Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 6 Mar 1925

Vol. 10 No. 9

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 28—COUNTY COURT OFFICERS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar Suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar Deich bPúint chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1925, mar gheall ar Thuarastail, ar Liúntaisí agus ar Chostaisí roinnt Oifigeacha Cúirte Contae agus Oifigeacha Cuarda, ar Bhónus do Chathaoirligh Ceathrú Shíosóin agus do Breachthóirí agus do Chléirigh Coróinneach agus Síochána agus Chostaisí Athscrúdúcháin.

That a Supplementary Sum not ex ceeding Ten Pounds be granted to de fray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1925, for Salaries, Allowances and Expenses of various County Court and Circuit Officers, Bonus to Chairmen of Quar ter Sessions and Recorders and to Clerks of the Crown and Peace and the Expenses of Revision.

Provision is made under heading AA. for, amongst other things, the extra statutory payment to a deputy for County Court Judge Hynes. When County Court Judges were unable to attend, through illness, they were obliged to pay the salaries of their deputies. County Court Judge Hynes was not ill; he was willing to go to a particular circuit; but on the occasion covered by this payment, as on all other previous occasions, the Department of Justice and the Executive Council felt that it would not be in the interest of the administration of justice and restoration of respect for the law that he should go to his district and act as county court judge. Accordingly he was prevented by the Government from going, and it was not possible to call upon him to pay the salary of his deputy in that case, and provision has to be made for the payment of the salary of that deputy. Of course, that deals with the matter of the past. As the circuit judges will sit about ten months in the year instead of four months which the county court judges sat, the Courts of Justice Act provides that deputies appointed to act for circuit judges during their illness shall be paid by the State, and provision is made in this estimate for the remuneration of deputies of circuit court judges who have been unable to attend their duties through illness. The sum set down is £500.

The big item at the foot is for the remuneration of stenographers. These are required in the circuit courts under the Court of Justice Act passed since the original estimates were framed. The Courts of Justice Act provides that appeals must be grounded on the official reports of the court stenographers, so we are able to avoid the old system of appeal and the bringing up of witnesses to the court to which the appeal was carried and all the expenses that that involved. Temporary arrangements were made for those official stenographers. They are paid two guineas a day, plus a fee for transcription, and if the official stenographers have to travel a distance, not exceeding 30 miles from the town in which they ordinarily reside, there is an allowance of 10/6 a day to cover travelling and subsistence expenses. The matter has been arranged by the appointment in the various districts of a panel of stenographers, and men willing to act applied to be appointed on the panel. The judge calls upon the stenographer who lives in the town in which he is holding this court to attend. There is a large number of names upon these panels, and the question of a permanent arrangement in regard to court stenographers is still under consideration.

The saving shown on the Vote of £3,000 is due in part to the fact that a vacancy in the office of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace in the County Kerry has not been filled by a permanent appointment and that the bonus to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions ceases to be payable after the 6th of June, when the provisions of the Court of Justice Act came into effect.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I hope it will be in order on this Vote to mention that owing to the non-publication of the rules the business of the Circuit Courts is very largely held up. We were promised these rules when the House met at the beginning of the present Session, but we have not got them so far. The courts find it almost impossible to get on with the business without the rules. Business is in a congested state in many counties, I know, and in the county I represent myself, owing to the absence of these rules.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. HEWAT

I am sure this is a Vote on which a large number of Deputies who are not present would like to speak, and I suggested to the Minister a short time ago that owing to the smallness of the House this and other Votes might be held over.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think the Deputy should have spoken before I did. The sum involved is £10.

Mr. HEWAT

Of course the Minister will realise that in a Supplementary Vote it is not a question of the amount. It is the opportunity that it gives Deputies to review all matters that may come under the heading. Obviously, we need not spend much time on it if it was only a question of £10. The principle underlying it is bigger than the amount of the Vote.

Mr. WALL

Would the question I raised some time ago about the summoning of jurors come under this heading?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

No. Judges do not summon jurors. Deputy Hewat knows that the thing that comes under discussion in a Supplementary Estimate is the purpose for which the extra money is being used. The purpose is set out in this case under the sub-head III: salaries and travelling expenses of official stenographers.

Mr. BLYTHE

It might come under the Vote for Law Charges. There is a small payment for under-sheriffs there.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes. Under-Sheriffs summon the jurors, and under Law Charges, Vote 29, that will probably arise.

Mr. JOHNSON

On a point of order, when we are informed that there has been a saving under other sub-heads that results in the net total of £10 being asked, will not that allow us to question the administration of the service which has led to a saving upon other sub-heads and an increase on this one? Surely the Minister, having regard to the whole situation, when he asks us to pass this simply because it is a net amount of £10, knows that the amount we are asked to vote is not £10 but £3,700.

Mr. BLYTHE

I said that because Deputy Hewat allowed me to speak at some length before he objected.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I agree that the amount is £3,700 and that any of the items for which this money is to be used may be discussed. Deputy Johnson's point is that the anticipated saving set down brings up for discussion the whole Vote. That would make the discussion of a Supplementary Estimate a very serious matter indeed.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to have from the Minister some more information regarding the item of £2,364. There are two points to which I draw attention. One is as to how this estimate compares with the estimate that was given, I think, by the late Attorney-General as to the probable cost of official stenographers. I have not been able to refer to the figures, but I think they were given during the discussion on the Courts of Justice Bill. It would be interesting to have from the Minister information as to whether the sum now referred to as being required up to the end of March compares favourably or otherwise with the estimate made during the passing of the Bill. A point of similar importance, and one that occasioned a certain amount of interest in certain quarters—presumably not legal quarters—was whether the official report is available for solicitors or others in cases other than those in which there are appeals and at what cost. A further question arises as to whether in all cases transcription takes place immediately. These are questions that are of a certain amount of public interest to which I would like an answer.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think no fair comparison could be drawn between the cost of this temporary system that is now in force and the estimate that was given. I imagine that when it is found possible to appoint somebody permanently to do the work and to attend the judge from court to court that the cost would not be anything like so high as it is at the present time. We are operating with a system of panels, men being called in for a day or two in particular towns. When the Court moves on to another town somebody else is called in. The arrangement made with the Circuit Courts was a temporary one, and we are considering what permanent arrangement could be come to. I am not in a position to tell the Deputy whether the report is available to persons other than solicitors for the purposes of appeal. In the ordinary way I should say it would not be. I believe it might be possible to save work and money perhaps by not having a transcript made until there is some notice given of appeal. Certainly in cases where the work would not be heavy my own view is that it would be possible for a man to read over his shorthand notes and make a few amendments that would enable him to be sure of being able to read them after a lapse of time. He would also write in occasional words in longhand that there might be a difficulty about reading, so that the expense and labour of transcription might be saved.

Mr. JOHNSON

Who would keep the notes? Surely that is important.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am afraid that is a matter for the Rules of Court, which Deputy McGoldrick referred to. This whole business is in a transition stage at the moment. We have not Rules of Court. We hear judges stating that what they allow must not be taken as precedents. For what they allow there are no rules. The point raised by the Deputy is one that should be decided by Rules of Court, namely, where the transcript should be made immediately, in whose custody it should be placed, and if a transcript is not to be made in whose custody are the notes to be placed. What regulations should govern the whole matter? These are pre-emiently matters for Rules of Court.

Mr. JOHNSON

This raises a rather important question. The stenography is taking place now and in the Circuit Courts their are official stenographers acting. £2,364 is to be voted for the payment of stenographers. I think we ought to know what is the position of the stenographic report on which a very great deal may depend. The Minister has suggested that the permanent arrangements would be probably economical, not only in the money respect, but also would be of very much more value to the litigants. I hear enough from shorthand writers to make me very confident in saying that the qualifications suitable for reporting for a newspaper in the country may be of one kind, but the qualifications required of a shorthand writer to take notes on which the judgment of an Appeal Court would be based are of a very different kind. If the appeals in cases now before the Circuit Courts are to be based upon the shorthand notes of note-takers whose experience is limited to the ordinary occupation of newspaper reporting, it may be quite satisfactory, but newspaper reporters have told me that the qualifications for taking down an ordinary speech in the Dáil or elsewhere, or the practice attained by doing that is very different from that required by a stenographer in a court of law where verbatim reports are required. The appointment of official stenographers, men who would habituate themselves to taking down the notes in the courts, would seem to be a matter of urgency if appeals are to be based on those reports. Whether the reports that are taken even at the present time are retained by the stenographer for transcription at some future time is another important question. Does that £2,364, for instance, include the cost of transcription of every report?

Mr. HEWAT

Who is responsible for its safe custody?

Mr. JOHNSON

Having had a transcription made, in whose custody is it kept? If the transcription is not called for until an appeal is lodged, in whose custody is the shorthand report kept? One can see all kinds of difficulties arising if the note-taker retains his notes until the appeal is sent in. I really think we ought to have a little more information before passing this Vote, if it is only to create confidence amongst litigants. The Minister apparently has not had his attention called to those queries, and consequently he has not prepared himself with full information to satisfy the enquiries. I think on that ground alone we might follow Deputy Hewat's suggestion and postpone the final taking of the Vote.

Progress reported.

Committee to sit again on Tuesday.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

With regard to the Order Paper for Tuesday, I take it the Local Government Bill from the Seanad will have precedence over the Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill.

The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until Tuesday, 10th March.