Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 May 1961

Vol. 189 No. 8

Courts of Justice and Court Officers (Superannuation) Bill, 1961—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the superannuation provisions which apply to members of the judiciary and to certain court officers so that, in return for a reduction in the amount of pension, a death gratuity after five years' service or a lump sum on retirement will be payable. The new arrangements will apply to persons appointed after the enactment of this Bill, and persons at present serving will, subject to certain conditions have the option of accepting the new arrangements or retaining their present superannuation rights.

The Bill also contains a provision which will enable both serving officeholders and future appointees to surrender at the time of retirement subject to certain conditions, portion of the pension payable in order to secure a pension for a wife or for one nominated dependant.

The present proposals have been formulated in response to representations from the persons concerned that some financial provision should be made for the dependants of a person who dies in office and also for a dependant of a person who dies while on pension. In the formulation of the proposals an essential consideration, so far as the Government was concerned, was that they should not actuarially increase the burden on the Exchequer. The arrangements contained in the Bill fulfil that requirement and are the most favourable to the persons concerned which can be put forward on that basis. In brief, the Bill reduces maximum pension by one-fourth, that is, from two-thirds of salary to one-half of salary, and in return for that reduction provides for the payment of a death gratuity of one year's salary after five years' service or a lump sum on retirement equivalent to one and a half times the reduced annual pension.

The proposals in the Bill relating to the allocation of part of pension on retirement provide that the pension payable to a wife or a dependant will be the actuarial equivalent of the amount of his own pension which an office-holder surrenders. Accordingly this feature of the Bill does not involve any additional charge on the Exchequer.

What I have said is, I think, sufficient to explain the general principles of the Bill so far as the present Stage is concerned. Any further explanation that may be needed in relation to the contents of the various sections of the Bill can be left over for the Committee Stage.

In recent years the provision of financial assistance to cover cases of premature death has tended to become a feature of superannuation schemes, and it is a source of gratification to me to be in a position to propose the provision of these arrangements for members of the judiciary, the Master of the High Court, Taxing Masters and County Registrars, without increasing the burden which the provision of pensions and other superannuation benefits imposes on State funds.

I recommend the Bill for acceptance by this House, and would ask that the various Stages be taken as soon as convenient, so that the benefits contained in the measure may be made available at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Sweetman

This Bill is bringing the provisions for superannuation for the judiciary into line with the more modern provisions relative to the civil service and similar avocations. As the Minister has stated, the Bill does not increase in any way the actual amount that would be required from the taxpayers. It also, at the same time, recognises the sanctity of contracts that have already been made. Anyone who is already there under contract can hold on to his original contract if he prefers or, if he wishes to come in under the new scheme, he has the option of so doing. If he does, as I understand the provisions of the Bill, his actual pension which was payable under the 1924 Act will be reduced by one-fourth to enable him to get the additional benefits provided in the Bill.

The provision in relation to judges being able, if they so desire, to allocate half of their pensions to their wives— widows in the event of the wives surviving—is of course merely an extension to the judiciary of the provisions I was able to introduce in this House for civil servants as a whole. The principle was laid down there and it is right and proper that the Minister should extend it in this case.

I should like the Minister to answer one question. I do not know whether he would be able to answer it to-day but, if not, I shall be quite happy with an answer on the Committee Stage. The Bill provides that in the case of the death of a person who has held office the personal representative is paid a gratuity of an amount equal to the amount of yearly salary at the date of death. I should like some clarification as to whether that gratuity is, first of all, liable to rank as an asset for estate duty purposes and, secondly, if it is not, whether it is liable for income tax in the hands of the recipient in the year in which it is received. It has always been known as a gratuity but the fact that it is known by that name would not necessarily mean that it would be outside either estate duty or income tax law.

Having regard to the age provisions for retirement of the members of the judiciary and having regard to the fact that they are appointed so much later in life than the ordinary person going into the Civil Service or some analogous occuption, I wonder if the Minister has given any consideration to the necessity to provide some type of appeal from the opinion of the one doctor? There is here a rather different case from that of the ordinary civil servant who goes in at 19 or 20 or some such age. Here, older people are involved. As I understand the Bill, the Minister is the sole person to decide whether a person is of sound health in accordance with the regulations that are to be made. Because of the special age considerations in relation to the judiciary, I think perhaps there would be a case to provide here, as there might not be in other instances, that there would be some type of medical appeal.

The difficulty medically that would arise in these cases, having regard to age, is very real. The opinion, perhaps, of one doctor might be radically different from that of another. I think there might perhaps, in this case, be an argument to be adduced that there should be some type of appeal to a medical board as apart from the individual opinion of the Minister—an opinion, I presume, which will be given on the basis of one doctor alone. Whether it will be the doctor for the Civil Service, I do not know. However, I do think that, in view of the age position, there is a case to be considered in that respect.

So far as the Bill is concerned in general, we accept it on this side of the House as bringing the judiciary into line with the more modern provisions in relation to superannuation.

Mr. O'Donnell

I join with Deputy Sweetman in welcoming the Bill. I think it was in 1959 that a Bill was introduced in this House increasing the salaries of judges. If I recollect correctly, Deputy McGilligan, speaking on the Second Reading, advocated a scheme for our judges such as the present Bill introduces. It is a pity the Minister did not see fit at that time to include it in the Bill then before the House; it would have saved this additional legislation. As Deputy Sweetman has pointed out, we are merely bringing the judges into line with civil servants and the servants of local authorities in this matter.

I do not know if it comes within the ambit of the Bill but I want to speak on the retirement of district justices. Judges who are in good health continue to act until 70 years of age. After reaching 65 years of age, a district justice must produce to the Minister each year a medical certificate of what, for want of a better word, I shall describe as fitness. It is rather a humiliating position for a district justice that he must go to a medical practitioner in this connection. The only medical practitioner who will know of his condition is the man in the district in which he resides. The district justice must go to him and seek a certificate as to his fitness and he must continue to do that for a period of five years from the time he reaches 65. The Minister should now take steps either compulsorily to retire district justices at 65 or, alternatively, to give them the same terms of appointment as circuit court judges and high court judges and appoint them until 70 and do away with the humiliating position to which I have referred. Deputy Sweetman has raised a number of points with which no doubt the Minister will deal later.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We appreciate that the judiciary is a very important section of the community and that, in view of their position in life, they should be dealt with in a very liberal manner. I think everyone here will agree that the rates of remuneration and the conditions of employment of this section of the community are well up to standard so far as the general income of our people is concerned.

This Bill, according to the Minister, will not impose any additional burdens on the Exchequer. It seeks mainly to pass along portion of a pension that would be payable to a member of the judiciary to some dependants. We have a definition of "dependants." Subsection (1) (a) provides:

In this section—

"dependant" means, in relation to a person, a member of the family of such person, who, at the time when such person notifies the Minister of his wish to make a surrender under this section, is wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of such person;

"member of the family" means father, mother, step-father, stepmother, son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, step-son, step-daughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, son-in-law or daughter-in-law.

That is a very wide subsection.

If we wish to give the right to this section of the community to designate from that wide group which I have read out a person who is dependent on them for the purpose of passing along some bounty from the State, I think we are establishing a bad precedent. I doubt if we in this country are in a position to give to a judge the right of giving to his step-daughter, aunt, son-in-law or daughter-in-law a gratuity or pension until they attain a particular age. I doubt if that is a good precedent. If that section of the community is entitled under an Act of Parliament to do so it may be only natural for other sections to seek similar rights.

Side by side with the pensions and gratuities payable to this section of our community who, as I have said, are paid at a very high standard, we have other sections who cannot qualify for any pension and who are contributing as much in their own way to the welfare of this State as the section in question in this Bill. If you are a member of an influential group, as all these people are, and as are several more outside the particular body with which we are dealing now, and if you can exert pressure on the right people at the right time you will get away with anything. I know very well that all these measures are brought in as a result of pressure exerted on influential members of the Government and influential Party supporters. It is difficult for the main Opposition Party, Fine Gael, to oppose this measure.

It is all very well to be told that this Bill imposes no additional burden on the taxpayer. I am very doubtful about that statement. If we pass along the State's bounty to grand-daughters and grandsons I think it is a bad precedent.

Mr. McQuillan

They leave out mothers-in-law.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

So they do. The Minister must bear in mind that we have a big body of people in this State: self-employed persons, whether farmers, shopkeepers or any other section of self-employed people. These people have difficulty in getting a pension for themselves. There is no possibility of getting it for the grand-daughter-in-law or the grandson-in-law. They must conform to certain tests of a rigid nature. If such a person's income is deemed to be more than £2 Os. 6d. weekly, he will not qualify for any pension at all. Before we provide pension schemes which can be passed along to the grand-daughter-in-law or the grandson-in-law of judges, we should address ourselves to the position of the people I have mentioned, the people who have to work hard every day for small rates of pay in comparison with the section of the community with whom we are dealing now. If they have more than £2 a week, the State can provide nothing for them.

They are not as well organised as the section we are dealing with now. They are not able to bring pressure to bear on the Minister or other members of the Government to establish in this Parliament preferential treatment for them. I appreciate the high position judges hold. They are entitled to the respect of all but I think they are treated well enough at the present time. Passing to a wide variety of people portions of their pensions is not a good type of legislation to implement.

There is another matter which, I think, could be mentioned on this measure, having regard to the fact that it deals with judges and their conditions of employment. We have coming to the courts judges, officers attached to the court and counsels wearing wigs and gowns. I referred to this matter already.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this measure. The Deputy ranged very wide in his discussion, but I cannot permit him to widen it still further.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

They impose a charge on the Exchequer.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter may not relevantly be discussed on this measure.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I accept your ruling, Sir. Let me conclude by saying that the time has not yet come for the type of legislation which this Bill seeks to impose on the community. It would be a good idea for the Minister to refrain from putting forward this type of legislation and address himself to the many other sections of our community who are much more in need of help than the section with whom this Bill deals.

Mr. McQuillan

I should like to ask the Minister a question. May I take it that this Bill will not be retrospective in any shape or form and that the people mentioned in the sections who have retired for the past seven or eight years are excluded completely from the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Traynor

First of all, I should say to Deputy McQuillan that it is not retrospective. It is obvious that Deputy Murphy did not read the Bill.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

He read every word of it.

Mr. Traynor

If he read it, he did not understand it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

He understood it well.

Mr. Traynor

As far as the judge is concerned, his deciding the person to whom the Deputy referred as the person entitled to get the pension, is entirely his own right. This does not involve any expenditure for the State. All he is parting with is his own money and not money which belongs to the State. That is where the Deputy is making the serious——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Suppose he died after doing that, would the State be at a loss?

Mr. Traynor

If the Deputy looks over the Bill again, he will change his mind, I am pretty sure. He will find that his remarks do not apply to this Bill at all. What Deputy Sweetman said is true. This is merely bringing this Bill into line with that which provides the same rights for civil servants. They are paying for the principle which they brought about. It does not mean in any circumstances that anyone, other than the individuals involved themselves, will be at any loss in respect of expenses.

Mr. Sweetman

Let me put it another way. The State is doing exactly what an insurance company would do.

Mr. Traynor

Exactly: It is merely a question of insurance.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am sure the Minister will have full agreement from the Fine Gael Party. He need not expect any opposition from that side.

Mr. Traynor

In regard to the Revenue Commissioners, the position is that there will be some payments under Section 2, subsections (3) and (4) and Section 4, subsections (3) and (4) which will be regarded as assets of the deceased and will be chargeable with duty as such. When a pensioner surrenders a part of his pension to provide a pension in favour of his widow or dependant, the pension of the latter will be dutiable.

The medical examination will not be carried out by a Civil Service doctor. The doctor will be a doctor nominated by the Minister for Finance, who is the Minister mentioned in the Bill. In the event of a judge being found not to be up to the medical standard required, if, for instance, his health at the moment was bad, provision will be made for a re-examination so that if he were found at a particular precise moment not up to the standard the doctor looked for and the doctor is satisfied that it is a temporary illness, he will be entitled to defer a decision to a later date. In actual fact, there is a safeguard in that particular regard.

Mr. Sweetman

Will there be any choice of doctor?

Mr. Traynor

No. I would say that the Minister will appoint a doctor as in the Civil Service Bill. They are not initially Civil Service doctors. They will be general practitioners outside.

Deputy O'Donnell raised raised the question of retiring ages. That has nothing to do with this Bill at all—the matter does not arise. The Bill has been brought in at the request of the judiciary. They are satisfied that the scheme in this Bill, by which they will pay out of their own earnings, will meet their requirements. They are satisfied that in the circumstances it is the best the State can do at the moment.

I want to impress on Deputies that the judge has the right to opt. He does not have to accept this scheme at all. He is already entitled to a State pension. If he is satisfied he can provide out of that pension for his widow, he need not in any circumstances opt for this scheme. Deputy Murphy referred to the dependants the judge could name. The Deputy will have to realise that the judge can name only one of those persons. He can opt to put in his wife, his mother, his father, his sister, his brother or anyone else, but he can put in only one. Whichever person he puts in, that is the person who will be allotted the pension in the event of his death. It does not mean any more than that. What I want to impress on Deputy Murphy, and any other Deputy who may have been misled by what Deputy Murphy said, is that this is something for which the judges themselves are paying. If they wish to do so, they have a right to allot whatever portion of their pension they wish to any dependant they name. It does not mean any more than that.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Committee Stage?

Mr. Traynor

As I said, there is not very much in the Bill, unless some Deputies want a little time to consider it. It is a Bill to which you cannot produce any amendments——

Mr. Sweetman

I beg your pardon?

Mr. Traynor

——I was saying it is a Bill to which you cannot produce any amendments.

Mr. Sweetman

I have one here.

Mr. Traynor

It is a Bill which brings in finance. I do not know if it is possible——

Mr. Sweetman

All I want to provide is that the Minister for Finance, when he nominates a doctor, will nominate a panel of two, so that a person will have a right to choose. These are people who might very well have had reason to cross swords with a particular doctor in the course of a case. It would be highly undesirable that a person should have to submit himself to a particular doctor with whom there might be some personal difficulty.

Mr. Traynor

That does not involve expenditure for the State.

Mr. Sweetman

No. Under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of Section 6, the person submitting himself for examination has to pay the fee.

Mr. Traynor

What the Deputy is asking is the right of the person to opt for one or the other?

Mr. Sweetman

What I want is that the Minister for Finance, instead of naming one doctor to whom everybody must go, should name two, and that they should have to go to one or other of these doctors.

Mr. Traynor

I would have no objection, then, to this day week or Tuesday.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister consult with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, about it in the meantime?

Mr. Traynor

The Minister will be making regulations. I imagine it would be dealt with in the regulations.

Mr. Sweetman

The amendment I would submit would be that the Minister must provide that. I would willingly refrain from putting down any such amendment if the Minister indicated that his colleague will provide in the regulations that such would be the case.

Mr. Traynor

If the Deputy likes to put down an amendment, it might help.

Mr. Sweetman

I shall.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 6th June, 1961.