I move that the Bill be now read the Second Time.
Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1967: Second Stage.
What is it all about?
It is to make special provision for a judge of the Supreme Court who was appointed to the Supreme Court and because of his age when appointed would not qualify for full pension in the normal way and I understand that this arrangement was promised in regard to his pension.
How long has he been appointed?
He was appointed last year.
He is not retired now; he has some years to run.
How many years approximately will he have to run?
Is it seven or eight; normally this is 15 years' service?
Will he get added years for pension according to his service?
He will get added years. He is deemed to be appointed from a certain date. His pension will not arise until he reaches the age limit.
We have no objection to the provision.
(Cavan): I understand that the purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the payment of a pension to a judge, who was appointed on a certain date, on his retirement and, as Deputy Donegan said, we on this side of the House are quite agreeable to the proposal. In so far as that provision in the Bill is concerned, I have nothing further to say about it.
I should like to avail of this opportunity, and I am glad the Minister for Finance is in the House, to ask the Minister to deal with one or two other cases which are outstanding. As I think the Minister is probably aware, two circuit court judges retired some time ago without having qualified for full pension. One served for ten years and in the other case, I think, 13 years were served. These judges, I would say, have gone out on a comparatively small pension. They were obliged to retire on reaching the age limit.
I understand that in Northern Ireland under the Bill dealing with county court judges, who are the equivalent of our circuit court judges, there is a provision which enables a judge, who, but for the provision, would have to retire at the age, I think of 70 years to serve on a further three years if he is not entitled to a full pension; to serve a further three years or to serve until the date on which he qualifies for a full pension whichever first happens. There is that precedent there.
I think the Minister for Finance is aware of the cases I have in mind and I think probably they came under his notice when he was Minister for Justice. If I were to put down an amendment to give effect to what I have in mind, I think it would be ruled out of order by the Chair as imposing a charge on the Exchequer, and I am, therefore, availing of the Second Reading of this Bill to ask the Minister for Justice, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, to put down such an amendment.
I should like to say that I would be satisfied if the Minister put down an amendment increasing the pensions of the judges I have in mind as from the date of the passing of the Bill. In other words, I am not seeking retrospective increase from the date of retirement.
I could go on making a case at some considerable length but I do not think it is necessary. The facts are that one of the judges served between ten and 11 years and the other has served something over 13 years. In order to qualify for a full pension, they would, as the Minister knows, have to serve 15 years. In the Bill which the Minister asks us to approve, we are making provision for the payment of a full pension on a service of ten or 11 years——
I am not sure of the exact period of years but it is short of 15. It is a little less than 12 years.
(Cavan): That is approximately the same length of service as I have in mind. In one case, it is something shorter and in the other something longer. I think the House would approve of such a proposal. I understand that a proposal was considered to grant a full pension in these cases of service of ten years, to give pensions all round in that category. At first sight, that might seem over-generous but some of these people when appointed are fairly advanced in years. In their case that has its advantages because as a result they bring with them very considerable experience of the law and of people. I do not think it necessary to put it any further than that. I consider I am fortunate in that the Minister for Finance is handling the Bill today on behalf of the Minister for Justice and I am sure that if the Minister for Finance approves, there will be no difficulty about putting down the amendment which I suggest we put down on Committee Stage.
The question of special provision for pensions is one which we find it easy enough to deal with in this House for individual cases, particularly if they are well enough paid, but nobody ever worries about the poor fellow who is a stamp short for his old age pension. However, I am not opposing what the Minister proposes here but I am just drawing a comparison. Particularly, I am not opposing it because I am aware that unemployed judges do not find it easy to get employment. They are not the most popular people in the world, and unless they manage to get on to a board of some kind, there are not many openings for them.
I am interested in what Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, particularly in regard to one man whom I know personally. I think he was dealt with unfairly. I do not want to make any political charges but I think it is true that there does not seem to be any reason why he was forced to retire on a meagre allowance except that he was not appointed by the present Government. Representations were made by people on various sides of the House when the occasion arose. This did not seem to do much good. There are cases like this one: this man had an excellent record on the Bench. He was not afraid to make a decision, something that I hold against some of our present-day law givers, those who interpret the law. Very often they seem to give peculiar decisions, but at the time of his retirement this man's record was such that not one peculiar decision could be attributed to him during his period on the Bench. Despite that, he did not get a minute over the exact time and was allowed to retire on reaching the age limit.
I think that is statutory.
It is statutory but there could have been some provision made——
I do not know anything about the case.
That is why I am endeavouring to bring it to the Minister's notice.
The case we are dealing with now is statutory but we are proposing to change it.
There is a difference. This man was leader of the Bar, and was asked to accept an appointment in the Supreme Court and agreed to do so on the understanding that the pension provisions were going to be changed. There was a misunderstanding. He accepted the appointment on a certain basis which did not subsequently transpire and we are now trying to remedy the situation.
Surely it is an amazing situation that somebody should accept an appointment on the condition that the House would eventually change the law to provide for something that was not already laid down?
No, this person was given to understand that the law was going to be changed generally.
He knew the conditions of appointment then just as did the person I am talking about. He accepted the position under the existing conditions and the man I am talking about did the same thing but he gave up a lucrative practice foolishly, possibly because he felt his standing would be greater as a judge. He was badly treated. I am not opposing what the Minister suggests but I feel it should be applied to other really hard cases equally affected. I quite agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that this is the way it can be done now. If it is not done and since we cannot do it on this side of the House, it will not be done later. I know the Minister has a sense of fair play and I ask him to look into the matter and see if he can include the few people who are affected.
Give me an opportunity to study the case with the Minister for Justice.
I should like to join in the Deputy's appeal. I think there are two others who may be affected. One may have been mentioned. I do not propose to mention any names. I should like to join in asking the Minister to consider these cases and see if they could be covered and included. I did send certain representations to the Minister for Justice in regard to the matter and I hope this course will be considered.
I suggest these cases can be considered by the Minister for Justice but I should be grateful if the House would give us this Bill now to honour an undertaking given to this judge.
Are we creating a precedent?
This only deals with one individual.
I think that is a precedent. This could happen in any Department.
It arises out of a genuine mistake and I am satisfied that it is the Government's fault——
You made a mistake?
Yes. I think the Government must accept responsibility for it.
(Cavan): Is it not a fact that the Government were going to introduce a measure which would qualify this category for a pension on ten years service? I suggest that is what you are doing now.
That is a bigger question altogether.
(Cavan): In fact, that was the understanding.
That was the misunderstanding.
(Cavan): Perhaps it was wrongly understood but I thought the provision for full compensation on ten years service was to be of general application. General application would include the three
General application would include everybody.
(Cavan): But in fact there would be only three affected, I think.
I have been taken a little unawares by mention of these other cases of which I have no knowledge. If the House will give me this Bill now, dealing with a particular misunderstanding, we can look into the other cases on their merits.
(Cavan): I would gladly agree to that, were it not for the fact that I think if that is done, the thing will be over and done with. I suggest that we have the Committee Stage of this Bill next week and in the meantime, the Minister could look into the matter in consultation with the Minister for Justice.
The Government are under an obligation in this case and we are anxious to discharge it as quickly as we can.
The Minister for Justice is fully aware of one of the cases and I think he is sympathetic towards them.
The Minister for Justice is the most sympathetic man in Ireland.
He has a sympathetic Minister for Finance.
The House wants to leave it over until next week?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 27th February, 1968.