In all major branches of the public service, there is a compulsory retiring age. Power was given to Ministers by Section 23 of the Local Government Act, 1941, in respect of offices for which each such Minister is the appropriate Minister, to declare an age limit for all or any of the various categories of posts in the local government service. The section contemplated that this might be done in a piecemeal way because of the wide variety of jobs and the differing conditions surrounding them.
As regards offices for which I am responsible as Minister for Local Government, Orders were made in 1942, 1943, 1946, 1951 and 1957, fixing 65 as the retiring age for holders of local offices who would be entitled to a pension when they retired. The 1957 Order is the "age limit Order" referred to in the Bill. It is a consolidating Order and completes the process of fixing an age limit for all local offices for which the Minister for Local Government is the appropriate Minister. Only a small number of offices remained to be dealt with: the others have been covered by previous Orders which the comprehensive 1957 Order superseded and revoked.
The Act of 1941, and the subsequent amending Acts, are intended to be a complete code of law governing the appointment and tenure of officers of local authorities. Accordingly, they apply not only to officers appointed after 1941 but to all serving officers, whenever appointed. A major feature of the Act of 1941 was the age limit section; and age limits, as I have explained, were progressively applied to all existing officers of local authorities. The issue of whether it was correct to alter the tenure of existing officers in this way and to require them to retire when they had reached the age limit was decided in 1941. Since then, many hundreds of local officers then in office have been retired under age limit. Special superannuation arrangements exist to compensate those who retire with less than full service.
Virtually all local officers had, before the Act of 1941, a legal tenure that they hold office "until they die, resign or are removed from office". This tenure was granted under statutory regulation. In a few cases the equivalent tenure was granted under statute. An Order under Section 23 of the Act of 1941 could override a tenure itself granted by statutory regulation, but some doubts arose in cases in which the tenure was granted by statute. Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1955, and the Second Schedule of the Act, which amend Section 23 of the Act of 1941, were enacted to remove those doubts. By these provisions, a declaration fixing an age limit in respect of an office or offices was to relate to them
"... notwithstanding any other provision made by or under statute in relation to holding such 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."
This was specifically addressed to existing holders of these offices.
The purpose of the special legislation in the Act of 1955 was that all the local officers concerned should be treated alike. A development such as an age limit introduced during one's service is naturally unpopular with the officers affected by it. It is fair only where it applies equally to all officers, and this element of fairness takes on a special point where the senior officers are concerned. That is the position it was sought to secure under the Act of 1955 and the Order of 1957.
As can be seen from the definition of "relevant offices" in the Bill and from the repeals in Section 3, the offices with this special statutory tenure are those of county manager and city manager. No doubt arises about county managers: the 1955 Act effectively equated their tenures with other local officers and they are mentioned in this Bill simply because to leave them out might lead to doubts at a subsequent date as to why they were not dealt with now. But some doubt remains in relation to the four offices of city manager, because of the fact that each of them gets its tenure from a specific provision of a specific Act. One of these offices has been vacant for some time and of the other three only one—the city managership of Cork—has been held by the present holder since before the passing of the Act of 1941.
To the layman, and indeed to a number of lawyers, the intention and the effect of the Act of 1955 are clear enough; but it appears that the intention and the effect have not been put beyond all doubt. For that reason the Government decided that the issue should be finally resolved by legislation.
As can be seen, therefore, the Bill raises no new issue of principle: it merely clarifies something that it was definitely intended to provide for in the Act of 1955.