Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

My understanding of the amendment is that its desired effect is to standardise the retirement age of District Court judges with all other judges to a fixed retirement age of 70. I have been informed the Minister has been in consultation with the Judiciary on this matter and agrees the retirement age of District Court judges should be raised to 70, but I do not believe the amendment would achieve this or that any such amendment should be inserted in the Courts Bill 2015.

The position at present is that District Court judges are required to retire at 65 years of age and may, subject to annual review, be permitted to serve until age 70. Supreme Court judges, Court of Appeal judges, High Court judges and Circuit Court judges retire at the age of 70 with some exceptions. These exceptions relate only to those serving judges who were judges before the reduction of the age of retirement from 72 to 70 under the Court and Court Officers Act 1995. The relevant provisions include section 30 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, which provides that the age of retirement of a District Court judge shall be 65 years. Section 2 of the Courts of Justice (District Court) Act 1949 provides that a warrant may be made by a committee comprising the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the Attorney General to allow a judge to continue in office for an additional year if the judge is not suffering from any disability which would render him or her unfit to continue to discharge efficiently the duties of the office. Subsequent warrants may be made to allow the judge to remain in office until he or she attains the age of 70.

The Minister is inclined to agree that an annual review system for District Court judges between the ages of 65 and 70 years is, when compared to other judges, anomalous and unsatisfactory. There are no grounds for believing that all judges should not be subject to the same retirement regime. To this end, I have been informed that the Minister has instructed the Department to review the relevant statutory provisions and bring forward a comprehensive amendment at the earliest possible opportunity. I anticipate such provision can be brought forward early in 2016. Changing the retirement age to 70 years would require amending the sections I have mentioned. Amendment of other provisions may also be required, for example, to section 1 of the Courts (No. 2) Act 1988. This section makes provision for warrants to be made retrospectively. Additional provisions also require consideration.

There would be implications for the pension arrangements of judges arising from a change in the retirement age, which would need to be carefully considered, and the relevant scheme and pensions legislation are being considered. In this connection, I would be most reluctant to bring forward or accept any amendments in this area until all of the implications are fully assessed. As I have indicated, I anticipate this work, which is at an advanced stage, will be concluded in the near future. Section 72 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 was repealed by the provisions of the Court of Justice (District Court) Act 1946 which was, in turn, repealed and replaced by the provisions to which I have referred in the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961.

Apart from the technical difficulties to which the amendment gives rise, and the fact the subject matter of the amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, the overriding position is that the substantive issue which the amendment seeks to address is the subject of review by the Department, and relevant comprehensive measures are being prepared, while the administrative implications, for example, on pension matters are also being examined. I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment on the basis its intention can be fully reflected in a comprehensive fully analysed set of provisions which, as I indicated, are in preparation.