Vol. 15 No. 15
I move:—
Amendment 1.—In page 6, Section 15, line 63, to delete the words "of the High Court."
The functions of the Accountant-General extend, in fact, to the Supreme Court, and also to the Chief Justice's court in lunacy and minor business. For that reason it is considered that the title "Accountant" is more suitable than "Accountant of High Court."
I move amendment 2:—
In page 7, Section 16, line 6, to delete the words "of the High Court" and substitute the words "who shall be styled the Accountant of the Courts of Justice."
I move amendment 3:—
In page 7, Section 19, to delete the word "and," line 53, and substitute the word "or," and to add at the end of the section, line 55, the words "or in any other office attached to the former Supreme Court of Judicature."
The point in this amendment is that certain business other than that covered by Section 19 as it stands will be transacted in the office of the registrar to the Chief Justice, namely, the business relating to the appointment and control of solicitors and of Commissioners to take affidavits.
I move amendment 4:—
In page 11, Section 30, line 46, to delete the words "this Part" and substitute the words "Part II."
As a matter of fact it is Part 2 and not Part 1 that affects the local registration of title offices.
I move amendment 5:—
In page 12, Section 33 (6), line 44, to delete the words "sixty-eight" and substitute the word "seventy."
It is thought desirable to allow a county registrar, if his health and capacity are good, to remain in office until he reaches the age of 70.
I move amendment 6:—
In page 13, Section 36 (1), line 20, to delete the words "official assignee" and insert at the end of the line the words "except the official assignee."
It was explained on a previous occasion that the local registrar and the local official assignee cannot be one and the same person.
I think amendments 7 and 8 might be taken together:—
Amendment 7.—In page 13, Section 36, to delete sub-section (4).
Amendment 8.—In page 13, before Section 37, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) All expenses, allowances, and fees heretofore payable or receivable under the Electoral Act, 1923 (No. 12 of 1923), the Local Government Electors Registration Act, 1924 (No. 7 of 1924) and the Juries Acts, 1871 to 1924 respectively to or by the Clerk of the Crown and Peace (whether as registration officer or otherwise) shall be payable to and receivable by the county registrar in the same manner in all respects, as the said expenses, allowances, and fees were heretofore payable to or receivable by the Clerk of the Crown and Peace.
(2) The amounts of the said expenses, allowances, and fees shall be calculated in accordance with the scales for the time being in force for the purposes of such calculation under the said Acts mentioned in the foregoing sub-section respectively and for the purpose of such scales all such expenses, allowances, and fees as were heretofore actually incurred by the Clerk of the Crown and Peace shall be deemed to be actually incurred by the county registrar although in fact not so incurred. (3) Save asis hereinafter mentioned every county registrar shall surrender to the Exchequer so much of the expenses, allowances, and fees paid to and received by him by virtue of this section as is not required by him to meet disbursements and expenses payable or incurred by him under any of the said Acts mentioned in the foregoing sub-section and not payable or paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing sub-section, the fees and other sums mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Electoral Act, 1923, shall be accounted for and paid by the county registrar in accordance with that sub-section and no portion of such fees or sums shall be surrendered to the Exchequer under the foregoing sub-section.
Amendment 8 is really substituting a new section to remove certain ambiguities that might arise from the section as originally drafted. The amendment does not alter the meaning or the intention of the section, but it is intended to remove any doubts that might arise.
I move amendment 9:—
In page 14, before Section 38, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may by order prescribe the places at which and the post office savings banks and other banks in which money hereafter paid into the circuit court in any proceedings or heretofore paid under Section 39 of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877, into the former county court or into the circuit court shall be deposited in each circuit and may by the same or any other order make in respect of each circuit rules and regulations in respect of such deposits, and may by such rules and regulations make such provision as may appear to him to be necessary for the transfer of money heretofore paid into the former county court or into the circuit court as aforesaid to the bank or banks and into the names prescribed by such order for money hereafter paid into the circuit court.
(2) No order shall be made under this section without the concurrence of the judge of the circuit court assigned at the date of the order to the circuit to which the order relates.
(3) No order made under this section shall authorise the payment out otherwise than on an order of a judge of the circuit court of any money deposited under this section.
This new section gives to the Minister for Justice, with the concurrence of the Circuit Judge, the power formerly vested in the Lord Chancellor as regards the manner in which money paid into the Circuit Court shall be invested while in the custody of the Court.
I would ask the Minister to give us some assurance whether questions that may arise under this section regarding the financial procedure have been approved of and generally discussed with the Department of Finance.
Yes.
I move amendment 10:—
In page 14, Section 38, to delete all from the word "and" in line 37 to the end of the section.
The words to be deleted are covered by the general section at the end of the Bill, and, therefore, it is not necessary to have them included at this stage.
I move amendment 11:—
In page 14, before Section 39, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In addition to the persons employed under this Act in circuit court offices there may be attached to the circuit court such and so many officers and servants as the Minister shall, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, from time to time determine and all such officers and servants shall hold office on such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance shall prescribe.
(2) Every officer and servant attached to the circuit court shall be assigned by the Minister to a particular circuit and any such officer or servant may with his own consent be transferred from one circuit to another circuit and every such officer and servant shall perform and fufil in the circuit to which he is for the time being assigned such duties and functions in relation to the circuit court as the Minister shall from time to time prescribe.
(3) In addition to the officers and servants mentioned in the foregoing sub-sections of this section there may be attached to any judge of the circuit court by direction of the Minister and with the sanction of the Minister for Finance one servant to perform such duties in relation to such judge as the Minister shall prescribe, and every such servant shall be appointed by the Minister and shall hold office on such terms and conditions as the Minister shall, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance determine, and the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1924 (No. 5 of 1924) shall not apply to the situation of any such servant.
(4) The Minister for Finance may out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas pay to any judge of the circuit court to whom a servant is not attached under the foregoing sub-section an allowance of such amount as the said Minister shall determine in lieu of such servant.
This new section is to provide for persons employed in the Circuit Court, but not attached to any particular county registrar. It really covers such persons as court criers and court stenographers appointed by the judge himself.
Amendments 12 and 13 go together. I move:—
Amendment 12.—In page 14, Section 39 (1), line 42, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "and (as regards numbers) of the Minister for Finance."
Amendment 13.—In page 14, Section 39 (2), line 46, to add after the word "Minister" the words "and shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas such salaries as the Minister shall, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, direct."
The point as regards these two amendments is that if summons servers are to get salaries it is thought proper to have specific statutory authority for payment of such salaries, and if salaries are to be paid, that the Minister for Finance should have a voice as to the number of men to be appointed.
I move:—
Amendment 14.—In page 14, before Section 40 but in Part II. (relating to the Circuit Court) to insert a new section as follows:—
Nothing in this Act shall apply to the office of official assignee attached to a local bankruptcy court established under the Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1888, before the passing of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924.
(No. 10 of 1924).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
I move amendment 15:—
In page 15, Section 40 (3), lines 4 5 and 6, to delete the words "and in any such case is at the commencement of this Act under the age of sixty-five years."
There is at least one existing district court clerk who is just over sixty-five, but who is quite capable of carrying out his duties satisfactorily. It is to cover such a case as that that the amendment is introduced.
With regard to Amendment 17, district court areas, I would like to have some explanation as to how it comes within the scope of the Bill.
The object is to define the particular area in which a given district court clerk will work. The definition of "area" is as necessary to the district court clerk's existence as the definition of, say, any office is to the holder of the office. The clerk without an area of operation is held up, and scarcely can perform his functions. When a clerk is appointed he is necessarily appointed to a defined area.
The areas must be defined here, and they are not defined elsewhere.
No, they are not defined elsewhere.
I think we will accept the amendment.
I move Amendment 17.
I move:—
In page 15, Section 41 (1), line 23, to delete the words "court districts" and substitute the words "district court areas," and in line 26 and line 31 to delete the words "court district or districts" and substitute the words "district court area or areas," and in sub-section (2), line 41, to delete the word "district" and substitute the words "district court area."
This amendment is consequential on the preceding amendment.
I move:—
In page 16, Section 43, to delete sub-section (4) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) If any person who immediately before the appointed day is employed in a pensionable capacity in the office of the registrar of district court clerks is appointed after the appointed day in a pensionable capacity to a situation in the Civil Service of Saorstát Eireann, the Acts which immediately before the appointed day authorised the grant to him of a pension or other allowance (from whatever fund or moneys such pension or allowance could have been granted) shall on his ceasing to hold a situation in a pensionable capacity in the Civil Service of Saorstát Eireann apply to him in the same manner and to the same extent as they applied to him immediately before the appointed day but with and subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—
(i) in computing the period of his service for the purpose of those Acts he shall be entitled to reckon as continuous service for those purposes his period of service in a pensionable capacity in the office of the registrar of district court clerks and his period of service in a pensionable capacity in a situation in the Civil Service of Saorstát Eireann and
(ii) the Minister for Finance shall be substituted for the person authorised by those Acts to grant to him a pension or allowance, and
(iii) any pension or allowance granted to him shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas."
This is merely a rewording of the existing sub-section so as to make it quite clear that any such re-appointed officer will get precisely the same, and no other, pension terms than those he is entitled to at present.
I move:—
In page 16, Section 44 (1), line 40, to add at the end of the sub-section the words "or paid into any fund."
Some fines are at present payable into a particular fund, such, for example, as the Road Fund. The words now proposed to be added appear at the end of line 62 and should appear here also.
The Minister, on the Committee Stage, said that this particular clause would be inquired into, and that he would let us know on the Report Stage regarding the fines it was intended to divert from the local authorities into the Central Fund. The Minister also promised to let us know, as far as possible in the time, the amount of these fines. This is a serious matter from the point of view of the local authorities. The local authorities receive a certain number of fines at the moment. They are not very remunerative from the point of view of the local authority, because the local authority has to incur a certain amount of expense in connection with these particular cases, and then the fine leaves, from the point of view of the local authority, the matter more or less a line ball. That is, that the income accruing from the fines meets the expenditure incurred, but what happens under the proposal in the Bill is that these fines are taken away from the local authority, and still the local authority has to bear the expense of bringing these claims before the court and getting the delinquents fined. Having achieved that object, the fines go into the hands of the Finance Minister. As I have said, this is a rather serious matter for the local authorities. I have had communications from local authorities in different parts of the country, and there seems to be a consensus of agreement that the taking away of the fines as proposed under this section will mean imposing a burden on the local authorities to the extent of about ½d. in the £. At present that seems to be the position, to cast further burdens on the local authorities and to take from these authorities the sources of income which they have been enjoying for a number of years.
It will be within the recollection of the House that within the last few days I asked why a particular income the local authorities had been enjoying for some years, that is, the surplus of the dog tax, had not been forwarded to the local authorities during the last couple of years, as had been done for a number of years previously. To show the policy that is being pursued by the Government with regard to local authorities, I will read an answer I received from the Minister:—
"Orders have been made under the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Act, 1881, diverting into the District Court Clerks Funds all the proceeds of the sale of dog licences up to the end of 1924, save such amounts as have already been distributed to local authorities. The 1925 collection, the final collection under the old law, will be similarly diverted. The Acts under which the dogs' duty was formerly collected and distributed were repealed by the Finance Act of 1925."
I do not know whether any of the other Deputies in the House were aware of a section to that effect in the 1925 Finance Act. I have no recollection of the Minister having explained to the Dáil that under this particular Act the local authorities were to suffer to this extent. It is only as time goes on we find out difficulties with regard to these Acts. The answer goes on to say:—
"The dog duty is an Excise duty payable into the Exchequer, and no part of it can be paid to the local authority."
That means, in connection with the particular local authority with which I have been associated a loss of about £180 per annum. In addition to that we have this particular section, which will mean casting on the same local authority a burden of almost an equivalent amount. There are two classes of fines local authorities receive. In one case the average expense would amount to about £74 per annum, and in the other case to a lesser amount. I offer the strongest protest against the policy embodied in this Bill of taking from the local authorities incomes which they had been in receipt of for a great many years—I will not say how long, but I will ask the Minister to enlighten us on that point, and on the other hand casting on the local authorities these burdens in Act after Act which we have had before us. Only the other day we were dealing with pensions accruing under the technical instruction scheme. The local authority pays only about one-fourth of the salaries of the technical instruction officers, and yet as the officers become pensionable the whole pension is cast on the local authority. That seems to be the policy of the Government: on the one hand to take from these local authorities the different sources of income of which they have been in receipt, and on the other hand to cast on them year by year additional burdens which in the past were discharged by the State. There seems to be no hesitation in placing these burdens on the local authorities.
On Committee Stage, as Deputy Good reminds us, there was considerable discussion on Section 44, and I undertook to bring for Deputy Good and Deputy Hewat as much information on the matter as I could collect between the Committee Stage and Report. I find that the total amount of the fines, using the word in its broadest sense, imposed by the district court in the Saorstát, including the Dublin Metropolitan area, and actually collected, may be taken at £22,000 per annum. Of that, £7,500 comes from Dublin, and the balance, £14,500, from the rest of the Saorstát. Fines in the Superior Courts are so rare as to be negligible, except as regards fines on jurors for non-attendance and which would come to the State irrespective of this particular provision. I have a table here showing how this money, when collected, is distributed, and showing also how much of it comes from the Dublin area on the one hand and from the remainder of the State on the other. Of the fines inflicted in the Dublin area, a total of £7,500, the disposal is as follows:—
|
Towards the upkeep of the Gárda Síochána |
£3,250 |
|
To the Revenue Commissioners |
200 |
|
To the Road Fund |
2,500 |
|
To the local authorities |
1,300 |
|
To the General Cattle Diseases Fund |
200 |
|
To the Conservators of Fisheries |
50 |
The total of fines inflicted elsewhere than in Dublin is £14,500, and the disposal is as follows:—
|
Into the Fines and Fees Fund |
£8,000 |
|
which of course goes to the upkeep of the district court clerk system. |
|
|
To the Revenue Commissioners |
2,000 |
|
To the Road Fund |
2,000 |
|
To the local authorities |
1,700 |
|
To the General Cattle Diseases Fund |
200 |
|
To the Conservators of Fisheries |
200 |
|
To the Gárda Síochána Reward Fund |
£400 |
The total then for the whole country would be:—
|
Fines and Fees Fund |
£8,000 |
|
Upkeep of the Gárda Síochána |
3,250 |
|
Revenue Commissioners |
2,200 |
|
Road Fund |
4,500 |
|
Local authorities |
3,000 |
|
Cattle Diseases Fund |
400 |
|
Conservators of Fisheries |
250 |
|
The Gárda Síochána Reward Fund |
400 |
|
Making a total of |
£22,000 |
From that table it will be clear that of the total collection of £22,000 the following sums are, already, under the existing law, appropriated in fact for the Exchequer—that is, they are under the existing laws used towards defraying expenses for which the Exchequer is liable—a sum of £8,000 to the Fines and Fees Fund; £3,250 for the Gárda Síochána; £2,200 for the Revenue Commissioners—total, £13,450.
As regards this £13,450, the present proposal would make no change whatever. It would certainly not affect any private individual or any local authority, but it would put in clear form what is at present dispersed over several Acts, some of them 70 or 80 years old. Deducting that £13,450, we find ourselves dealing with the balance of £8,550 made up as follows:—
|
Road Fund |
£4,500 |
|
Local authorities |
3,000 |
|
Cattle Diseases Fund |
400 |
|
Fisheries Conservators |
250 |
|
Gárda Síochána Reward Fund |
400 |
Take the first item of that—I am sorry if I am boring Deputy Hewat——
The Minister does not bore me on this subject at all.
The existing law is that certain fines for road offences— what may be called motoring fines— are, by statute, payable to the registrar of district court clerks, who is bound to pay them into the Exchequer, and the Exchequer is bound in turn to make them over to the Road Fund. The amount of the fines, as I have stated, is £4,500, and the other income of the Road Fund is over half a million per annum. If it be assumed that the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance, under the powers that are taken or proposed to be taken under this section, will take the unfavourable view, namely, that no special order should be made under sub-section (4) continuing the existing system as regards these fines, then the proposal is to deprive the Road Fund of something less than one per cent. of its income. But it need not be assumed that the order will not be made under Section 4, sub-section (4), continuing that payment—
Do you mean sub-section (4) of Section 4?
Yes. It should be remembered that the theory on which these fines were made payable to the Road Fund was presumably that offences would be detected by the officers of the local authorities, and would be imposed by local unpaid Justices of the Peace, assisted by the local appointed Petty Sessions Clerk, who was not paid by the State. In fact, the offences are detected by the Gárda Síochána, fines are inflicted in a State court by a State paid Justice, assisted by in future a State paid and State appointed District Court Clerk. In some counties the only way in which the local authority has been active in the matter of these offences is to remit or reduce the penalty after the offender had been, without their co-operation, detected and punished. It was found necessary during the past year, on account of the feebleness of local authorities in this matter, to give to the Gárda Síochána direct right of prosecution and to provide that in cases so prosecuted local authorities would not have any right to reduce the fines. That was done under Section 39 of the Local Government Act of 1925.
In face of facts like these, added to the desirability, which I think will be agreed, of getting the law as to the appropriation of fines into a simpler form, it does not seem excessive to ask that we should have discretion either to keep these fines or by express order to allow them to continue to go to the Road Fund. In any case the existing scheme must be changed, because under the existing scheme these fines go into the Road Fund, through the registrar of the District Court Clerks, an officer for whose suppression this Bill provides.
So much for the Road Fund. Let us take then the next item—the Local Authorities £3,000. Of this sum £1,200 goes to the Dublin Corporation, and £50 in relief of the impoverished rate-payers of Pembroke and Rathmines.
£50 each?
No; £50 in all. Fifty pounds, Deputy Good will agree, is scarcely a serious contribution towards the rates, although the Pembroke Council has taken the trouble to submit a statement showing no less than ten different classes of Acts of Parliament which have to be invoked in order to produce the £50 per annum. When it is remembered that the same area was, by a recent Act of the Oireachtas, on the occasion of the amalgamation of the Dublin Metropolitan Police with the Gárda Síochána, relieved of the special police rate, being a relief of about £7,000 in the first year and increasing by the same amount every year, until it becomes and remains an annual relief of over £50,000 per annum, it scarcely seems a serious argument that the Government should not be given the power to take over fines of £1,300 per annum, if it so desires, in the interest of simplicity and uniformity, rather than because the sum itself is worth coveting. Fifty pounds a year is in the balance for Pembroke Urban Council, and Deputy Good holds up the Dáil for half an hour with his protest!
Of the remainder of the sum of £3,000 £1,700 goes to local authorities outside Dublin in the following proportions:— Cork City, £600; Limerick City, £350; Waterford City, £200; other places. £550. So far as I can find, each of the three cities mentioned gets all the fines inflicted in the city because of an Act which has attained the respectable age of 86 years—the Municipal Corporation Act, 1840. We cannot know now what the motives underlying that particular enactment were, but we are aware that the conditions in which the fines were then imposed were very different from the conditions which now exist. The court, for instance, was a local court and not part of one State-maintained court. We do not regard the Act as having any particular sanctity such as would make us slow to revise it after such a lapse of time and such a change of circumstances. The remaining item —£550—is divided amongst a great number of places. There are, for instance, rather more than 100 towns in the State which, under an Act passed 72 years ago—the Towns Improvement Act, 1854—have special rights to fines inflicted in these towns. On that point, I may add that these towns formerly enjoyed two local courts—the ordinary petty sessions court and a town court, the latter being constituted under that Act of 1854. If an inhabitant of the town happened to be apprehended in an advanced state of intoxication and disorder, he might be brought either before the petty sessions court or the town court, under the Towns Improvement Act. If he were brought before the petty sessions court and fined 5/-, the town got 2/6. If brought before the town court and fined 5/-, the town got the whole 5/-. That, in itself, was sufficiently complicated, but when, by our Courts of Justice Act, 1924, the authority of both courts was transferred to the District Court, the position became a rather curious one. The District Justice is now the town court and the petty sessions court in one. It would be a difficult task to decide whether the town is now entitled to the five shillings inasmuch as the District Justice is the continuation of the Town Court under the Towns Improvement Act, or only to the sum of 2/6 inasmuch as the District Justice is the continuation of the petty sessions court. In some places the matter has gone even a step further—that is where the Commissioners were dissolved, by order or other process, and their powers vested in other bodies or persons, which were not in existence when the Act of 1854 was passed. We have to decide, therefore, on the question of how these funds are to be divided over one hundred claimants whose claims cannot, on the average be as high as £2 per annum each and whose rights arise under an Act passed 72 years ago, before the present courts, before the present police, and before the present policy as regards local authorities was dreamt of. The State-paid police arrest a disorderly drunkard. He is fined 5/- by the State-paid justice. The conviction is entered and a warrant issued by the State-paid clerk. The fine is paid and reaches the Registrar of District Court Clerks. That official has then to send the money back to the district court clerk, pointing out that this place is, or was once, covered by the Act of 1854, and directing the clerk to find out who are the town commissioners there or the person or body acting as such. Sometimes they are easily found; sometimes they are not. When found, they are very pleased to get 2/6 on a transaction of which they heard for the first time. The whole affair is somewhat on the ludicrous side, and the final and satisfactory allocation of that 2/6 costs the State more than it costs the drunkard. The figures which I have given as paid to local authorities include the fines so payable under the Public Health Acts, the Weights and Measures Act, the Food and Drugs Act, and several Acts of that character.
As to the General Cattle Diseases Fund, that fund gets £400 out of fines. The General Cattle Diseases Fund, of which I heard for the first time when Deputies Hewat and Good became interested in this matter, was set up by the Act of 1854, and is used by the Department of Agriculture as a fund out of which to repay the local authorities half of their expenditure in connection with these diseases. The fund is kept up to strength by the levy at irregular intervals of a rate of a farthing in the £. Fines imposed in prosecutions under the Acts dealing with cattle diseases go into that fund. I am informed that the Department of Agriculture does not regard this income from fines as a very serious contribution. The payment into the Fines and Fees Fund of these fines, their earmarking in that fund and their payment out again take a good deal of time and attention. It is one of these things that tend to distract activities of the staff from more serious work. This is one of the cases where, I think, the Government might have a discretion to alter the system or not to alter it, as seems on the balance and after consideration the proper course.
There is a sum of £300 per annum paid to fishery conservators as fines or portions of fines. The law as regards penalties in fishery cases is anything but clear. The net result when each case has been argued out is that £300 per annum is distributed between the various boards of conservators. There are rather more than a score of such boards operating at present, which gives a total of rather less than £15 per annum per board. It is not considered that that constitutes a serious help towards the object of these boards, but if we receive convincing representations to the contrary and if there is not a less troublesome way out of the difficulty, I should certainly ask the Minister for Finance to concur in an order which will preserve the present benefit without the present complications.
The last of the classes of fines in the table is a sum of £400, consisting of payments made into the Gárda Síochána Reward Fund. All fines awarded to a Gárda as an informer, to use the words of the statute, are paid into the fund. The particular informer gets no immediate benefit. After we have exhausted these classifications there is still left a miscellaneous class of fines so small in amount that no sum can be set down as their average annual value. Deputies will perhaps realise the position more clearly in this way: There are over 160 district court clerks, each of whom accounts quarter for all fines received by him. Generally the fine itself is sent up with the account, but when the fine is payable to somebody outside the Department, that is, when it does not come to the Department, either to keep or to distribute, the clerk hands the money over to the proper person and sends up, instead of the money, the receipt he gets from that person. The Department sees that the receipt is in order and that the fine was properly paid over, and there the matter ends. If all these receipts for the past sixty years had been taken out of their files and properly indexed they would form the subject of an interesting booklet on the appropriation of fines. Deputy Cooper told us that under a private Act he is entitled to some fishery fines, and possibly we have a record of a receipt from himself or from one of his predecessors in title. Deputy Hewat spoke of a similar right vested in the Dublin Port and Docks Board. We have actually a receipt for 5/-, being the Board's revenue for a year from that source.
Deputy Hewat only made a reference to it. He did not make a claim for the money.
Pembroke Urban Council, £50; the Dublin Port and Docks Board, 5/- per annum!
Nothing when you say it quickly.
I am trying to say it quickly. I could entertain Deputies Good and Hewat at greater length, but possibly I have said enough to convince the Dáil, if not to convince these two Deputies, that there is nothing wrong in the proposal in the Bill, that we should be allowed to abolish these special distributions out of fines, and then deal with each case for continuance on its merits, and make or not make an order at our discretion. If there is a substantial case for reviving any of these by special order there is power to do that in sub-section (4) of this section. But these distributions, under Acts 86 and 72 years old, passed in an entirely different set of circumstances, passed in circumstances which might justify some special allocation such as we have considered, ought not to be considered sacrosanct and stereotyped for all time, now that the circumstances have entirely changed. There is no question of looting the exchequers of the local authorities, as has been suggested.
Is there any guarantee on that point?
If Deputy Good can put up a good case for his £50 per annum he will get it by special order under sub-section (4). I give him a most solemn undertaking to that effect, and the same applies to Deputy Hewat's five bob per annum. What we are really striving to get free from is a complex and cumbersome system, making demands on staff out of all proportion to the importance of the matter or the largeness of the amounts involved. If any good case can be put up for making a special order that some proportion of the fines for a certain offence should be paid to some person or body, that order will be made.
But there is no guarantee that such an order will be made. That is my objection.
None whatever. The Deputy will only have to take our word for it, and he apparently holds that lightly. Really, the time that this matter has taken in the Dáil is as unwarranted as it is out of all proportion to its importance, but these two Business Deputies wanted to get the facts, and I felt it was incumbent on me to prepare and to bring along the facts. I have endeavoured to give them. Having heard them, I trust that the Dáil will share our view that that which is proposed in the Bill is the sensible, even the business-like thing to do, and to leave it to our well-known sense of equity to make an order in any case where the making of an order is warranted.
As we spend our time here we learn very many things, but I am beginning to learn that it is a mistake to ask the Minister for Justice for any information, because he floods one with such an amount of it that one is really submerged in one's argument. He has taken up the line that we, particularly Deputy Good and myself, have made the claim that this matter of distribution was all wrong. I am not clear that I ever made any such claim. As regards the principle that underlies this, the simplification of the question of fines, so far from being in disagreement with the Minister for Justice to the extent of calling forth the mass of information we have got on the subject, I happened to interject the remark that I knew some private interests were concerned with the fines, and instanced the Port and Docks Board, and the Minister now tells me they are to the extent of 5/-. I did not know what it was. Whether it is a matter of 5/- or £5,000 the principle underlying the thing is just the same. One must remember that the Minister for Justice knew very little about this when it was last before the Dáil.
Nothing at all.
And all this collective information has been obtained by him subsequent to the introduction of the Bill. The Bill provides for the taking over of fines, which, rightly or wrongly, have been going to different local bodies, and to that extent the revenues of these bodies will be reduced. I agree that perhaps this matter has taken longer to discuss than is justifiable in view of its importance, but I do suggest that the time has been unnecessarily taken up by the Minister, because he could in two minutes have given us a synopsis of the information which he has given in such a very elaborate form. It comes to this: that under the arrangement in this Bill all these fines are going to the Central Fund. The simplification that will obviously take place, by the reconstitution of the law on the subject, is all to the good. I do not disagree with the Minister on that. I heartily agree with him. Pembroke Urban Council has been referred to. For some considerable time it has been getting £50 a year for nothing. If it is to lose that £50 now the loss is just as much to that Council as the loss would be to another person whose property you would take. It is portion of the revenue of the Council. The Minister rather jeers at the idea of £50 being of any importance to Pembroke Council. I agree that it is not, but what is the principle? Is the Government standing for the confiscation of even £50? The Minister, I think, stated that circumstances have changed. If Pembroke Council got the £50 a year, even if it was nothing but a subsidy, it shows the trend of the mind of the Executive when the Minister evades the issue, which is, the loss of £50 to the Pembroke Council. The question now is, whether the Government is prepared to compensate the Council for that loss? On the other hand, is the Executive, as has been done in other cases, going to take away arbitrarily from the Council a privilege that it enjoyed, rightly or wrongly, in the past? I say that the Dáil should be chary about arbitrarily taking away sums of this kind, even if they are insignificant sums.
As I listened to the Minister I could not help coming to the conclusion from the attitude he adopted, that he was anxious to establish the right to become the funny man of this House. I think the House agreed previously that that right had been held, and would be held, during the term of this Dáil, by the Minister for Education. I do not object to the Minister dealing with these serious matters of principle in this jocular way, but when he tells us that it only affects Pembroke and Rathmines to the extent of £50, he is telling us what is inaccurate. Pembroke district is very much smaller than Rathmines. I have a return from an official of the Pembroke Council showing the income that accrues to it from prosecutions under the Food and Drugs and other of the Public Health Acts. This shows that taking an average of nineteen years, the amount was £51. It is well known to the Minister, because he represents County Dublin constituency, which embraces Rathmines, that Rathmines is a very much larger area than Pembroke. If Pembroke district is affected to the extent of £51, Rathmines is affected to a very much larger extent. To say that the section only affects these two districts to the extent of £50 is to say what is not true. It is all very well to deal jocularly with a matter in which £50 is involved. I do not know to what extent the Dublin Corporation is affected. It must be a serious matter for the Dublin Corporation. In order to obtain this £50 by taking the steps necessary for the protection of the public health, the local authority has to incur an expenditure of £100. In the district I am concerned with the expenditure on these particular matters amounts, on an average, I am informed, to £100 per annum.
What is the Minister's proposal? His proposal is that the £50 which the local authority has recovered is to be taken away, but the local authority is still to be left with the liability of £100 per annum in order to recover the £50 which is to accrue to someone else. Does the Minister tell us there is nothing wrong about that? In the past he told us that figures were not his strong point. If there is nothing wrong in putting a local authority to an expenditure of £100 per annum in the interests of public health, and of taking away the £50 recovered from fines as a result of such expenditure, it seems to me a most extraordinary transaction from the business point of view. If the Minister had said: "We are going to take the fines from you but, on the other hand, we are going to take away the expense you are put to in recovering them," I think that would be a fair proposition that no one would object to. To take away from local authorities something that accrues to them as a result of expenditure they incur is, to my mind, immoral. What will be the effect of this on the local authorities? These local authorities incur expenditure in the interests of the public health. If they are not going to receive any benefit by that expenditure, is it likely that they are going to be as active as they were? That is bound to be the effect of this proposal. These local authorities have done their work well in the past, but if the Government is going to act as a deterrent, do not blame the local authorities if they are not as active in the future in these particular matters. The Minister has pointed out that it is within the province of the Minister for Finance to say that a certain sum recovered from the fines shall be paid to the local authorities. Let us have some clause to that effect. We know the Ministers we now have on the front Benches, but they will not be here for all time, much as we would like to have them. That is more than we could hope for. We want something more than what one would call personal undertakings in these matters. We want some protection on the part of these local authorities that if they incur this expenditure at least the Minister for Finance, under the particular section of this Bill, will recoup them. If that is done, I am satisfied, but until that is done I will not remain silent.
I move amendment 21:—
In page 16, Section 44 (4), line 58, and also in line 61 after the word "fine" to insert the words "or penalty," and in line 58 after the word "fines" to insert the words "or penalties."
This is really a drafting amendment. Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 22:—
In page 17 to delete Section 47, lines 12 to 31.
I put down this for the opportunity it affords me of placing before the Minister and the House certain representations made to me as to the effect of the abolition of the office of under-sheriff, and to ask the Minister to consider the matter from the point of view that I intend to place before the House. The duties of the under-sheriff, it is intended shall, as time passes, be transferred to the county registrar. He is a civil servant who will have very many duties which will occupy his close attention and, as is suggested to me, will not enable him to undertake the personal supervision of the work accruing to an under-sheriff. As a consequence, it will be inevitable that the work of the office of under-sheriff, which will henceforward be transferred to the county registrar, must be undertaken by a subordinate official under that registrar. The effect of that transfer of the actual work of the office will be to make the activities of the county registrar in this respect much more formal and rigid than hitherto it has been. The position of the under-sheriff who has had judgment placed into his hands for execution is that he acts for the plaintiff in the case and hitherto there has been, I think it is fairly well known, a good deal of discretion as to the manner and the time of the execution of the judgment. Debtors have been interviewed and the circumstances of the case have very often been taken into account by the under-sheriff. He has used his discretion as to the manner of enforcing judgment and has thereby very often collected the money without breaking up the home and eased the position of the debtor. That has made the work of the under-sheriff easier and has lightened the burden, to a very great extent, upon debtors. The sheriff, in doing that, has undertaken a personal responsibility. He has undertaken certain risks but being in the position of personal contact with the case in question he has considered it desirable and worth the risk, and has considered that the circumstances were such as to justify him in taking it. It is suggested with a good deal of force that that discretion ought to be continued if possible, but the effect of this proposal in the Bill will be to make the action of an under-sheriff—it will be in the future that of the county registrar— much more like that of a machine, and the discretion will not be and dare not be operated by the subordinate officials of the county registrar, inasmuch as he has no personal liability. The liability remains with the county registrar who is not in a position, by virtue of the other duties of his office, to undertake the observation and inquiry into the case which would enable him to exercise the discretion hitherto exercised by the sheriff.
The effect is to make much harder the position of debtors, to almost ensure that there will be a sale of the goods of every debtor without any question of time or easing the operations of the machine and generally it will make it harder for the work of the office to be carried through. It is also pointed out that the exceptionally powerful position of the county registrar in relation to solicitors will make it very difficult for any solicitor to take action against the county registrar. As I have said, there is a personal responsibility at present on the under-sheriff for the carrying out of those duties and a liability on him if he exceeds his duty. The consequences of that liability will have to be drawn attention to. Action will have to be taken by a solicitor, but a solicitor would be slow to take action against a county registrar who, in the daily operations of the solicitor's profession, would be in a position to help or retard the work of that solicitor, and generally the position of the solicitor, who sought to take action, would be difficult if there were imposed on the registrar liability for any action in excess of his duties.
In a general way a case has been made for me, and I think it ought to be considered that the transfer of the duties of an under-sheriff to a civil servant is not advantageous for the carrying out of the law judicially, safely and humanely, but is in effect placing the debtor in a machine and the machine must operate without regard to any considerations of humanity or discretion of any kind. Once they get into the hands of a subordinate official it will be the duty of that official to let the law take its course. I think that is a case the Minister ought to take into account, and consider whether it is strong enough to warrant any alteration in the proposals of this section.
The Deputy's amendment is a direct negative to the proposal that the duties of the under-sheriffs, as they die or retire, shall be transferred to the county registrar, the officer who under the new system will correspond to the clerk of the crown and peace of the past. That proposal was given very careful consideration in my Department, and I am inclined to regret that, if the Deputy had a case to suggest against it, he did not do it at an earlier stage when we might have given fuller consideration to his objections.
I did not know of the case then.
I can assure the Deputy that the change was not arrived at in any hasty or haphazard way. It was arrived at only after consultation with many prominent practising solicitors up and down the country, and in no case where I consulted persons of that kind was there any anxiety or any disapproval expressed. What we find in regard to the position of under-sheriffs is that in many counties the position is not big enough to attract the really big first-class energetic solicitor, and, as we know, three-quarters of his work is not properly solicitor's work at all, though admittedly it needs the general control and supervision of a person with a legal mind and some legal experience. The position of under-sheriff within the last two or three years has been vacant in one county for some months with no applicants. It was becoming difficult to find men who would accept the work and the responsibility, and one county was without an under-sheriff for a considerable time. I see no point in the Deputy's objection. I think he said that this proposal would transfer the work and responsibility of the under-sheriff to a civil servant.
If he insists in referring to the county registrar in the future scheme as a civil servant, may I point out that he would be no more nor no less a civil servant than an under-sheriff, inasmuch as we have decided to create the position that there shall be Parliamentary responsibility through a Minister in respect of all the officers attached to our courts system.
May I ask the Minister if there is a personal liability in the case of a county registrar as there is at present in that of an under-sheriff?
Yes. I am glad to say that we are fortunate in having amongst the under-sheriffs many very capable and energetic men. I may, perhaps, say that we have some who are not so good, and I think it would be increasingly difficult in future to get competent, highly-qualified men to accept that position, and that position alone. Clearly, we will have no dearth of competent and highly-qualified applicants for the position of county registrar, and I do not think that it is a mistake, or that it will be found in practice to be a mistake, to devolve this work and responsibility of the under-sheriff in the county registrar's office according as the under-sheriffs disappear in one way or another. It will ensure the supervision and control by men who will probably be selected for the position by being the best, or amongst the best, of the local practitioners. You will have no reluctance on the part of solicitors of good practice and standing to apply for the position of county registrar.
I think it will be in the interests of both judgment debtors and judgment creditors to have this work and responsibility vested in men of that kind. It may be interesting to the Deputy and the Dáil to know that we reached this change simply by the light of pure reason, and we were unaware that it, or anything resembling what we propose to adopt, existed elsewhere. Yet when certain officials of my Department crossed to England for the purpose of understanding the system of courts and court officers there, they found that this very condition exists in Britain in regard to the county courts. The under-sheriffs still exist there for high court purposes, but the work of the execution of decrees of the county courts is now vested in the officer who would correspond most closely to our county registrar. It is, to some little extent, an economy. It is a pruning of the total number of officials who will be in the employment of the State. It provides for the disappearance of the office of under-sheriff, but it was not on grounds of economy that that decision was reached. I believe it will make for efficiency and greater satisfaction—greater satisfaction, I fully believe, not merely to judgment debtors but to judgment creditors also. For one thing we, perhaps, will not allow the Minister for Finance to have all the fruits of the economy caused by the disappearance of one particular officer. I would hope that something of the saving effected by the disappearance of the under-sheriff would be used to ensure that the position of court messenger, as it has been decided to call it, would be made a better position than the position of the bailiff at present; that a better salary would be offered which would attract a better and more reputable type of man than we sometimes have to accept in that capacity to do that particular kind of work. On that count, amongst others, I think that the balance of gain and desirability lies with this proposal that is embodied in the Bill. We have not been entirely satisfied in the last few years that this work was proceeding as smoothly or efficiently as it might be in every county. I hesitate to go very fully into that, lest these under-sheriffs, who are performing their work with the utmost competence and the greatest energy, might feel in some way slighted by my remarks. But there has not been complete satisfaction in every county, and, looking ahead, taking the long view, and considering what kind of man will be coming forward, if there was any coming forward at all, for the position of under-sheriff in the future, I think the change is desirable.
I move amendment 23:—
In page 19, Section 53, line 50, immediately before the words "shall apply" to insert the words "and every Act for the time being in force amending that Act."
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment 24:—
In page 19, Section 54 (2), line 59, after the word "may" to insert the words "with the sanction of the Minister for Finance."
The Minister for Finance considers that he should be consulted when it is being decided what officer shall give security.
Amendment 25 is rather peculiarly drafted.
I move the amendment. I should say that the object I had in mind was to provide that district court registrars would have the same rights as other registrars. I would appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. I think it is only fair that these whole-time officers who gave good service to the State at a critical time should have the same rights as their predecessors; they should have the pensionable rights that other officers of the State have.
As the section stands, apart from the Deputy's amendment, the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Finance, and the Civil Service Commissioners may discriminate between those clerks who have a good claim to establishment and those who have not. There might be such discrimination on a variety of grounds. The amendment is designed to remove any such power of selection. If the amendment were accepted the Commissioners would be obliged to certify every whole-time clerk, even if they were to find on inquiry that he is totally unfit for the public service, and the certificate would have to be back-dated, although, apparently, it is left an open matter as to whether it is to be back-dated by one day or by a very much longer period. The amendment is one that I would not be willing to accept. Simply a reference to their predecessors is not a sufficient argument. It is better, I submit, that things should be considered on their merits, in the existing situation, than that they should be done by a vague reference to some state of affairs that existed here in the past and prior to the establishment of the State.
Would the Minister say, in the case of a registrar who acted for two years in a parish court and who has since been appointed as registrar to a district court and who, after seven years' service, is found by some person in authority to be unfit to occupy the position, is it right or fair that he should be put out without a pension while the persons who occupy positions similar to his are entitled to pensions? We must have some respect for the men who carried on the work when it was not easy to do so. The amendment simply tries to see that justice is done, and I think the Minister should reconsider the attitude he has taken up with regard to it.
May I take it from the Minister that an officer who has given good service and who is proved to be efficient will be certificated?
To accept the Deputy's amendment would be equivalent to a vote of no confidence in the Civil Service Commission. I have confidence that in the case of a whole-time clerk who is, in fact, efficient in the public service, a certificate will issue. That, of course, is simply an expression of opinion from myself, but as between the "may" and the "shall," I stand absolutely for the "may." I do not think the Dáil should seek to impose on the Civil Service Commission an obligation to issue a certificate in every case. I would not be prepared to say, for instance, that there are not at the moment whole-time district court clerks in the country with regard to whom it is quite questionable whether they are fit to remain in their positions, but a clerk who is at once whole-time and efficient will, I believe, be certified under the section as it stands.
I do not wish to press the amendment. In fact, I put it down for the purpose of raising the question of the status of these men. I quite see the Minister's difficulty in the matter, and I am quite prepared to accept what he said, that a whole-time man who is efficient will probably be certificated.
I move amendment 26:—
In page 20, Section 55 (1), line 3, after the word "may" to insert the words "on the recommendation of the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance."
That is: "The Civil Service Commissioners may, on the recommendation of the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, grant to any person (whether paid or not paid out of public moneys) who at the passing of this Act is employed during the whole of his time in an office attached to a court of justice a certificate of qualification..."
I move amendment 27:—
In page 20, Section 55 (3), lines 23 and 24, to delete the words "and attained the age of fifty-five years before the 1st day of January, 1924."
As the section stands, there is no provision made for men who had not attained the age of 55 on that particular date.
I move amendment 28:—
In page 20, Section 56 (4) to delete all from and including the word "analogous" in line 63 to the end of the sub-section.
Perhaps the Minister would give us some information on this amendment.
On the face of it this amendment might appear to be a departure from or a repudiation of the policy several times stated, of retaining all existing court officers so far as possible. It will be noticed, however, that even after the proposed deletion has taken place the section declares that so far as conveniently may be, and subject to the age limit, all existing officers shall be offered re-employment. What is deleted is that the new situation shall, so far as conveniently may be, be analogous to the former situation and that the new salaries shall be not less than the old salaries. I pointed out quite definitely when speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill that in the case of certain existing sorts—four or five of the clerkships of the Crown and Peace, for instance—it was not proposed to pay the same salaries as formerly, even if the same man was employed, because the old salary was absolutely impossible in the new system, perhaps £1,000 per annum more than we are prepared to pay. There will be some of the clerks of the Crown and Peace who were in receipt in the past, in that position, of a higher salary than we are prepared to pay to any county registrar. There will be a maximum salary for each county registrar, even those who have been clerks of the Crown and Peace and who come on into the new system. There are some whose present salaries are so high that we would not be prepared to continue them at that level when they accept positions as county registrars. If the section were to stand it would be compulsory to pay all these men, even those whose salaries were at a level which we consider impossible to pay in the future, the salaries which they held in the past.
The only argument that we could have in defence of an action to compel us to do that would be to attempt to make use of the clause "so far as conveniently may be" and simply say that it was not convenient to pay salaries so high. It is not right, I think, to avail of what would be regarded as a subterfuge of that kind, and consequently I am asking the Dáil to accept the deletion. Except in the case of those three or five clerks of the Crown and Peace, subject, in fact, to a maximum of about £1,450 per annum, we are prepared, and we do in fact propose, whether this amendment is carried or whether it is not, to reemploy every man who is under the age limit and who is not obviously and hopelessly incapable or invalided—perhaps there might be two or three—and to pay to him his old salary or scale of salary and to give him the same class of work so far as that class of work continues to exist. That is so important that perhaps it should be repeated. Except in the case of those three or five clerks of the Crown and Peace of whom I speak, subject in fact to a maximum of about £1,450 per annum, we are prepared and we propose, whether this amendment is carried or whether it is not, to reemploy every man who is under the age limit and who is not obviously and hopelessly invalided—there might be two or three of those—and to pay to him his old salary or scale of salary and to give him the same class of work so far as that class of work continues to exist. Deputies may ask, in the light of that assurance, why the amendment?
Or why the sub-section?
I suppose the sub-section was put in because we were legislating after all to define in precise terms the position of existing officers.
Exactly.
I have shown at any rate that if the text were to stand we would be compelled to pay inordinately high salaries to certain clerks of the Crown and Peace if they were to accept office as registrars. There must be some kind of relativity between salaries in a State system, and to have salaries up to and even upwards of £2,000 per annum when the head of the Department is in receipt of £1,200 per annum would not be right. We are, in fact, prepared to pay to an existing clerk of the Crown and Peace, who accepts office as a county registrar, up to a maximum of about £1,450 per annum, but there must be some maximum. We are not satisfied with the text as it stands. If it means, as we think it does mean and as it probably does mean, that we are under no obligation, that we can always say in reply to any request or complaint that it would be inconvenient for us to do this or that and that we need not do it, and if that is the position under the present wording—I am advised that it probably is— then the present wording is really almost fraudulent. It seems to give a legal security which in fact it does not give, so looking at it in the most charitable way it is merely a pious expression of opinion, but not a binding expression of what the Government means to do. If that is all it is, such a statement which can be repudiated at law though not in honour, should be made by way of a statement in the Dáil—such a statement as I have very deliberately and very emphatically made just now—and it should not be made by way of a clause in an Act.
On the other hand, there is the possibility that the text, as it stands, may be capable of being put into suit, as the saying is; that a clerk could bring the Government before the High Court to show cause why he should be employed in the Examiner's office rather than in the Probate office, let us say. A position of that kind is wholly unacceptable to us. We are not prepared to assist or to participate, in any such law-suit, and we think the Dáil ought not to create a position in which any such law-suit would be thinkable or possible. We will do our best to reconcile the new system and the old staff, but, if we think that the public convenience requires to give official A B, who has hitherto had an easy time in an overstaffed part of the courts a more strenuous time in some other part of the courts, then we ought never to be put in the position that a State case can be made out of that, or that there can be legislation as between the official and the Government. So that whether we are to take it that this text as it stands is a mere pious expression of intention that could be evaded merely by the subterfuge that it was inconvenient, or whether we take it that it would have a real and binding effect which would enable the official to litigate as against the Government in connection with the work he is asked to do—in either case we object to the text and ask for its deletion.
My own advice is that the former is the position, and really means nothing or next to nothing, that it would be a complete reply on the part of the Department to plead inconvenience. I would not like that position. I would not like that we should write into any of our statutes simply any ineffective pious expression of that kind. On the other hand, if there is even the possibility of litigation, arising as between the official and the Government, under the section, I think the Dáil should take steps to remove that possibility.
I think the Minister has made a case for the deletion of the sub-section as a whole——
No.
The assurance he has given the members of these staffs is, in his view, adequate, being quite definite, as speaking with the responsibility of the Minister in charge of the Bill. If that is sufficient, then it seems to me there is no need for the sub-section. On the other hand, I think it is desirable that there should be a sub-section in the Bill safeguarding the position of those servants, and the case that the Minister has made would, I suggest, be met if he were to delete those words "so far as conveniently may be," and to add a proviso fixing a maximum salary and deleting also the words "analogous to." Then the sub-section would read: "Subject to the provisions of this Act prescribing the qualifications and retiring ages for particular officers, every existing officer and servant who is not a temporary officer, or servant, shall be offered employment in a situation under this Act, carrying not less salary than the situation held by him as such existing officer or servant, at the passing of this Act, provided it shall not exceed such sum as the Minister may allow." That, I think, would satisfy all the claims the Minister made in his speech in support of the amendment.
took the Chair.
What is the position of civil servants if the amendment is carried? There is no guarantee whatever of continued employment, because, as is possible, though unlikely, the Minister can safeguard himself by saying it is not convenient to offer employment, and the purpose of this sub-section, as I read it, is to ensure that the employment to be afforded would be analogous, and carry an equivalent salary. There may be only half a dozen men affected who are at present receiving more salary than it is intended to pay, but there are very many more people who will be affected by this section, and if the amendment is carried, as the Minister proposes, they have no protection except the statement that the Minister has made here to-day. If that statement is sufficient there is absolutely no need for this sub-section at all, but if it is desirable to embody in the Bill these assurances and guarantees, then, I say the guarantees should be such as would ensure within certain limits, those limits being the amounts over £1,400 a year, that the staffs in the new employment would receive a salary not less than that which they are receiving at present. I think all the intentions of the Minister would be secured very much better than by an amendment if he would delete the words "analogous to" and give some guarantee in the Bill that the new employment will carry a salary not less generous than that which they are now receiving within those limits of £1,400 a year, or whatever sum may be fixed. I am afraid if the amendment is carried, as proposed, it means removing every guarantee, except that which the Minister has stated in the course of his speech.
There is a good deal of substance in what Deputy Johnson urged, and my position in the matter is this: that if the amendment is accepted I am prepared to introduce an amendment in the Seanad that will meet his point of view. I am quite willing to secure in their salaries the staff that is taken over, and there is no desire to leave that matter fluid at all. I would like if the amendment was now accepted, and if I were left free to bring up in the Seanad an amendment that will meet the point of view that Deputy Johnson has expressed. That would, of course, come back here, and the Deputy would have an opportunity of saying whether or not the amendment did in fact fully meet his case. I am just wondering whether it is possible to secure acceptance of the amendment in the light of the undertaking given on my part.
This is one of those amendments that makes things worse. Even in view of the undertaking given by the Minister, I am doubtful whether we ought to pass this amendment now. If the Minister is going to bring forward amendments in the Seanad they will have to be more or less root and branch amendments. It is possible the Seanad may not accept such amendments.
What does the Deputy mean by "root and branch"?
I was trying to be brief but now I will make a lengthy statement. What I mean is that there will have to be a drastic remodelling of the whole of sub-section 4 if you are to meet the fears of the existing staff. That remodelling may fail to find acceptance from the Seanad. In that case we shall have passed this amendment and shall have no opportunity of reconsidering it. It is an extraordinarily drastic amendment, if it is intended to cover only the three or four cases the Minister spoke of. Let us take the extreme case the Minister mentioned.
It is meant to cover more than that. May I say a word or two by way of clarification? It is meant to cover more than that case. It is meant definitely to remove the possibility that a court official can cite the Government's representative before the High Court or the Supreme Court to show cause why he is not in a soft position in office X, where he was prior to the change, instead of being in a strenuous position in office Y.
I note the Minister's point. That, in effect, means that the official will not run the risk of being placed in that position, and will insist on going on the pension list. Take the text of the amendment: it simply says that the existing official shall be offered a situation in the courts of justice. It does not say that he shall be offered a situation of the same grade or the same character as he had heretofore. I accept the Minister's assurance.
He will have an analogous position.
Let us take an extreme case. Suppose, for instance, the Minister were to go to a taxing master and offer him the position of hall porter, that would be quite possible under the sub-section. Perhaps the taxing master would consider that it is better to be a door-keeper in the courts of the law than to dwell among the unrighteous. I do not say that the taxing master dwells among the unrighteous, because he generally dwells among solicitors. It may be desirable to be a door-keeper in the courts of law, but I know no authority, scriptural or otherwise, that says it is better to be a door-keeper in the courts of the law than to be a taxing master. The Minister would have power to alter a man's position in that way. I do not say that he would do so, but he has the power. This amendment goes much further than anything the Minister requires. I would suggest to the Minister that his amendment in the Seanad should take the form of scheduling the posts in which it is proposed to impose new conditions. I am not at all anxious to encourage litigation in the Civil Service, and I think the way to avoid litigation is to remove fears, even though they may be unnecessary, and make the position of the Civil Servant perfectly clear. Therefore, I think we would be unwise to assent to this amendment.
The Minister said the salaries of some Clerks of the Crown and Peace were £1,000 more than they ought to be. The maximum salary for a Clerk of the Crown and Peace is £1,200, inclusive. There are one or two more who may be paid higher than that, with a bonus. I am going now by the Estimates. The total bonus for 27 Clerks of the Crown and Peace is £7,000. I do not think the Minister is going to lay down a rule that the standard salary of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace should be £200. That would not keep a capable professional man such as the Clerk of the Crown and Peace. This whole matter should be gone into very carefully by the Dáil and Seanad and not merely by the Minister.
I would be reluctant to sweep away the safeguard to officials without a more precise and definite assurance than the Minister has given. I accept his assurance, of course, but I would like it to be more definitely defined; otherwise you will swell the pension vote. It must be remembered that these fears do exist. The Minister knows that as well as I do. There is the fear that officials will be placed in an inferior position. There is not much fear from the point of view of having to do harder work; but there is the anxiety that officials will be made subordinate to people formerly subordinate to them and that these officials will be placed on a lower grade. Amongst many officials that fear exists.
These officials have rights under the Treaty and they are entitled to go on pension. The pension list is already far too big and we all want to avoid making it bigger. That can be avoided much more readily by retaining safeguards in the section or inserting alternative words that will give some safeguard other than the amendment of Deputy Duggan, which gives no safeguard at all. I agree with Deputy Johnson that the sub-section might as well be withdrawn as agreed to with the amendment.
Deputy Cooper may take it that I am not any more anxious than he is to swell the pension list.
I quite agree.
But there is a limit to which all this talk about fears and anxieties and so on can be catered for. There is a point at which the suggestion or threat of swelling the pension vote reaches almost the stage of blackmail and when you have got to say: "Well, if you are going to swell the pension vote, unless you get an exorbitant salary for the remainder of your life as long as you are able to cling on to office, then you better be off and swell it." I have said that we are willing to pay up to a maximum of £1,450 to a county registrar who has been a Clerk of the Crown and Peace, but not higher. If Clerks of the Crown and Peace who are at present drawing more than that sum—and there are such men —say: "Our fears and anxieties will get the better of us if you insist on that, and we will go and swell your pension vote," we say to them "Go and swell it."
The suggestion of Deputy Johnson as to changes in the text was attractive to me, and, when I asked for the amendment on the understanding that I would consider the insertion of an amendment in the Seanad that would meet the point of view embodied in the Deputy's suggestion, I meant what I said. As a matter of fact, it is only just caution which one acquires that makes me unwilling to say here and now that I would accept Deputy Johnson's alternative suggestion to the amendment. I have nothing against it and I see nothing against it. It is only a desire to examine it. I do not want this amendment defeated now. In fact, I suppose if I have to I will face a division on it and try to secure a majority. I do not want to be defeated now, but I am not at all sure that the Deputy's suggestion is not a better solution, and I would undertake, if the amendment is passed, to consider the introduction of an amendment in the Seanad; in fact, I would undertake definitely to introduce such an amendment to give effect to the point of view embodied in the suggestion.
I do not want the amendment defeated, because if I may put it this way: I want the Dáil to agree with me in the spirit in which I am moving the amendment and from the point of view that I am moving it, namely, that it is a wholly undesirable position to bring about that an official in the courts can say: "Well, I had a soft time for the last five years in that office. It was a bay; the backwater of the troubled stream passed us by and I was not overworked. You have taken me out of that and put me into this other office where things are quite uncomfortably strenuous. I will bring it before the court for a decision as to whether that is analogous duty." It would be an utterly impossible position if, in our disposal of the staffs there, consequent on the passing of this Act, we were to be threatened by this official and that official that unless he got a particular position he would ask for a decision of the courts as to whether it was analogous duty or not. So far as I can I have tried to explain my position to the Dáil. I see nothing against Deputy Johnson's suggestion. It is just caution that makes me desire to examine it further, I want my own amendment passed, but I undertake to bring in, in the Seanad, an amendment that will fully meet the point of view underlying Deputy Johnson's suggestion.
I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister. It is obvious that he desires to do what I think the Dáil desires in this matter, but there is a great deal of point in Deputy Cooper's statement that once the Bill passes the Dáil it goes to the Seanad as the considered opinion of the Dáil as to what ought to be in the section. The Minister knows better than anyone else that the Seanad may exercise its discretion and refuse to accept his amendment, and then we have no remedy. He could not come back to the Dáil and say: "Alter the Bill in the way that the Dáil gave an indication of its desires." I suggest to the Minister that inasmuch as this is an amendment of substance, that we are in practice, if not in fact, in Committee, and that as the Seanad is not to meet for a fortnight from to-morrow, we should have a further Report Stage when the Minister could bring forward his improved amendment for the acceptance of the Dáil. I think that would be the right way to treat this. It would avoid the risk of the Bill passing without this assurance.
I would like to assure the Minister that I am not standing up for the lazy official any more than he is. I am prepared not to push my opposition to this amendment to a division if the Minister can do as Deputy Johnson says, and if he will also undertake to have a consultation with these officials or their representatives who are affected by the amendment in the hope that we may get agreement among all parties. That will remove fears which may be unreasonable and unnecessary, but fears which undoubtedly exist. I appreciate the work the Minister is doing in this Bill. I think reform of the courts is desirable and necessary. I do not want to embarrass him, but equally I do not want to see the pension vote swelled.
I suggest that we might pass from this amendment and proceed with the further amendments. Possibly by the time we have completed them I would be in a position either to make a suggestion or to define my own position in the matter more fully.
Consideration of amendment postponed.
I move amendment 29:—
In page 21, Section 56 (5), lines 30 to 56, to delete paragraphs (f) and (g) and substitute one paragraph as follows:—
"(f) the Acts which, immediately before he ceased by virtue of this section to hold office, authorised the grant to him of a pension or other allowance (from whatever fund or moneys such pension or allowance could have been granted) shall on his ceasing to hold a situation under this Act apply to him in the same manner and to the same extent as they applied to him immediately before he so ceased to hold office, but with and subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—
(i) in computing the period of his service for the purpose of those Acts he shall be entitled to reckon as continuous service for those purposes whatever period (if any) of service he was or is deemed by virtue of this sub-section to have been entitled immediately before he so ceased to hold office to reckon as service for those purposes and his period of service in a situation under this Act, and
(ii) the Minister for Finance shall be substituted for the person authorised by those Acts to grant to him a pension or allowance, and
(iii) any pension or allowance granted to him shall be paid out of the moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
This amendment merely consolidates two paragraphs into one new paragraph, the sense of which is identical with the two originals. The only difference is that it is explicitly declared that the Minister for Finance shall be substituted for the person authorised by the Acts referred to to grant a pension or allowance.
I move amendment 30:—
In page 21, Section 56 (5) (h), lines 62 and 63, to delete the words "the commencement of this Part of this Act" and substitute the words "he ceased by virtue of this section to hold office."
This part of the Act comes into operation for a definite purpose on different dates, and this is really a drafting amendment.
I move amendment 31:—
In page 21, Section 56, to add at the end of sub-section (5) a new paragraph as follows:—
(i) he may on the recommendation of the Minister be retained, with his own consent and the sanction of the Minister for Finance, in a situation under this Act until he attains the age of seventy years.
It is thought desirable that an existing court officer should in a particular case be retained for, say, a period of five years beyond the ordinary civil service retiring age of 65.
I move amendment 32:—
In page 22 to delete Section 59 and substitute a new section as follows:
(1) Every officer, servant, and other person holding or employed in any office or situation under this Act shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas such salary as the Minister shall, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, determine.
(2) All expenses (other than the salaries aforesaid) of carrying this Act into execution shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas.
This is a more explicit statement of what was intended by the section in the Bill as drafted.
I take it that the last two lines in sub-section (1) of the amendment have some relationship to the section that we have just deferred for further consideration. "Every officer, servant or other person holding ... any office of situation under this Act shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas such salary as the Minister shall, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, determine." That may be a contradiction of the proposal that the office shall carry with it a salary not less than is existing. I think that all that is required there is "subject to the provisions of the other sections of the Act."
If we insert here this new sub-section it seems to me that there would be need for the saving clause referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 56. It may be that sub-section (4) of Section 56 is so specific and explicit that it would override the effect of this, but in view of the fact that there may be some little doubt about it I would undertake to clear it up after consultation with the Attorney-General, and if there is need for a saving clause to have it inserted.
On amendment 28, our proposal would be very much on the line of what Deputy Johnson suggested:—
In line 61 to insert after the word "servant""other than the Clerk of the Crown and Peace"; in line 62 to delete the words in brackets "(so far as conveniently may be)"; and in line 63 to delete the words "analogous to, and,"
So that the sub-section will read:—
"Subject to the provisions of this Act prescribing the qualifications and retiring ages for particular officers, every existing officer and servant other than a Clerk of the Crown and Peace who is not a temporary officer or servant shall be offered employment in a situation under this Act carrying not less salary than the situation held by him as such existing officer or servant at the passing of this Act."
That is open to the objection that we really only want to make exception in the case of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace in the matter of salary, and not in regard to the other matters specified. but I do not think that this proposal will be open to any misunderstanding, because these officers have been circularised and the proposals of the Government in their regard have been fully explained to them, so that I think a saving phrase there "other than the Clerk of the Crown and Peace" would not create any misapprehension I would be willing to withdraw my own amendment, and substitute these changes as a new amendment.
That would meet my case.
I move:—
"That the provisions of Standing Order 88 as to the giving of notice for the taking of the Fifth Stage of a Bill be suspended to permit of the Fifth Stage of the Court Officers Bill, 1926, being taken to-day."
On this point, I do not think the Minister can show urgency. If the last stage of the Bill is to be taken to-day there is no opportunity provided for the Dáil to amend the Bill in any particular. There may be some small errors that have to be corrected on the last stage. A very large number of amendments have been introduced on this Report Stage—no less than 32. I think that unless cause is shown for urgency the last stage of a Bill of this kind ought not to be taken on this motion. I do not think that urgency has been or can be shown. The Seanad does not meet for a fortnight, and in the interest of the legislative process I think it is undesirable except in very special circumstances that the regular stages set out in the Standing Orders should be evaded. In this case there is more reason for delay because of the necessity for going over the Bill as amended with a view to the correction of errors. I think we should not pass the motion unless the Minister can show good reason for it.
If the Seanad were to meet this week I certainly would press the motion. There is a certain urgency about the Bill. It deals with important administrative matters that have been for a long time hanging fire, and there is a further urgency that the Rules of Court cannot be introduced until this Bill becomes law, for the reason that they deal with offices that will not have statutory existence until this Bill has become law. It really, does not matter now in view of the fact that the Seanad does not meet, I think, until to-morrow fortnight. I can take the Fifth Stage on Thursday, and the Bill can be in the hands of Senators in sufficient time. I hope that between this and Thursday every Deputy will read the Bill carefully and search for grammatical errors.
On the Committee Stage there was an amendment in my name which sought to confine the position of examiner to a solicitor. I think the only remedy I have at the moment is to get an amendment moved in the Seanad. The matter was discussed here in the Dáil, and I would like to know if the Minister has given the matter any consideration, or would he be favourably disposed to such an amendment as I have indicated if proposed in the Seanad? The experience that a solicitor gets, in the ordinary course of his work, specially qualifies him for the position of examiner. While I take it that I am out of order in raising the matter now, I do so with your permission, simply to ask the Minister for Justice if he could in any way lean towards accepting the amendment I have referred to.
I have not a leaning in the direction that the Deputy would wish. We gave pretty close consideration to the question of what offices would be confined to persons with professional qualifications, and I see no reason to extend it beyond the Master of the High Court confined to a member of the barrister's profession and the taxing masters confined to solicitors. The further suggestion that these examiners should be confined to persons qualified as solicitors is not really attractive or cogent. For instance, they are not held at present by persons with that qualification, and yet I think there is no dissatisfaction with the present occupants. If a trained official competent to perform that work has been produced, as it is admitted he has, there is no reason to believe that he will not be so produced in the future and that a man who has worked his way up in the service of the court, without the professional stamp on him, will not give entire satisfaction to the public. It is always discouraging to a staff to find offices marked off for persons with professional qualifications. Frankly our aim was to reduce that to a minimum and to throw the maximum number of offices attached to the courts open to the ordinary process of promotion, so that a clerk coming into the service would feel that by industry and application to his work he could reach very high office, that he could reach to every position except Master of the High Court and Taxing Master.
I would like to assent to that if the appointment is going to be absolutely confined to members of the staff. But does the Minister not see that occasion might arise in which it would be advisable to import into that position a man with experience of the solicitor's profession? Of course the Minister is not answerable if there is no occasion and never will be an occasion for anybody other than a member of the staff being promoted to that position. I was only visualising its being necessary or desirable for the Minister's purpose to go outside the staff.
The motion by the Minister for Justice —No. 5 on the Orders of the Day— has been withdrawn. The Final Stage will be taken on Thursday next.
