I think these three amendments might be taken together.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - COURT OFFICERS BILL, 1926—REPORT STAGE.
Government Amendment 1:—
In Section 3, sub-section (2), to delete line 4, and after line 7 to insert a new line as follows:—"An examiner."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendments 2, 3 and 7:—
2. Section 11. To delete in line 18, and also in lines 21-22, the words "immediately before the passing of this Act were" and to substitute therefor in each case the words "were formerly."
3. Section 12. To delete in lines 31-32, and also in lines 35-36, the words "immediately before the passing of this Act were" and to substitute therefor in each case the words "were formerly."
7. Section 20. To delete in lines 9-10 the words "immediately before the passing of this Act" and to substitute therefor the word "formerly."
Amendments 2, 3 and 7 agreed to.
Government Amendment 4:—
In Section 14 to delete in lines 59-60 the words "and by the registrar to the land judge of the said Chancery Division."
The explanation of the amendment is simply that the work of this registrar to the land judge, so far as it exists at all, will be done by one of the registrars appointed in pursuance of Section 4, sub-section (2). It would be contrary to the general scheme of the Bill that the registrar's work, that is, attendance in court and the drafting of orders, should be done in the examiner's office, which is intended to be a place merely for the taking of accounts, the making of inquiries, and so on.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 5:—
In Section 15 to add at the end of the section the words "and in relation to the Lord Chancellor for Ireland."
That is a suggestion from the Chief Justice. It is merely to ensure that we are effectually transferring to the new office all the work which the old office transacted.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 6:—
In Section 16 to add at the end of the section the words "and in relation to the Lord Chancellor for Ireland."
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 8:—
Section 21. To delete all after line 17 and to substitute therefor the following:
"either
(a) a barrister of not less than ten years standing who is then actually practising, or
(b) a barrister who has practised for not less than ten years and is at the passing of this Act an officer attached to the Supreme Court, the High Court, or the Chief Justice."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 9:—
New section. Before Section 23 to insert a new section as follows:—
"23.—No person shall be appointed under this Act to be a probate officer unless either—
(a) he is at the time of his appointment employed in an office established under this Part of this Act and has during the whole of the twelve years next preceding been employed in an office or offices established under this Part of this Act or attached to the former Supreme Court of Judicature or a Judge thereof or the Lord Chancellor for Ireland or the Chief Justice of Ireland, or
(b) he was immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act a probate registrar or assistant probate registrar attached to the High Court."
In connection with this amendment it is necessary to make a slight correction in it by inserting the word "Lord" before the words. "Chief Justice" in the second last line of paragraph (a). You will then have what I think is the correct legal title, "Lord Chief Justice."
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 10:—
New section. After the foregoing section to insert a new section as follows:—
"24.—No person shall be appointed under this Act to be an examiner unless either
(a) he is at the time of his appointment employed in an office established under this Part of this Act and has during the whole of the twelve years next preceding been employed in an office or offices established under this Part of this Act or attached to the former Supreme Court of Judicature or a judge thereof or the Lord Chancellor for Ireland or the Chief Justice of Ireland, or
(b) he was immediately before the commencement of Part I. of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924) a chief clerk or assistant chief clerk in the Chambers of a Judge of the Chancery Division of the then existing High Court of Justice."
It will be necessary to make the same correction in this as in the last amendment, namely, to insert the word "Lord" before the words "Chief Justice" in the second last line of paragraph (a).
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 11:—
In Section 27, sub-section (1) to delete in line 53 the words "High Court of Justice of" and to substitute therefor the words "Courts of Justice in."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 12:—
Section 27, sub-section (3). Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) All chattels and all documents which immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act are deposited for safe custody or otherwise with the Accountant-General of the High Court of Justice in Saorstát Eireann shall upon the commencement of this Part of this Act and without any further order be transferred to the Accountant of the Courts of Justice and be held by him for the same purposes as such chattels and documents were respectively held by the said Accountant-General immediately before such commencement."
It is suggested that the text as it stands might not quite satisfactorily and clearly provide for the transfer of chattels and documents from the present accountant to the new accountant. It is merely a precautionary amendment suggested to us by the Chief Justice.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 13:—
Section 31. Before the word "nothing" in line 54 to insert the words "and section 60 (which relates to the grant of civil service certificates to certain officers)," and in line 56 after the word "Act" to insert in brackets the words "(except Section 60)."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move Amendment 14:—
Section 33, sub-section (3). Before the word "solicitor" in line 19 to insert the words "barrister or," and before the word "or" in line 31 to insert the words "as a barrister or solicitor."
The idea of the amendment is to permit a barrister being appointed to this position. As the section stands a barrister could not be appointed to it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
In connection with what office?
County Registrar.
I oppose the amendment on three grounds. The post is on the lines of the clerkship of the Crown and Peace, which has always been reserved for solicitors. The Judiciary Committee recommended that the post be reserved to solicitors. The post is, in fact, one for a man accustomed to doing office work and controlling an office staff. It involves a knowledge of the minutice and the practice which the solicitor rather than the barrister has.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If I may suggest to the Senator, I may say that in my long experience the work that this particular section refers to is eminently suitable for solicitors.
I will be quite frank about the matter and say that the amendment was put down to meet a particular case, that of a barrister who was previously a solicitor of 6 years' standing. As the Minister is not accepting the amendment, I do not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government Amendment 15:—
Section 42. Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) Whenever there is in the opinion of the county registrar reason to believe that any such summons-server has misconducted himself or displayed gross incapacity in the performance of his duties, the county registrar may suspend such summons-server from the performance of his duties for any period or periods not exceeding altogether one month pending the decision of the Minister on the matter."
CATHAOIRLEACH
This is an amendment to meet an undertaking that was given by the Minister on the Committee Stage.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 16:—
Section 43. To add at the end of the section the words:—
"save that every such official assignee and his staff (if any) shall henceforth be attached to the Circuit Court and that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 41 (which relate to the staff attached to the Circuit Court) of this Act shall apply to the post or situation of each such official assignee and of each member of his staff (if any) on and from the occurrence of the next vacancy in such post or situation."
This amendment is to bring the official assignee into a definite place in the scheme of the Bill and not leave him simply in mid-air or unattached.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 17:—
In Section 44, sub-section (4), immediately before the word "service" in line 23 to insert the word "pensionable."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 18:—
Section 45. To delete the section and to substitute therefor a new section, as follows:—
"45.—(1) The Minister shall divide every district prescribed by him under Section 68 of the Courts of Justice Act. 1924 (No. 10 of 1924) into such and so many convenient areas (in this Part of this Act referred to as district court areas) as he shall think proper and may divide any such district into different district court areas for the purpose of different classes of business transacted in the District Court.
(2) The Minister shall appoint one or more convenient places in every district court area or within one mile of the boundary of such area in which, and such and so many convenient days and hours at which, the District Court shall be held for the purpose of transacting for such district court area the business for the transaction of which such area was delimited.
(3) It shall be lawful for the Minister from time to time, as he shall consider expedient, to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) vary or abolish any district prescribed by him under the said Section 68 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924;
(b) create any new such district;
(c) vary or abolish any district court area;
(d) create any new district court area;
(e) vary the class or classes of business for which any district court area is delimited;
(f) alter the places or vary the days or hours appointed under this section for holding the District Court in or for any district court area.
(4) The district court areas created under this section shall for all purposes take the place of and be substituted for the court districts created under Section 3 of the District Justices (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 6 of 1923), and the sittings of the District Court for the transaction for any such district court area of the business for which such district court area is delimited shall be held in the places on the days, and at the hours appointed therefor under this section."
The section as it stood was deficient in two respects. It did not provide for the fixing of days and hours at which District Courts should be held, and consequently it did not provide for the fixing of different court areas for civil and summary cases. In fact it was our intention to have two kinds of court areas, a smaller area for criminal and summary cases and a larger area for civil work. We feel that it would be anomalous to exercise the full civil jurisdiction of the court in every little village in which the courts would be held. Solicitors, for instance, would not be able to attend without getting larger fees than their clients might care to pay. The rule-making committee are unanimous in recommending the principle underlying this amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 19:—
In Section 48, sub-section (4) after the word "appointed," in line 54, where it first occurs, to insert the words "on or."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment 20:—
Section 49, sub-section (1). To insert before the word "Save" in line 11 the words "Where any fines, amerciaments, penalties and forfeited recognisances have pursuant to an Act of Parliament, Ancient Charter or Patent been granted to, and for upwards of twenty years paid to the credit of any of the funds of any public body, corporation or council, they shall continue to be appropriated as heretofore; but."
I should like to read a letter which I sent to Senator Barrington on the 19th June and which is as follows:—
"With reference to the recent discussion in the Seanad on Section 49 of the Court Officers Bill (disposal of fines) and, in particular, to your suggestion that fines inflicted in the city of Limerick should continue to be paid to the local authority there, pursuant to the terms of certain Charters granted to that city, I write to say that I am now advised that the section, as it is at present worded, would not be held to nullify the terms of a Charter, and that, consequently, the city would continue, despite the passing of the Act, to be entitled to any fines to which it is at present entitled by reason of any Charter.
"It is proper to add, however, that I am further advised that very few fines—in all probability no fines— are at present paid to Limerick City by virtue of any Charter, the destination of all fines being settled by Acts of Parliament passed during the last century.
"The matter, therefore, stands as follows, viz.:
(1) I will oppose any alteration of the existing text of Section 49.
(2) If that text is enacted as it stands, it would appear that it will not have the effect of depriving Limerick City of any fines now claimable by that city under the Charter, but it may be taken that such fines are rare, if not unknown.
(3) If the city can show that any considerable proportion of the fines is recovered by reason of the exertion of the city's officials (rather than by the exertions of the Gárda Síochána) I will request the Minister for Finance to join with me in making a suitable order under sub-section (4) of the section in question."
Now what I mean by that last paragraph is this: In the year 1925 in Limerick the total sum of £96 3s. 9d. was recovered on foot of fines inflicted for drunkenness and breach of the licensing law, and a sum of £40 in respect of breaches of the betting Acts. Now the municipality had nothing whatever to do with the detection and punishment of these offences, and there is no particular reason why the municipality should profit from the frequency with which these offences are committed in Limerick, if I may put it in that way. The detections were made by State-paid police; the cases were tried before State-paid Justices with the assistance of State-paid clerks, and there is no case for any apportionment of these fines going to the municipality itself. Take a somewhat different cases. In the same year the sum of £59 18s. was recovered in respect of breaches of the Public Health and Food and Drugs Acts, and it might well be argued that the city authorities were responsible, in whole or in part, for the prosecution of the offenders. If that is so, that is a case we will meet by making an order which we seek power to make under sub-section (4). I want to put it generally that the case should be made for the apportionment of fines, and where no case can be made for any such apportionment, then there is no hardship in the abolition of such apportionment, which is what the Bill does.
Simply to say that a thing shall be so, because it was so two hundred years ago, is scarcely a sound attitude in legislation. I am not prepared to accept these old statutes, passed in an entirely different set of circumstances, circumstances which then possibly justified the apportionment of fines in this matter as between the local body and the central Government, and to take it that these statutes should stand immutable now that circumstances have entirely altered. As to the Charter about which the Senator and Senator Gogarty enthused on the last day, we discussed that matter. In so far as there are any fines derived from the Charter of the municipality in Limerick, the Bill does not touch them. My own view is that there are no such fines, but if the Senator thinks there are and bases a poetic and sentimental case on and around his Charter, it is not touched by the Bill. The Bill simply alters statutes and does not purport to alter anything more. On the general proposition, where a case can be shown for apportionment, it will be made by order, but where no case can be shown, no apportionment will be made. I tried to give the Senator a picture when I distinguished between drunkenness and betting fines and Food and Drugs Act fines.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I cannot find any exceptions in favour of fines distributed by Charter.
No. "Save as is otherwise provided under this section. all fines ... imposed and levied by any court after the appointed day shall be paid into or disposed for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct, and notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, no part of any such fine, amerciament, penalty or recognisance shall be paid or allowed to any prosecutor, informer or other person or paid into any fund.""Any enactment to the contrary" would not cover Charters.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Probably not. But does it preserve them? It is really not worth talking about, as there are none.
I think that the Minister, in making that statement, is entirely overlooking one clause of the Charter in question. It says: "All fines, forfeitures, perquisites, and profits, whateosver, happening, assessed, imposed or taxed, or to be so" are granted to the citizens for "their own proper use and to the better support of the city," so that any fines, etc., that in future arise are still included in the Charter of the City of Limerick.
The Senator can argue that in the proper place.
It is a legal point, I admit. The Minister has read his letter to me, but he has not read my reply to him. I stated in reply:
"If you will be good enough to refer to the amendment moved by me to Section 49 of the Court Officers Bill you will notice that it referred not only to the fines granted to the city by the Charter but also covered those arising under any Act of Parliament. I have since had an opportunity of discussing the whole question with the Limerick people, who feel very strongly on the matter, and who have requested me to continue pressing their case, as they regard the proposals in Section 49 as unduly unfair to the city. However, as I read your letter, no financial questions are now at issue, as you are advised the section would not be held to nullify the terms of a Charter and that consequently the city would continue to be entitled to any fines by reason of any Charter."
A Bill was passed a short time ago called the Adaptation of Charters Bill. I am not at all sure, if the Minister found that under Section 1 the Charters carried fines inflicted under subsequent Acts of Parliament, he could adapt the Charters and deprive us of the fines.
"As regards fines arising under Act of Parliament you go on to say in head 3 that subject to certain conditions—which I understand the city can easily establish—‘I will request the Minister for Finance to join with me in making a suitable order under sub-sec. (4) of the section in question.'
"It therefore follows that if the municipality approach you and substantiate their case they will receive the fines arising under Act of Parliament.
"The above two paragraphs in your letter concede practically all the financial considerations involved, and all that remains is a question of ‘amour-propre' about which communities are apt to feel strongly, and having regard to the historical record of Limerick and the part the city has played time after time for the benefit of the whole of Ireland, we in Limerick feel and feel strongly that it would be only a slight recognition of the sacrifices the citizens have frequently made for the common good of the country if exceptional treatment was granted to their city by name.
"Limerick occupies a strategic position, and its inhabitants frequently, even within the last few years, have ‘sustained intolerable wasting and spoiling of their goods, and, what is worse, the cruel shedding of their blood,‘ as King James (the man ‘who never said a foolish thing') puts it into his Charter.
"The proposal as it now stands in the light of your letter seems to resolve itself into a question as to whether Limerick is to continue to enjoy the privileges which have been its own from time immemorial, free and unfettered, or whether, in order to obtain what has hitherto been its own by right, the municipality must in future annually come before whoever may be the Minister for Justice and make a case for the retention of its ancient privileges."
In other words, it will be put in the position of the person who was
"Compelled, a needy suppliant, to wait
While ladies intercede and slaves debate."
"I have, therefore, been urged to press for an amendment exempting Limerick from the provisions of Section 49, which, having regard to the city's special services and sacrifices in the past, would seem to be simply a gracious gesture of recognition on the part of the Government no greater than the city has already frequently obtained from Kings of England.
"I shall be very glad to hear that you can see your way to make this small concession which I feel sure will have a most desirable effect."
In all that has been said on this question the Minister has completely overlooked and never replied to the question I raised the last day. I assume the reason he said nothing in reply is because nothing can be said in reply. Taxation, to be fair and just, should be equally applied. If those fines are taken from Limerick it will mean that the people there will have to strike a rate of a penny in the £. I regard that as unfair unless the rest of the country contribute a penny in the £ also. The Minister has overlooked that, and the only conclusion I can come to is that there is nothing to be said in favour of it. On the last day this was up the Minister made use of what I regard as a somewhat unfortunate remark. He said the claim of Limerick was a compound of greed and romance. I deny that it is greed on the part of any community to defend what they have enjoyed as their own for a thousand years. I think the word "greed" might be more properly applied to the people who tried to take it from them. Whether the amount is large or small does not enter into the question. We are asked to contribute what, in our case, amounts to a penny in the £, and I do not see why our demand should be described as "greed" because we are trying to retain what we have had from time immemorial. He says if we come before him, ask for a remission of these fines under sub-section 4, and prove our case, he will concede it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Minister also said he is advised that your charter is not affected. Is not that a concession for you?
I should like to point out to the Seanad that if we are not able to convince the Minister here that our case is a good one, what chance will we have later?
CATHAOIRLEACH
That question does not arise.
I am not sure. Frequently judges differ with regard to the interpretation of legal matters. We should like to have Limerick excluded to make it perfectly clear that what we have had for over a thousand years is to be maintained in the future. If that is not done it will be a distinct injustice. We will be taxed to the extent of a penny in the £ where other people are not.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I was suggesting to the Minister that he might put in "nothing in this clause shall affect the rights of the City of Limerick under this charter."
There is one other point. The Minister has explained to us a bogey. That is, apparently, his excuse for depriving Limerick of its privileges, and that is the cost of apportioning those fines. Our case is there is no reason for apportioning those fines. He has no right to get those fines unless the Seanad gives him the right.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is there not sufficient fight in Limerick to see this question out?
I wish to support the amendment of Senator Barrington. I know Limerick feels strongly in the matter and the people there are convinced that certain rights which they have had for years and years are being filched from them. I think that that ought not be allowed in the Bill without very serious consideration. The Minister has assured us that the words "notwithstanding any enactments to the contrary" make the thing secure. To me they make it absolutely insecure to Limerick as regards its charter. Even though they may have a charter still, the enjoyment under that charter may be taken away. At any rate the fact remains that the people of Limerick believe implicitly that they have a right to collect the fines. There is no reason that legislation should take from them this small concession which they have for such a long time. Romance is there, sentiment is there, and the present need of the City of Limerick is there.
There are plenty of other places with charters, and, indeed, the fines remain, but they yield very little. I understand that Senator Barrington seeks to retain the fines under enactment, and I press very strongly that it should be done for other cities.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is by virtue of the terms of its charter. If Waterford has a similar charter it will apply, too.
That should apply to all cities.
We had better be clear about the Senator's amendment. There is no mention of Limerick in it. The exact wording of it is worthy of notice:—
"Where any fines, amerciaments, penalties and forfeited recognisances have pursuant to an Act of Parliament, Ancient Charter or Patent been granted to, and for upwards of twenty years paid to the credit of any of the funds of any public body, corporation or council, they shall continue to be appropriated as heretofore."
That is the amendment, and the effect of it is this: that anything that is twenty years old is sacrosanct and stands immutable. It is not a mere question of what James I. in his cups gave away. If a reverence of twenty years can be claimed for the particular apportionment of a particular fine, it has to stand although no modern cause can be pleaded for it. That is absurd. You might as well plead for the sanitary arrangements of the Firbolgs on the grounds of antiquity. There is no case for this peculiar tangle of fine apportionment that exists, and that I am quite determined to get clear from. Wherever a case can be shown we have power to meet it, and have every intention of meeting it.
As I suggested, it might be shown in connection with fines under the Foods and Drugs Act where there is any energy or any activity on the part of the municipality or any officer of the municipality, and then we can meet that. Where there is none what is the case? The Senator talks about justice and fair play. They are the two most abused words in the vocabulary except I might add the word "filched," which Senator Bennett used. Justice and fair play and the rights of the city! What are the rights? We are told we are imposing a tax of a penny in the £. Would it ever occur to the Senator to look at it in this way, that ever since a good sound case for the apportionment ceased to exist, he owes us all the pennies in the £ that he had by way of a windfall from that day on. This Charter of 1600 is not affected by the Bill. I myself do not believe that any apportionments derive at present from the charter. I think every single apportionment of fines derives to-day from some statute, but it is open to the municipality of Limerick to argue their charter before any court. I am not going further. I am not going to say that fines derived from statutes whether in Limerick or any place else are to stand, nor am I going to write any express exception in this Bill in favour of Limerick and bring the other municipalities in the country about my ears.
Really the choice is to let this absurd entanglement of fines stand with all the question of costs which it entails, and with all the insoluble doubts that now hang around it or to do the thing which we are now doing in the Bill. You can bring this charter into court and argue whether you are entitled to something under this apportionment of fines arising out of it, and if the court says you are you will get that, but the statutes are different things. The statutes have a general application as distinct from the local application of this charter for what it is worth, and I think it is worth precious little. I am not going to take the view that where there is a statute twenty years old, even if there is a case for it, it cannot be amended by the Dáil and the Seanad. Drogheda, Galway and the not inconsiderable and not unhistoric city of Dublin would have the right to resent an express exception in favour of Senator Barrington's constituency and birthplace, presumably.
We thought we had done a great service in Limerick when we got rid of the Danes long ago and the Danes' impositions. The Danes were the greatest masters of exaction. I am sorry to say that there are some Danes left in the country or people who are prepared to put the principles of the Danes into operation.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 14.
Tá.
- Thomas Westropp Bennett.
- William Barrington.
- James Dillon.
- Sir Nugent Everard.
- Henry Seymour Guinness.
- Earl of Kerry.
- Thomas Linehan.
- James MacKean.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- Michael F. O'Hanlon.
- Stephen O'Mara.
- William O'Sullivan.
- Thomas Toal.
Níl.
- Samuel L. Brown.
- Mrs. Eileen Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- Countess Desart.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Thomas Farren.
- Arthur Jackson.
- Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- Francis MacGuinness.
- John McLoughlin.
- James Moran.
- John T. O'Farrell.
Amendment declared lost.
Government Amendment 21:—
Section 53, sub-section (3). To delete the word "estate" in line 25 and to substitute therefor the word "estates."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government Amendment 22:—
Section 61, sub-section (4). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act prescribing qualifications for particular officers, every existing officer or servant who is not a temporary officer or servant shall (subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned) be offered employment in a situation under this Act carrying not less salary than the situation held by him as such existing officer or servant at the passing of this Act, except that this sub-section shall not apply to any existing officer or servant who is at the passing of this Act over the age of sixtyfive years, or has then served for more than forty years in court offices or in posts or situations attached to a court or a judge, or is in the opinion of the Minister physically unfit for employment in a situation under this Act, and that the provision of this sub-section as to salary shall not apply in the case of a clerk of the crown and peace who is offered employment as a county registrar."
CATHAOIRLEACH
I should mention in connection with this amendment, that I have received from the Minister three other amendments of a similar nature which come in immediately after this amendment. These amendments are amendments that he is inserting at the request of and for the protection of the official staff upon representation made to him and to which he has acceded. I may say for myself that the amendments are not only exceedingly fair but very generous. I do not know whether the Senators have them, but they were only handed in this afternoon. That was not through any fault on the part of the Minister, but they were handed in after the interview with the staff. They could not be handed in sooner. This amendment to delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section (6) is in conformity with the promise the Minister gave on the Committee Stage.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment:—
Section 61, sub-section (5), paragraph (c). After the figures "1923" in line 60 to insert the words "or other Acts authorising the grant to him of a pension or other allowance."
Amendment put and agreed to.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The next amendment is 23a, and it reads:—
Section 61, sub-section (5), paragraph (d). To delete lines 66 to 69 and to substitute therefor the following:—
"office, but every such waiver shall be subject to the condition that in the event of his subsequently retiring from such employment because of his having reached an age limit or being discharged from such employment for any reason other than misconduct, incapacity or ill health, his allowance or other compensation under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1923, or other Acts authorising the grant to him of a pension or other allowance as modified for and applied to him by this sub-section shall not be less than the compensation he would have been entitled to under the said Article 10."
That was the section agreed to by the Minister in fulfilment of an undertaking he gave to Senator Brown.
Amendment put and agreed to.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The last one of the three is 24a. Is Senator Brown moving his amendments, 23 and 24?
No, because of the amendment the Minister has handed in, which completely meets me.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Now, this amendment 24a is the last of the three agreed to by the Minister in conference with the staff. It reads:—
Section 61. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section, as follows:—
"(6) An existing officer who is offered employment in a situation under this Act may, with the consent of the Minister, accept such employment provisionally and postpone his final acceptance or rejection of such employment for any period not extending beyond eighteen months from the commencement of the Part of this Act relating to such situation, and if in any such case he finally accepts such employment within such period such acceptance shall relate back to and take effect as from the date of the provisional acceptance."
Amendment put and agreed to.