It changes them, but this Bill does not change them; it only confirms what was already the clear intention but apparently not sufficiently clear from the legal point of view.
I am quoting from the Second Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1955, relating to Section 24 of that Act:—
"The declaration may relate to all the offices in relation to which the declaring Minister is the appropriate Minister or to such of those offices as belong to a specified class, description or grade or to one or more specified such offices notwithstanding any other provision made by or under Statute in relation to holding such offices, offices of such class, description or grade or such one or more specified offices (including, in particular, a provision for holding office until death, resignation or removal from office) and in any such case, the declaration and this section shall have effect notwithstanding such other provision."
That is contained in the 1955 Local Government Act which was enacted by this House when Deputy Dillon was a member of the then Cabinet. When this officer was appointed in 1945, he did know that, as a hazard of his occupation, under the 1941 Act, the Minister for Local Government or the Government might make a retiring age order, and the only provision contained in it would be that six months' notice of the intention of the Minister to retire the holder of that office of Manager of the City of Waterford should be given. The manager so appointed in 1945 must have been aware of that. Knowing the great tributes that have been paid to his ability, I am quite sure that, since this was part of Local Government law, he surely would have been aware of what was contained in that Act and what has been carried into this Bill here, and that any or all of the provisions in regard to this matter would be effective from the year 1946, the year after he accepted this position.
No move was made to remove him in a positive way until six months' notice, as provided, was given him on 1st July, 1957, expiring on 31st December, 1957, and as and from that date, he ceased to be Manager of Waterford City in a permanent capacity. As I already said, lest any doubt might arise as to the functions he might perform, he was then by Order appointed acting city manager in a temporary capacity.
Apart from making arguments, I do not think that anything that has been said by Deputy Dillon in regard to this matter really makes any difference to any individual in the employment of this State. I doubt even if it was his intention that anything he said would make any difference. I do not say that in any disparaging manner. The Deputy has been in a rather happy frame of mind these last few weeks and he wants to give us the benefit of some entertainment this afternoon.
I have nothing further to say, except in regard to this gentleman in Waterford City, that I do not even know him. Neither do I know any of the other men concerned who might come within this legislation. I am in the happy position that I cannot be held to have any prejudiced views about the matter. Since I did not have any contact with them or knowledge of them until my official contact in the ordinary way during the past few months, I can only say that I can see no grounds whatever for the acceptance or the non-acceptance of this section. I cannot see any reason in the world why anybody should say that the holder of the Waterford City managership has not had a fair run for his money. Nobody is creating any hardship for him in tying up the loose ends and giving him, at the age of over 70 years —and I am not reflecting upon the Waterford City Manager—the same treatment as any other men who gave good service and had to go at 65 years of age.