Vol. 189 No. 11
I move:
That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof and out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to make further provision in relation to the superannuation of Judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Circuit Court, of Justices of the District Court and of certain Court officers.
In common with other Deputies, I tabled an amendment which was ruled out of order and I feel it may be appropriate to refer to what I had in mind on the Money Resolution rather than on any specific section. This measure deals with the superannuation of certain court officers and I understand that the Minister as well as Deputies has had representations from county Registrars whose pensions will be affected by this measure. The pension rights of county registrars are at present regulated by the Court Officers Act of 1945.
That is just the point. This Bill does not seem to provide for pensions for registrars.
Yes, it does.
It has provisions in respect of the disposal of pensions.
Yes, but it also provides that the county registrar is entitled to opt to accept the terms of this Section 4 and the subsequent section under which he can opt for a lower pension and transfer portion of the pension already already earned in the form of a gratuity to a wife or widow, as the case may be.
However that may be, I think I would have to say it does not provide money for pensions. It does not provide funds for the pensions.
All I want to say is that the present arrangement is that the 1945 Act applies except in respect of a few who were appointed before that Act. Under the 1945 Act, the provision is that there is a pension of one-sixth of the salary for the first ten years service, together with one fortieth for each year in excess of ten up to a maximum of two-thirds after 30 years service. The provisions of the legislation at the present mean that a county registrar, unless he was appointed prior to his 35 birthday, cannot have full service because he is obliged to retire at 65. That, I think, applies to almost all the county registrars, with the possible exception of six or seven so that of the balance, which I understand is 25 or 26 county registrars, none of them will have full service because, owing to the nature of the appointment, they were appointed after the age of 35. Most of them were 40 or upwards.
I suggest that the Minister should consider introducing an amendment because, as the Ceann Comhairle rightly pointed out, it is not permissible for a Deputy to introduce an amendment which involves a charge on public funds. I suggest that the same terms as are provided in the 1956 Courts of Justice Acts in respect of district justices should apply in respect of county registrars.
The office of county registrar is one which requires special qualifications. It is a responsible post and the person appointed to it must be a solicitor of a certain number of years standing, eight years being the minimum. Normally, the person appointed has more than the minimum service. In addition to being the county registrar, he acts as returning officer in Dáil elections; he is registrar of titles and, in respect of circuit court work, I understand he does the work of three comparable officials of the High Court, Examiner, Accountant and Taxing Master. He also has to compile the Voters List and Register and he adjudicates on claims and objections to the Register. Also, in respect of workman's compensation, he has the onerous duty of adjudicating on the adequacy of compensation by lump sum agreement.
District justices were formerly at a similar disadvantage because in their case they were not normally appointed until they had reached 40 years of age and consequently with retirement at 65 could not complete 30 years service. I suggest and I believe that there would be support for the introduction of such an amendment, that the same terms should apply in respect of county registrars as apply at present to district justices. Very few county registrars can qualify for full pension. In fact, there is at least one case of a county registrar resigning from his post in order to take up a position as district justice. Section 8 of the Courts of Justice Acts, 1953 reduced the qualifying period for district justices from 30 years to 20 years for full pension. The Minister might introduce a similar amendment on Report Stage to meet this situation. County registrars are not entitled to certain terms which higher civil servants, or perhaps all civil servants, get in respect of children's allowances and so on. Consequently, a more equitable arrangement would appear to be one comparable with that operating for district justices.
I should like to support what Deputy Cosgrave has said. Quite apart from the individual case he mentioned, I am in complete agreement that there is a general case to be made that, where we provide that a person may take up a particular job only after having a certain number of years service, the basis of computation of pension for such a person is not comparable with that which applies in the case of a person who in the ordinary way goes into the public service in his teens or thereabouts. Because of the terms or conditions with which they must comply before they are appointed, only in the rarest cases can county registrars qualify for full pension when they must retire at the age of 65. I do not think that is reasonable and I am quite certain that the Minister would appreciate the position in that regard.
The fairest way of coping with the matter is the manner in which a similar situation was dealt with in respect of district justices under the 1953 Act, as Deputy Cosgrave has said. Whether or not the Minister can do it in this Bill, I would strongly urge him to take up with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, the question of introducing amending legislation, either by way of amendment of this Bill or otherwise, to ensure that those who must serve for so many years before they have the right to be appointed and who do not by necessity serve that period, lose their pension rights to which all public servants are otherwise entitled.
I should like to say that there are many on this side of the House who agree entirely with what has been suggested by Deputy Cosgrave and supported by Deputy Sweetman. There seems to be something inequitable as between those two officers of the court. When a district justice reaches retiring age, there is provision that his service can be extended from year to year until he reaches the age of 70 years. The body that decides that consists of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the Attorney General.
The situation with regard to a county registrar is that when he reaches retiring age, he can apply for an extension and it is the Minister for Finance who grants the extension. Why cannot he also, as an officer of the court, come under the same body in respect of these applications for extensions? In other words, why cannot the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the Attorney General consider his application for an extension up to the limit of 70 years of age? I would strongly urge on the Minister that he should consider what has been said here. Those of us who have had this matter brought to our notice feel that it would be unfair and unjust not to deal with it on that basis.
I endeavoured to make it as clear as possible that this Bill was based on the clear understanding, so far as the Government were concerned, that it would not entail any extra charge on the Exchequer. Therefore, I can do nothing in respect of the suggestion made by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Sweetman. In reply to Deputy Briscoe, the county registrars have at the present time the right he is now suggesting they should be given and do not have to secure the right as the district justices must secure it through the medium of the Judicial Committee on the basis of their being in a fairly healthy condition. They have that right from the Minister for Justice to secure an extension from 65 to 70 years of age. From that point of view, the suggestion put forward would in fact be a worsening of their position to some extent rather than an improvement. I cannot say any more in regard to the suggestion that we should make these improvements suggested by Deputies on the opposite side. Anything that would impose expenditure on the Exchequer cannot be entertained.
May I comment on the Minister's statement with regard to there being a possibility subsequently of some charge being made on public funds, if these amendments were accepted? Surely what the Minister assured the House was that the Bill as drafted would not entail a charge on public funds. If the House is in support of these amendments, and I think most of us are, does that not absolve the Minister completely from any undertaking he may have given in the first place? In actual fact, the charge on public funds will not be immediate and will not be very much in any case. I suggest the remarks the Minister made in good faith, and which were based on the Bill as drafted, should not necessarily bind him if the House is agreeable to release him from them. I hope he will not feel himself bound in that way and that he will be able to deal with these amendments on their merits.
That is what I am trying to do.
The charge would be very small.
It does not matter what the charge may be. Deputy Sweetman knows even better than I that it is based on the Civil Service Act and based on the point of view that you cannot add to Exchequer costs.
Regardless of whether the Minister could do it by amendment of this Bill, he could do it by a very simple one-section Bill. I am quite certain both sides of the House would facilitate him in giving it a speedy passage.
The Minister has heard the strong views expressed in the House.
We are armed in unanimity.
It is not often that we all agree.
That is all to the good but it is another day's work.
