There is just one comment I should like to make. It was pointed out by several Deputies during the Committee Stage that under this Bill it would be compulsory for certain city managers to retire at the age of 65, with particular reference to the City Manager of Waterford. It was further asked, why should gentlemen like the Taoiseach and that other hardened old warrior, the Minister for Health, who have long since passed the age of 65, remain in active service. I think the Minister intervened to say that these gentlemen did not retire because they would not receive a pension such as a city manager would receive. All I suggest to the Minister is that if that is the only reason they are staying in office, I think the country would gladly give them a pension and let them go.
Local Government Bill, 1958—Report and Final Stages.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage to-day.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I do not expect that my few words will do any good now but I want to reiterate the protest I made on a previous occasion that this is a piece of retrospective legislation to worsen the terms under which certain public officials are employed. I think it is a bad piece of legislation. I appreciate that the Minister, according to what he himself said, is merely tying up some loose ends left by his predecessor. Whether they are loose ends or not I think it is a bad piece of legislation. If this House cannot give a binding contract to a man in an important public position, it is a bad state of affairs.
Does the Deputy agree to leaving him there until he is 90?
I would, if he had been appointed on such terms.
Question put and agreed to.