What is the reason for the introduction of this section?
Committee on Finance. - Court Officers Bill, 1945—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I dealt with that on the Second Stage. It was considered that experienced civil servants were better qualified to take control of staff in the courts. A man has to be a lawyer to be Master. He may be one of the best lawyers you could get, and still not be suitable as an administrative officer. Consequently, it was thought better to have the central office, that is the administrative part of the work, under a Registrar and not under the Master.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 1:—
Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—
8.—(1) The officers for the time being nominated under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Principal Act to be registrars of the High Court shall be principal officers within the meaning of Part I of the Principal Act.
(2) Registrars of the High Court shall notwithstanding sub-section (1) of this section, continue to be nominated under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Principal Act.
This is an amendment to provide that the registrars of the High Court will rank as principal officers. That is really all that is in that.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 8 put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
On this section I should like to direct the Minister's attention to the case of Circuit Court officers who have been in the service of the Department of Justice for as long a period as 50 years. I can instance the case of three officials of the Circuit Court who have 45, 46 and 48 years' service, and those people are still regarded as temporary although they have given a lifetime to the service of the State. They are also non-pensionable. I understand that in 1942 the Minister took steps to inform those officials that they were still temporary, and asked them to sign conditions of service to the effect that, as their employment was temporary and non-pensionable, it would be terminable at a week's notice on either side. I raise the point for the purpose of directing the Minister's attention to those particular men who have given a lifetime to the service of the State. Those officials will be in a state of dire distress if something is not done for them at the end of their years of service. They have nothing to look forward to except the charity of their neighbours or of their families. In justice to those people, having regard to the great service they have rendered over a period of approximately 50 years, I think the Minister should take the opportunity under this Bill of making some provision for them. Surely, after 50 years' service, a man cannot be regarded as temporary. I am raising the point to give the Minister an opportunity, at a later stage perhaps, to consider the matter.
Before the Minister replies, I desire to support the suggestion put forward by Deputy Coogan, because I am aware, and he is also aware from representations made, that suggestions were put forward in the last couple of years in regard to persons who have occupied the positions to which Deputy Coogan referred, and who have been retired. As far as I know, two of them who were recently retired have been left without gratuity or pension. I think one of the cases concerned—I am not quite sure—was in Roscommon, the Minister's own constituency. I was wondering if he has given any serious or sympathetic consideration to the representations made to him in regard to a court officer recently retired in County Laoighis.
I understood from the Minister on the Second Stage that he proposed to review the position of the Circuit Court and District Court officials, and was, in fact, engaged upon such a review. Perhaps the Minister is in a position to say now whether that review has been completed, and what his general intentions are in regard to those unestablished officers, with whose case, as far as I know, he is just as sympathetic as any other Deputy in the House.
I should like to add my voice to Deputy Coogan's in support of the claim of these officials. They have spent a lifetime in a certain position and have acquired a good working knowledge of their jobs. That leaves them practically indispensable. Yet they are in the very peculiar position that they can be dispensed with at a week's notice. I, therefore, add my advice to the other Deputies who spoke on their behalf. I understand that the total number of such officials does not exceed 28 to 30. I know of the cases of a few men who have spent something over 40 years in this position, yet at the end of their days they are left without a pension or help of any kind. I know personally that they have not any other means of livelihood and their salary is not a very big one. At the very least, they ought to be put on the same basis as other officials and established in their position. I do not think it would overtax the Minister for Finance if some suitable pension was granted to them as their number is so small.
I should like to direct the Minister's attention to sub-section (1) of this section. What is the purpose of asking for this power to transfer county registrars to anywhere the Minister desires? Would it not be better, when a vacancy occurs, if a county registrar could apply for the vacancy in the other area? This would give power to the Minister to transfer a county registrar who has settled down with his family in a county and has made his home there. It could be exercised in a very arbitrary way to penalise some person. Could it not be left so that, when a vacancy occurs, if a county registrar wished he could apply for it and be transferred with the authority of the Minister? This would leave the power exclusively in the hands of the Minister.
Mr. Boland
I should like to make the position clear. The position at present is that the Government make the appointment of county registrar and the Minister for Justice assigns him to a particular area. What we are doing here is allowing the Government to do both things — to appoint the county registrar and to assign him to a particular area. It is not a question of removing or changing a county registrar but, instead of having two operations with the Government and the Minister for Justice coming into them, the Government will both make the appointment and do the assigning. That is all that is intended. Formerly, after the county registrar was appointed, the Minister for Justice had to assign him.
On the other point with regard to the officers all I can say is that I am doing all I can in the matter. It is not a matter primarily for the Minister for Justice. As Deputies know, the Minister for Finance has to deal with staff questions. Since the Second Stage, I took the matter up again with the Minister for Finance and he has promised to expedite the inquiry into the position of these officers. That is all I can do. I could not get the matter settled up in time for this Bill, which is rather urgent, because there is no power to appoint a sub-sheriff as the law stands at present. If a sub-sheriff dies or has reached his time for retirement, his duties devolve on the county registrar. There is no provision made for appointing a sub-sheriff under the existing law. Therefore we had to get this power. As to the other matter, I will do all I can to have it arranged as satisfactorily as possible. The Minister for Finance points out that it is not as simple as it looks. There are many other officials in other departments for many years in a temporary capacity and he would find a difficulty in dealing with one section if he did not deal with the others. At any rate, I am doing all I can in the matter.
You are not forgetting about the court clerks to whom I referred?
Mr. Boland
I am not. I am doing all I can to get the matter expedited.
Is it not true that this matter has been under consideration for a very long time? Is it not true in the case of Laoighis that the officer who had retired without any gratuity or pension had to be brought back on two occasions in order to see that the duties of his successor were satisfactorily carried out?
Mr. Boland
I could not deal with that particular case now I would have to look into it.
I should like to impress on the Minister that the cases I have in mind are those of men who not only rendered service over a period of approximately 50 years but, during the pre-Truce period, took risks to my own knowledge which would have rendered them liable to imprisonment or perhaps worse. I should like that that should be borne in mind and that the cases of these people should not be dealt with in the cold-blooded manner in which the Department of Finance people are apt to deal with these things. Many of these men took risks and many Deputies are aware of the facts. I can give the particulars, if necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (3), page 7, to delete paragraph (f) and substitute the following paragraphs:—
(f) where any power, duty, authority, right or obligation under any enactment of the county registrar or under-sheriff (as the case may be) is for the time being imposed by virtue of this section on the sheriff, every reference in that enactment to the county registrar or under-sheriff (as the case may be) shall be construed and have effect as a reference to the sheriff;
(g) where the duty of acting as returning officer for the county or county borough is for the time being imposed, by virtue of this section on the sheriff and a vacancy occurs in the office of sheriff or the sheriff is absent or incapacitated, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may, if he so thinks proper, appoint a person to perform the duties of returning officer for the county or county borough during such vacancy, absence or incapacity.
Section 11 of the Bill makes provision for the appointment of a sheriff, who will be entrusted with the whole or the greater part of the powers and duties of the under-sheriff, in any case in which it is considered that those powers and duties are or would be too onerous for the county registrar. The duties of under-sheriff include the duty of acting as returning officer and, in case this duty should be imposed on the sheriff, paragraph (f) of sub-section (3) provided for the necessary adaptation of the references to the county registrar in the Electoral Act of 1935.
On further consideration, it has been thought better to express this adaptation provision in more general terms so as to cover references to the county registrar or under-sheriff (as the case may be) in any enactment conferring any power, duty, etc., on either of those officers which may be imposed on or vested in the new officer—the sheriff. The amendment does this.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3 in the names of Deputy Costello and myself:—
In sub-section (6) (b), line 11, to delete the words "sixty-five" and substitute the word "seventy" and to delete all words after the word "years" in the same line to the end of the paragraph.
The object of the amendment is to provide that a sheriff shall be allowed to remain in office until he reaches the age of 70 years. It is submitted that this is only fair and reasonable having regard to the fact that the office of sheriff is non-pensionable. If a sheriff is able to continue carrying out his duties, he should not be forced to retire at the age of 65 or be put in the position of having to ask for an extension each year.
I should like to support this amendment. I know of the case of a sheriff some years ago who was bound to retire at the age of 65 and the Minister gave him a year's extension. That man was left in a very unenviable position. When he retired at 66 or 67 his source of income was completely cut off as the position was a non-pensionable one. Very often men at that age are well able to carry out their duties. As the Minister is aware, the efficient working of the administration of justice in a county very often depends on the sheriff. In a case such as I have mentioned, the man is left in a very poor financial position merely because he has reached the age limit of 65. Officials of that age in other capacities would get a pension. I think the Minister should favourably consider this amendment and extend the age to 70 years.
Mr. Boland
I think, in practice, it really amounts to that. Under Section 11, the Minister has power to extend the age to 70. I think that, in practice, he will probably do that. There is very little between us and therefore I will accept the amendment. I do not think it will make any difference.
It is a red-letter day when the Government accepts an amendment.
Mr. Boland
That is hardly correct.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to Section 12, what does Section 45 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act relate to?
Mr. Boland
That requires the sheriff to appoint a deputy with an office within a mile from the Four Courts in Dublin. We are dispensing with that requirement.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 13 and the Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
Mr. Boland
If there is no objection, I should like to take the remaining stages now.
Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.