I should like to associate myself with what has been said in support of the Bill. The Bill is a just Bill and it includes a principle which is being extended under our legislation. I think we were given the first indication of that when a similar Bill in relation to civil servants was brought in by the previous Government. I am not quite clear— and I am afraid I did not have time to make the comparison—whether this Bill contains some provisions that were not in the Bill relating to civil servants. I have the feeling that some provisions here are new. They are all provisions I welcome but I should like to feel that civil servants also might get the benefit of such provisions. I should like to hear what the Minister feels about that.
For instance, I notice that subsection (3) of Section 2 reads as follows:—
Upon the death, while holding office as a judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court, or the Circuit Court or as a justice after five years' service or upwards as a judge or justice, as the case may be, of any person to whom this section applies, there shall be granted to the legal personal representative of that person a gratuity of an amount equal to the yearly amount of his salary as a judge or justice, as the case may be, at the time of this death.
There is a similar provision which is covered in subsection (2) of Section 4. I do not remember any such concession being made to civil servants. As I remember it, the only matter dealt with in the Bill relating to civil servants is that they will be entitled to forego part of their pension in order that their widows may get that portion of it after their death. I do not remember any introduction of the right of an annuity upon death while in office. I wonder whether I am right in thinking that this is new and appears for the first time in this Bill. I may be wrong in that.
I should like to ask two more questions arising out of subsection (3) of Section 2 because the Minister, as I understood him in his opening remarks, said more or less that this Bill will not cost the State anything. I may have misunderstood him. I understood him to say it was based on actuarial calculations and that it really was a question of allowing these judges and court officers to reallocate their pension rights so that the cost to the State could be met because it is a self-supporting scheme.
Can that be true of this subsection where a gratuity of an amount equal to the yearly amount of his salary is to be given to the dependants of a judge who dies while holding office? Where does that money come from, if not from the Exchequer? I have the feeling that that subsection cannot be covered actuarially but must, in fact, put a fresh charge on the State. I think I could make that point clear by asking whether it would be in order in the Seanad to put down an amendment to change this from a yearly amount to an amount of his salary, say, for 15 months? I would suggest that to put down such an amendment would be out of order in the Seanad because it would place an additional charge on the Exchequer.
If it is on an actuarial basis within a scheme which is self-supporting, then such an amendment would be possible and would be in order in the Seanad. Either it is a self-supporting scheme, in which case no such amendment by the Seanad would put an additional charge on the Exchequer and consequently it would be in order or it would be out of order because it would put an additional charge on the Exchequer and consequently the basis for this is not quite entirely the actuarial basis.
I should like to turn to Section 6, subsection (2), paragraph (b) which reads:
a person shall not be entitled to adopt provisions of section 2 or 4, as the case may be, of this Act unless the Minister decides that he is of sound health.
Paragraph (c) says:
Where a person is required to undergo medical examination under the regulations he may be required to pay such fee as the Minister may determine in respect of the examination.
I should like to make two separate comments on the underlying principle there. One of them I made before in relation to the Civil Service for whom similar provision is made because we are saying: "We are granting you the right to sacrifice portion of your pension but we are only granting you that, if you are in sound health." I remember the previous Minister for Finance resisting very strongly any suggestion that that was an unjust provision. I should like to make again the point I made then. The very person who is most likely to be anxious to sacrifice some of his pension is the person not in sound health. I feel that the demand that the pensioner shall be in sound health before he is entitled to make this sacrifice cuts down very considerably the utility of this Bill. I would suggest that it cuts down also the probability of the Bill coming into effect because on a general actuarial basis, if there is a married couple and you insist that at the age of 60, 65 or 70, one of them shall be of sound health, on an average the chances are that in the majority of cases, the other one will be less likely to survive. A great deal of the value of the Bill is removed by this insistence that the person shall be of sound health. I think it is a bad thing. I think that actuarially it should be possible to make calculations upon an average state of health at the age of 65 or 70 without insisting that the person, before he makes this sacrifice, shall be of sound health.
The other point is a separate one. Paragraph (b) says that the Minister will decide that he is of sound health. I cannot imagine the Minister going round with a stethoscope. I can only assume that the only legitimate way in which the Minister can so decide is by means of a medical examination. I am bewildered then to find that paragraph (c) says:
where a person is required to undergo medical examination under the regulations he may be required to pay such fee as the Minister may determine in respect of the examination
as if there were some circumstances in which he would not be required to undergo a medical examination—as if it would be, in fact, the Minister who would decide without any medical examination. I find that a little puzzling. Are we granting the Minister the right to decide that a judge is not of sound health? We are not saying that all of them must undergo a medical examination but only those about whom there is some doubt. I find that puzzling. I do not think it is very sound. It is giving the Minister power which he might find embarrassing and which, in fact, he should not be given.
If there is a decision as to the soundness of the health of such a person, it should be solely upon medical considerations and not upon a ministerial decision. The ministerial decision should be based only on medical examination and not upon how the person looks. I suggest that, as at present framed, paragraph (c) implies that there would be some cases in which a medical examination would not be necessary and in which the Minister himself could decide that the candidate was not of sound health. That is not a very good principle.
I notice that in Section 7, subsection (2), the suggestion is that this is not the same principle as applies to civil servants and that the pensioner can at the time of retiring, if he retires for reasons other than reasons of ill health, surrender part of his pension "in return for the grant by the Minister under this Act of a pension to the wife or one dependant of the person specified by him". The question I want to ask is: is this not a new provision also? I do not remember that civil servants were entitled to nominate a dependant. My recollection may be faulty but I thought it was only for the benefit of the widow. I should like to put the question whether that is a new provision or not, or whether that is the general provision in relation to civil servants also.
The final point I want to make is in relation to Section 7, subsection (4), which has a number of paragraphs. Paragraphs (a) says:
A pension under this section granted to the wife of a person shall be payable either, as the person may elect when he makes the surrender under this section—
(i) during the period (if any) for which the wife survives the person, or
(ii) during both the period of the joint lives of the person and the wife subsequent to the retirement of the person and the period (if any) for which the wife survives the person.
Paragraph (ii) seems to be a new provision and a very good one. It is excellent that a person should have the right to decide that the pension shall be payable to the wife during the period of his life, as well as to the widow, if she survives him. It is an admirable provision and I should like to know if that also is a new provision, as I do not remember civil servants being granted that privilege. The reason I ask whether these are new provisions is simply to express the hope that where they are new, they will be extended perhaps in some future Bill to all servants of the State. This type of Bill is a good one. The concessions are good ones and I should like to be assured that they are widely applied, or are going to be widely applied, to all civil servants and not merely to the judiciary or officers of the courts.