I move amendment No. 1:
Section 7, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be made from the salary of any person in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann—
(a) who was appointed with a special agreement as to the amount of his remuneration and who satisfies the Minister that, for the purpose of accepting such appointment, he gave up any profession or occupation from which he derived an income not less than the remuneration which he agreed to accept in respect of such appointment;
(b) who was appointed subsequent to the 6th December, 1922, with a special agreement as to his remuneration and who for the purpose of accepting such appointment gave up an appointment in the service of any other country.
I dealt with this amendment at some length on the Committee Stage and I do not think there is much to be gained by my repeating what I stated then, except to say very briefly—the principle is similar to that in other amendments which deal with slightly different matters, in the names of other Senators—that I am endeavouring to establish that where there has been a bona fide contract, whether strictly in writing or verbally, that contract shall be kept. I feel very strongly that the State should not, by legislation, place itself in a position in regard to its employees in which an ordinary employer could not, or would not, place himself in the ordinary course of business. If an employer has a written contract with an employee he could not, without special legislation, break that contract. If he has only a verbal agreement he could quite probably break that contract, but that is not in keeping with the standard that most of us try to observe. It is generally recognised that such agreements, if admitted, would not be broken. I believe there are only seven or eight people affected by this amendment. The object of my amendment is to place the State in the position in which, if the Minister is satisfied there has been a contract, it will not be broken. I can understand that the Minister is in a certain amount of difficulty with regard to some of the amendments. He indicated very clearly on the Committee Stage that he had a considerable amount of sympathy with this amendment, but that he felt some difficulty in dealing with it himself. I am suggesting to the House that the Second Chamber would not be worth its salt if it did not send down an amendment of this kind to the other House and give the other House an opportunity of righting a matter of this kind. We are not asking the Minister to do anything more than he did on the Committee Stage when he admitted that he had a certain amount of sympathy with the amendments and that there was a problem to be solved. If the matter were considered by the other House, I have great confidence that they would agree with this amendment. I do not know the names of all those affected. I am merely interested in the principle which, I think, is exceedingly important.