment. There was no consideration or provision either made for those who might qualify for whole-time employment after the passing of the 1926 Act.
The result of all that is that a number of people have gone out without any provision whatever, either in the way of pension or gratuity. There is a natural anxiety on the part of those people as to what provision may be made for them under the terms of this Bill. There is another aspect of that which deserves to be mentioned, and it is that some of those people have passed away, leaving dependents behind them. No provision whatever has been made for those dependents. Neither is there any provision for the dependents of those officers who have died since the Bill was promised in 1947. A strong plea was made in all parts of the House that people in that position should be considered.
There is another point which was referred to in one of the amendments, and it is that service given in what may be described as the formative years of the courts, that is to say between 1922 and 1927, is not reckonable for pension purposes. Even that has been extended to the small number of persons who were eventually taken from the District Courts to other sections of the Civil Service. They have been denied credit for the service given during those particular years.
I put it to the present Minister that there is an extraordinary measure of goodwill in this House towards this Bill. That has been the attitude towards this particular matter during all the years that I have been a member of the House. There is only a very small number of men affected. That number will become smaller as the years pass. Due to the excellent service which those men rendered to the State, the general feeling is that no great strain would be imposed on the resources of the State if, at this point, they were treated in a generous way. I, like other members of the House, have been in touch with the people who can speak for these particular officers. I know it is their desire that there should be placed on the records deep appreciation of the personal interest taken in this particular subject not only by the former Minister but by his predecessor. The present Minister will have the gratification, I trust, of rounding off the position which has baffled all those who have preceded him in his office. I repeat that it will only take a small amount of money to round off the position in a satisfactory way. I would appeal, therefore, to the Minister's sense of consideration and fair play. I suggest that from a financial point of view the matter should be treated generously.
