Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 25 May 1945

Vol. 97 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Court Officers Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move: that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is to effect certain amendments of the Court Officers Act, 1926, which experience of the working of the system set up under that Act has shown to be desirable. The Bill is not, perhaps, one which lends itself to the kind of debate usual on Second Reading, as it deals with a number of distinct and unconnected matters which could probably be more conveniently considered and discussed in detail on the Committee Stage. I shall content myself, therefore, with a brief explanation of the Bill's provisions and the reasons for them.

Under Sections 2 and 3 it is proposed to take power to enable the Minister for Justice to relieve the Master of the High Court of the purely administrative functions and duties in relation to the central office and the other offices of the High Court which are vested in him at present by Sections 4 and 5 of the 1926 Act. The Minister will be able to exercise this power only after he has consulted the President of the High Court. If an order is made relieving the Master of the administrative duties, these duties will then be performed by an officer of the High Court who will be nominated for that purpose by the Minister, again after consultation with the President. The judicial control provided for in the 1926 Act, so far as the conduct of business in court is concerned, is being fully preserved.

Sections 4 and 5 deal with the pension terms of a limited class of court officers, namely, the Master of the High Court, the taxing masters of that court and county registrars. These officers are at present pensionable under the Superannuation Acts on ordinary Civil Service terms, which means that they can qualify for full pension only with a minimum of 40 years' service. The Act of 1926 lays down as an essential qualification for appointment to any of the offices in question a minimum period of practice in the legal profession—in the case of the Master of the High Court 10 years' practice at the Bar and, in the case of taxing masters and county registrars, 10 and eight years' practice respectively as solicitors. The earliest possible age at which appointments can be made is, therefore, about 30 or slightly over. In practice the persons appointed are usually older: in the case of county registrars, for example, the average age on appointment has been about 40. The result is that, under Superannuation Act terms, few, if any, of these officers can hope to qualify for full pension and, where the person has been appointed at a fairly advanced age, his pension is very meagre altogether.

This position has been the subject of representations by the officers concerned for some time, and it is felt that they have a legitimate grievance which it is now proposed to try to remedy. Under Section 4 these officers are being accorded the same pension terms as district justices were given by the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, viz., full pension of two-thirds of salary after 30 years' service and proportionately for shorter service. Section 5 makes special provision for existing officers who are being given the right to opt in due course between the new terms and their present terms.

Section 6 proposes to amend the present law as contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the 1926 Act, relating to the qualifications for appointment to the posts of probate officer and examiner in the High Court. At present a person to be qualified for appointment must be a serving court officer with a minimum of 12 years' service in the court offices. Section 6 proposes two amendments—viz., (i) it dispenses with the requirement of 12 years' service in the case of any court officer who is a barrister or solicitor, and (ii) it opens up appointments to barristers and solicitors of not less than six years' standing provided that the Minister for Justice after consulting the President of the High Court, is satisfied that at the time there is no court officer with the necessary qualifications suitable to be appointed.

The object of Section 7 is to enable a second examiner to be appointed in the High Court. The work at present done in the examiner's office is the same as was formerly done by the two chief clerks on the Chancery side and their staffs. What is now proposed is, in effect, a return to the system of two chief officers. Actually, this does not mean the creation of an additional post. So long as there are two judges doing Chancery work, it is convenient to have a fully responsible officer attached to each judge. At present the examiner attends one judge and the assistant-examiner the other. The law and practice require that certain final steps be done by the examiner in person, so that at present when the assistant-examiner has done the work, he must submit his papers to the examiner before the case can be finally disposed of. The only way by which this can be avoided is by the appointment of a second examiner which will be made possible by Section 7. In practice it will mean the conversion of the assistant-examinership into an examinership.

Section 8 enables the Minister for Justice to require any court officer to perform the duties of another office attached to his own or any other court, where such an arrangement is convenient and practicable. Provision is made for consultation where necessary with the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court, and retrospective sanction is provided for certain arrangements of the kind in question that have been made in the past with doubtful legal authority. Section 9 proposes that the assignment of county registrars to particular counties should be a matter for the Government rather than the Minister for Justice as it is at present. A county registrar is appointed by the Government and there is no point in the Minister for Justice having to make a formal separate assignment to the only county in which a vacancy exists at the time the appointment is made. In practice the Government will appoint expressly to the existing vacancy. Section 10 is merely a machinery provision intended to remedy a minor defect in the existing statutory provisions relating to the revision or alteration of District Court districts or areas. As to Section 11, since the enactment of the 1926 Act, no appointment has been made to the office of under-sheriff. According as vacancies occurred in that office, the duties were taken over by the county registrar for the county or county borough in accordance with Section 54 of the 1926 Act. This system has worked well on the whole, but in the case of Dublin and, to a lesser extent, of Cork, the duties of the county registrar are already so heavy that it is not desirable that he should also be made responsible for the duties of under-sheriff. It may also happen in the course of time in some of the other larger counties that the double duties of county registrar and under-sheriff will prove too exacting for one officer.

Accordingly, it is proposed in Section 11 to take power to enable a county registrar, to whom the duties of under-sheriff have already been transferred, to be relieved of the whole or part of those duties and also, as regards any county in which an under-sheriff is still operating, to enable an Order to be made, if thought necessary, declaring that the provisions of Section 54 of the 1926 Act shall not apply, so that the county registrar will not be vested with the under-sheriff's duties on the latter vacating office. In any such case, it is proposed that the Government may appoint a person to be sheriff and he will be responsible for such of the duties, functions, etc., of the former under-sheriff as are not vested in the county registrar. Provision is made for the revocation on the occasion of a vacancy in the office of sheriff of the Order previously made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the section, so that the under-sheriff's duties may revert to the county registrar if this course should be considered desirable at the time. Paragraph (f) of sub-section (3) makes the necessary provision for cases in which the duties of returning officer are imposed on the sheriff.

The purpose of sub-section (4) of the section is to preserve the existing area of jurisdiction of the County Dublin under-sheriff until the present under-sheriff vacates office. Sub-section (5) specifies the qualifications for the office of sheriff. viz., (i) practice as a barrister or solicitor for not less than five years, or (ii) five years' experience as managing clerk or principal assistant to an under-sheriff or sheriff, and sub-section (6) specifies the various conditions of employment that will apply to the office of sheriff.

Section 12 provides for the repeal of Section 45 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act, 1840. Section 45 required every under-sheriff to nominate a deputy, resident or with an office withinone mile of the Four Courts, for the receipt of writs, decrees, etc. In modern conditions this requirement is unnecessary. Compliance with it involves some trouble administratively every time a county registrar takes over an under-sheriff's duties. Repeal of the provision will mean a small saving to the Exchequer, as the deputy nominated for each county registrar is allowed to retain a proportion of the lodgment fees which would otherwise be surrendered to the Exchequer. The Incorporated Law Society and all the officers concerned have been consulted and there is unanimity of opinion that this out-of-date provision may be repealed.

Mr. Costello

I agree with the Minister that there is very little to be said on the Second Reading of this Bill. In so far as any principle can be extracted from the Bill which would be appropriate for comment on a Second Reading, it would be the alteration in the Master's duties and the change in the office of under-sheriff.

With regard to the change in the Master's duty, the Minister did not give the House very much information as to why it was found necessary, as a result of experience, to relieve the Master of the various duties which were imposed upon him, from the administrative point of view, by the Act of 1926. I do not want to enter into that matter here at the moment, but I would like to ask the Minister if he has fully considered whether the change is brought about merely by reason of personal differences which might be of a passing nature and whether, on reconsideration, the old machinery established by the Act of 1926 might be allowed to continue. I would not like to think that it was merely because of differences of personalities that a change of this kind was brought about.

The Minister will probably recall that when the Act of 1926 was going through the House, there was very considerable controversy as to its terms and as to how far they encroached on the judicial independence. The blessed words, "in consultation with," went very far to solve the difficulties that arose at that time, and I see they are still maintained in all their glory in this Bill. At the same time, I am a little uneasy—though I do not wish to press the matter—as to whether conflict over personalities is not interfering in what ought to have worked very well as a system, certainly in the abstract. I understand that the existing official who occupies the position of Master has a dual rôle at the moment: in addition to being Master, he is carrying on the duties of the old Registrar in Bankruptcy. I would like the Minister to see that his position in that respect is safeguarded.

With regard to the office of sheriff, a change was effected by the Act of 1926 from the system whereby there was an under-sheriff who was an almost independent official, and not really part of the general machinery of government. I think that the new system theoretically was a very good one, and that a good change was made. At the same time, I agree with the Minister that in certain cases the system has not worked as well as it was hoped it would, because of the mass of business. One of the reasons why I was more or less converted to the scheme which is now embodied in this Bill was that some years ago— about a year or two after the change of Government—the late Deputy Patrick Hogan, who was Minister for Agriculture, and a member of the Government when the 1926 Act was passed, and who approved of this scheme as regards making the office of sheriff more closely united with the general machinery of the administration of justice in the way that was embodied in the Act—expressed the view to me, that, on the whole, he thought that system was not working too well, and that there was a lot to be said for the old system of an independent under-sheriff. I have watched the administration of that particular side of the Department of Justice since that time, and I think that the onerous work thrown upon the county registrars as a result of the Act of 1926— and, in particular, the very inadequate pay they receive for the discharge of their duties—gives the justification for the provisions contained in this Bill.

There is one matter which might be more appropriate to the Committee Stage, but perhaps the Minister would consider it in the meantime. The section dealing with the sheriff is pretty comprehensive and satisfactory in its own way, but I am not sure that the provision in sub-section (6), that the office is to be held "at the will and pleasure of the Government", is wholly satisfactory. I presume that nothing I can say will change that or make the office more permanent or give more security of tenure to the holder. The office of under-sherrif is one of vital importance in the administration of justice. It is essential that the person who occupies that position should be a man of outstanding integrity, that there should be no question of any interference or any possibility of any interference with him in the discharge of his duties. The collection of debts and the enforcement of court orders is vital to the effective and smooth working of the machinery of justice.

I do not think there is any possibility of anything in the nature of bribery in the case of any of the holders of that office, but I would certainly like to see the office so built up that the holder of it would be free from any temptations in that regard. It is, of course, very desirable that there should be control over the man who has that position and, to that extent, I suppose the Minister will justify the appointment being "at the will and pleasure of the Government". At the same time, the holder of the office should be so adequately remunerated as to be placed beyond the region of temptation. It is an office which may leave the holder peculiarly subject to temptation and it is of the utmost importance that the holder should be a man of irreproachable character and one who will continue to be of irreproachable character during the whole tenure of his office. He should, therefore, in my submission to the Minister, be adequately remunerated. He has a very difficult task to fulfil and he should not be put into a position where his interests and duties might conflict, with consequent detriment to public interest. I think, therefore, that he should be suitably remunerated and that there should be an adequate pension provided for him. However, the Minister is determined, apparently, that the office is to be non-pensionable.

Mr. Boland

Of course, it is a part-time occupation.

Mr. Costello

I quite understand the reason for it not being pensionable, but I wish to point out that the remuneration should be such as to render the holder of the office free from the temptations to which we know he would be peculiarly open. I agree there is not much case to be made for a pension, but at least there should be adequate remuneration.

The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (6) appear to me to be slightly contradictory. The office is to be held at the will and pleasure of the Government and then there is a provision that the age of retirement shall be 65 years, but the Minister could in a particular case continue the office for a certain number of years. If the office is to be held at the will and pleasure of the Government, there does not seem to be any particular reason why 65 years should be put in if a man has no particular security of tenure. I think the provision of 65 years is, perhaps, a little low and, as the Government have the complete control over the office, the situation might be met by putting in, instead of paragraph (b) of sub-section (6), a provision to the effect that the holder shall not in any event hold the office after he has attained the age of 70 years. A provision providing that the office is to be held at the will and pleasure of the Government, coupled with a provision such as I suggest, that the holder should not occupy the office after the age of 70 years, would meet the situation clearly.

However, the main thing I am anxious about in connection with this office is that so far as possible it should be free from political considerations. I do not hope for very much from that in the circumstances, but so far as possible I think the Minister should get the best man to act and, having got the best man, he should see that that person will continue to be in a position where he will not be subject to the temptations to which this office peculiarly renders him liable.

Mr. Moran

So far as this Bill goes, it appears to be all right. My great complaint is not in connection with what is in the Bill, but what is left out of it. There are a number of things that could well be dealt with in this Bill; in particular, certain court staffs should be covered by its provisions. These unfortunate men are left there for years, some for 20 years, without any provision being made for them. In numbers of cases they are still unestablished and they expect to be thrown on the scrap heap without any provision being made for them, after giving 20 years' service or over. It is unfair to expect men to give such long service under these conditions; it is unfair to differentiate between them and other people in the public service. I think some provision for these men should have been included in a Bill such as this. I should like to know if it is the Minister's intention to deal with these officers in the near future.

It was only after years of experience of the 1926 Act that we found there were numbers of things provided for in that Act that would not work. We are going back more and more to the position that existed before that legislation was introduced. We have the High Court on circuit now established and appeals are being re-heard directly instead of on the stenographer's notes. We found that the previous practice would not work. We also find that county registrars who, under the 1926 Act, were made general Pooh-bahs— everything was shoved on to them— could not cope with all the work. There are various reasons for that. It is obvious that all the duties that were cast on the county registrar under the 1926 Act could not possibly be carried out in an efficient manner. We have had many instances where, because they had so many duties to attend to, the county registrars were unable properly to supervise their various staffs. We have had some instances of trouble in county registrars' offices.

I am glad to see that provision is being made to take the duties of sheriff away from the county registrar in certain instances. I would like the Minister to go further and, in the country particularly, to take the duties of probate officer away from the county registrars. There is provision in Section 6 dealing with the appointment of probate officer. There does not appear to be any good reason why the probate office in the country should be amalgamated with that of the county registrar. The county registrar's duties are many and onerous. His duties, in my opinion, and in the opinion of other members of my profession, will increase. In the future, for various reasons, litigation will increase. For instance, there will be an increased number of cars on the road and there is the likelihood that accidents will increase in number, and we have also to consider the manner in which people carry out their work in modern times. If the county registrar has to deal not alone with the chancery side of his work, but also with costs, particularly in the case of a large county, he will have quite enough to do without having to attend to other duties. His responsibilities will undoubtedly increase and it is unfair to expect him to perform duties such as those concerned with probate. He should not be asked to act as local probate officer. I trust the Minister will see his way to introduce a further section providing, particularly in the case of county registrars who have to look after large areas, that the duties of probate officer will be made the subject of a separate appointment.

In connection with the office of sheriff, I am inclined to agree with Deputy Costello that the sheriff should not be in the position of holding office at the will and pleasure of any particular Government. I think, owing to the type of office and to the responsibilities of the office, that there should be permanency about it. I also think the office should be pensionable, if that were possible. At all events, I would like to see provision made for the proper remuneration of the occupant of the office. The sheriff is an officer who will deal with very large amounts of money and who will have very difficult duties to perform in certain cases. I should like to see him as independent as possible. Perhaps the Minister could give some assurance to the House that the remuneration for this office will be adequate. I would not like to leave the officer to the tender mercies of the Minister for Finance, as he seems to be left under this Bill.

The qualifications set out for the person to be appointed to this office are that he is a barrister or a solicitor of not less than five years' standing, or has acted for not less than five years as managing clerk or principal assistant to an under-sheriff or sheriff. I suggest that the latter provision should be deleted. Perhaps it is a matter which would better be discussed in Committee, but there is one consideration which, while it may not weigh very much with the House, should be considered by the Minister. It is the position of the solicitor's profession, particularly the overcrowding of that profession, and the fact that the members of it have no outlet such as the members of other professions have. If members of the medical or other professions can find no place for themselves here, they have the opportunity of going elsewhere. Those in the solicitor's profession have not got that opportunity, and it is quite a common thing to find young men who have spent a number of years and quite an amount of their parents' money in order to be admitted to the solicitor's profession in the position of being unable to make a livelihood. I have had the experience of finding young men prepared to work in my office or any other office for as low as 30/- a week.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy consider that solicitors are court officers?

Mr. Moran

I am dealing with paragraph (c) of Section 11 (5). I suggest that that provision should be removed and I am giving my reasons for that suggestion. The Minister should confine the office of sheriff to the solicitor's profession, the position being that there is no provision of a panel for the solicitor's profession and no provision in respect of unemployment for these young men who can find no outlet and cannot make their living outside the country. An office of this kind has always been filled by the solicitor's profession, and the Minister should now see to it that it will be confined to that profession. Solicitors have a right to expect that the office will be filled by a member of their profession when it becomes vacant under this section.

The provisions of the Bill so far as they go appear to be satisfactory enough otherwise, and I think the Minister will find after a very short experience of the working of the Bill that the position will be much more satisfactory from the point of view of both the public and legal profession, that we will not have the complaints we have had when all these offices were combined, when returns could not be acted on and when very long delays occurred. I can only hope that the Minister will give some indication now that the people I have mentioned, who should properly be dealt with in this Bill, these unfortunate members of Circuit Court staffs who were left to wait and to hope for over 20 years— some of them are now becoming very old men—that under successive Ministers for Justice something would be done for them, are not being forgotten and will not, at the ages of 65 or 70, after a life's work in the service of the State, be thrown on the scrap-heap.

Mr. Dillon

I suppose that every vested interest in this country would like to ensure that profitable positions were reserved for them, but there is no obligation on any young man to become a solicitor. If he does not want to become a solicitor, nobody is pressing him to become a solictor, but if he does spend his parent's money to become a solicitor, he should not be "traipsing" in here to tell us that he is on his beam ends, having become a solicitor. He could have become a veterinary surgeon, a shop assistant or a publican. He could have followed a wide variety of other profitable occupations in his native land, but the fact that he chose to become a solicitor seems to me no good reason why he should claim a preemptive right to displace a man who has acted for from five to 30 years as a managing clerk or principal assistant to an under-sheriff or sheriff. I have the greatest regard for the solicitor's profession in this country—I have a great many friends among them, but if I had to choose between a solicitor, fresh from the Incorporated Law Society's premises on the quays and a man who spent 25 years of his life as principal clerk to a sheriff, I would not have very much doubt as to whom I should appoint as sheriff. If I were Minister for Justice, I would reserve my discretion in that matter, and I hope the Minister will.

Deputy Moran heartily welcomes the division of offices. Deputy Moran is a practising solicitor, and has more experience of what is convenient in the Circuit Court, and no doubt in the High Court, than I, but I want to enter this caveat as a simple, ignorant merchant citizen for whom these courts are primarily intended, that is that the costs in the Circuit Court are already fantastic, and that if the division of offices is to result in additional cost, the situation will become ludicrous. At present if I want to vindicate my land from the claim of a neighbour to use it as his hen-run, I must go to the Circuit Court, and if I want to dissuade that neighbour's hen from continually trespassing on my land—and when you have only seven acres of land in parts of the West of Ireland, it may be a pretty important business to keep your neighbour's hen off it—I have to go to the Circuit Court.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not under this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Only if this Bill operates to increase the cost in the Circuit Court as a result of the divisions of offices.

An Ceann Comhairle

There was a Vote before the House for these courts and the matter was discussed. I do not want the discussion re-opened on what happens in the courts.

Mr. Dillon

I want an assurance from the Minister that this will not result in a further increase in the costs of Circuit Court procedure. They are already fantastic.

Mr. Moran

It cannot affect them.

Mr. Dillon

I hope the Minister will be as positive as the Deputy, and I await that assurance from the Minister.

The Deputy has made a trenchant case for solicitors. I am speaking for the seven-acre man who wants to keep his neighbour's hen at bay and who will not be heard in the District Court. The moment he goes into the District Court, if he does go in, he is asked the question: "Does this hen contest the proposition that you own the land?" and, if he is obliged to say "yes", then himself and the hen are sent to the Circuit Court. Deputy Moran says that this Bill will not increase costs on people. I am asking the Minister to assure me that the matter of the hen, or analogous matters under the operation of this Bill, will not impose additional cost on litigants going to the Circuit Court. If it does impose additional cost, then, I think, onerous as may be the present burden on the county registrar, the fact is that we cannot afford to pay any more officers in the Circuit Court, and Deputy Moran and the solicitor's profession will have to wait in patience for whatever reforms they want. The people are not able to bear any more expense in order to provide a more efficient service in the Circuit Court. The only effect of an attempt to get a more efficient service in the Circuit Court, by raising costs there, will be to deny justice to people altogether, because they will not be able to afford to go into court at all. I ask Deputies to bear in mind that we are coming very near that position now. I know many people in rural Ireland whose smouldering differences might be properly resolved, and good feeling restored, if the cause of the difference between them was brought before an impartial court and there finally determined and disposed of. But they will not, and cannot, go to court, because the costs are too high. Do not raise them any higher. No consideration conceivable, from the point of view of efficiency, would justify such a course.

Deputy Moran has expressed his regret that Circuit Court officers are not dealt with more comprehensively in this Bill. I want to say a word on the same lines as those adopted by Deputy Moran in respect of District Court clerks. I regret that, when the Minister drafted the Court Officers Bill, he did not avail of this opportunity to deal generously with the position of the District Court clerks. I think he is familiar with their circumstances, and that he will recall that not a few of them were old Petty Sessions clerks who had pension rights. When this State came into being, it was not at all easy, in many of the remoter districts, to get the reliable man who was required to function as a District Court clerk in our courts, and hence in many cases these old Petty Sessions clerks were asked to take the job. They were very glad to get the job, and at the same time the State was very glad to avail of their services. I have no doubt that many respectable men who functioned in the Sinn Féin courts stepped forward and were put in the position of District Court clerks, and that others entered the service de novo. We had then the difficulty that most of those men were receiving remuneration for the limited work they did. It was insufficient to provide an income for a married man and his family, but there was a tacit understanding that, as they were only part-time officers, they would be free to take up insurance agencies and other jobs of that kind. But the necessity of supplementing their income from other sources of that kind made it impossible for them to consider the conditions attendant on establishment, because if they became established officers they would be liable to be transferred to any part of the country and were they transferred from the places where they originally got the job of District Court clerk they would be turning away from all the ancillary jobs which contributed to the total income they now enjoy. The fact is that many of those men are now approaching pension age and have no pension rights at all, so that on reaching the age of 60 or 70 years they will be thrown on the waves of the world with nothing.

I fully sympathise with the Minister in his difficulty in respect of unestablished officers. He finds himself in the great difficulty that if he were to concede in principle that unestablished officers were to get pensions applications would pour in from every branch of the service where an analogous position obtains. I would, therefore, suggest to him that he might consider whether those officers who were appointed after the establishment of the courts at the very beginning, or a year or two after the courts were first established, should be given special consideration. I think there was some kind of an implied—I will not say expressed—undertaking that they would receive special consideration. The Minister, having provided for them as an exceptional class, should then consider whether he would not resolve to amalgamate court districts, so that for the future when a man was appointed to the position of a District Court clerk he would know that he would be an established officer—that he would be in the position of a pensioned fulltime man. That man might, under an amalgamation scheme, have three or four court districts, and would be entitled to his pension the same as any other civil servant. He would be liable, however, to transfer to whatever area the Minister might assign to him. The position has been reached at present where you have a number of men approaching the pension age and where no provision whatever has been made for them. The number is microscopic, although that very fact often tends to make this House ignore their position on the ground that there are very few of them. I beg the House to remember, and remembering, I have no doubt they will sympathise with the case that I am making, that the right to a pension in the case of one of these District Court clerks means all the world to his wife and family. If they had been accustomed to hold their heads high, to keep a nice home, to educate their children and so forth, by stretching a very exiguous income to its limit, and then suddenly find that on the father reaching the retiring age a very essential part of their income drops away, with nothing to take its place, they may be reduced from a condition of modest affluence to one of extreme indigency. I am thinking of these few individual cases. I do not think that the representation they have made to the Minister has been by any means unsympathetically received, but the time has come when something ought to be done, and I invite the Minister to avail of the occasion of this Bill to do in their regard what Deputy Moran has asked to be done in regard to the officers of the Circuit Court.

Mr. Coogan

I support Deputy Dillon in his plea for the District Court clerks who have been retired from the service, or who are about to be retired. Many of them came into the service in middle life. In fact, some of them were past middle life. Some of them had been previously engaged either as Petty Sessions clerks or as parish or District Court clerks under the Republican régime. I know of cases in my own constituency of men who suffered long terms of imprisonment because of their services during that period and who are now in a state of destitution. I know that the Minister has received representations from the District Court Clerks' Association, and that he is personally sympathetic. I believe the trouble is with the Minister for Finance. I would ask him again to make a special plea with the Minister for Finance in those cases of hardship. They are not very numerous, but I can assure the Minister that there are some shocking cases of hardship, especially of men who are over 70 years of age. I know of one man who acted as a clerk in the district republican court who suffered a long term of imprisonment. That man is in a state of destitution to-day if he has not gone to the county home. Cases of that kind should have been brought within the terms of this Bill. They are not very numerous, and it would not cost the State very much to give them a reasonable pension that would keep them out of the county homes.

Another class of officer to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention is the court summons servers. They are part-time officers, but the salaries paid them in present conditions are entirely inadequate. In addition, the fees are now out of proportion to the depreciated value of money, so much so that it is almost impossible in certain areas to get the right type of person to come forward to act as summons server. In certain counties we had the position that no summons server was available. Many of these men served in the Old I.R.A. and have very small means and, for that reason, I ask the Minister, if possible, to try to bring these officers within the terms of the Bill. If he cannot find it possible to increase the salaries, perhaps he would consider some slight increase in the fees which they earn by serving summonses and writs. I cannot agree with Deputy Moran that the office of sheriff should be restricted to the solicitor's profession. I do not think the Deputy intended that when he began to speak. He stated that he was concerned to cut out managing clerks or assistant under-sheriffs, but when he developed his argument it was entirely in favour of making the position a closed borough for the solicitor's profession, cutting out even the barrister's profession. I do not think that was the Deputy's original intention. If it was, he did not advance any argument for excluding barristers any more than excluding managing clerks. I should not like to see the Minister's hands tied by a provision of that kind. I think he should have wide discretion. As Deputy Costello pointed out, the position is one that requires a person of high character and integrity and, for that reason, it is essential that he should have the widest discretion in appointing sheriffs or in selecting candidates for the office. Now that the opportunity occurs I ask the Minister, if possible to review the position of District Court clerks, particularly the cases of men who gave sterling service to the State in the Republican courts, many of whom are in a state of destitution, and also the position of summons servers.

Mr. J.S. O'Connor

I am sorry that the Minister seeks to take control of the central office from the Master. I consider that the Master, who is daily in constant touch with every detail of court procedure, is the person best qualified to be in charge of the central office and I trust that under this section, if passed, the Minister will not make any Order transferring the control of that office. I always considered that the Master should have increased powers and jurisdiction. The original intention when setting up the office was that the Master should deal with all ex parte applications, matters dealing with procedure, and matters not contested, so as to save time and leave the judges their full time to deal with major issues. That position has been departed from, because several orders made by the Master were set aside on the grounds that his jurisdiction was not sufficient to make such orders. I consider that the Minister should seek to restore to the Master the jurisdiction that it was originally intended he should have. Such a step would result in the speeding-up of procedure in the High Court. I welcome the provision of pensions for county registrars, and I suggest to the Minister that he should allow county registrars to remain in office until they reach the age of 70. That is the position with regard to judges in the High Courts and Circuit Courts and, if it is considered that judges may continue their duties until they reach 70 years, I can see no reason why the same should not apply to county registrars.

With regard to the section dealing with the Examiner's Office, I always considered that there should be two Examiners for the High Court. The Department of Finance always thought otherwise, and appears to consider every proposal connected with the courts to be extravagant, and that certain offices were not necessary at all. We may commend the zeal of the Department of Finance on behalf of the taxpayers, but they are not qualified to decide whether an officer of the court is or is not necessary. In Section 7 the Minister has the right, after consultation with the President of the High Court, to appoint a second Examiner, but that is qualified by the words "with the consent of the Minister for Finance".

I suggest that the Minister should take the latter words out of the section. The Minister is asked to consult the President of the High Court but he must get the consent of the Minister for Finance. If the position were reversed I would approve of it. I would have it that the Minister should consult the Minister for Finance, and ask the consent of the President of the High Court. If the President of the High Court and the Minister considered that there should be a second examiner, there should be no question whatever of having to obtain the consent of the Minister for Finance. There is only one High Court in this country. It is not as if there were several officers of the same kind, and the amount of money involved is not so great that the Minister for Finance should be allowed to have a veto as to whether an appointment should or should not be made. I suggest that there should be two examiners.

I consider that the whole procedure on what is called the chancery side of the High Court, dealing with the winding up of estates, companies, trusts and matters of that kind, is wholly out of date, being too slow and too cumbersome. The greatest injustice is caused, notably by the delays that occur. I am sorry to have to say it, but a good deal of delay is due to solicitors. Very often several solicitors are engaged in these cases. If one solicitor causes delay the others do not like to take steps to hurry him up. I suggest that the Examiner should be given authority to intervene in a case where he thinks there is delay, and to take whatever steps he considers necessary for the purpose of speeding up the proceedings. With regard to the office of sheriff, I agree with the suggestion of Deputy Moran that clause (c) of the section should be deleted from the Bill. I consider that the office of sheriff needs a qualified lawyer, either a solicitor or a barrister. I do not think the Minister will ever find the proper type of sheriff amongst assistants to under-sheriffs. I do not know of any under-sheriffs who keep managing assistants. The only assistant I knew them to keep was a court messenger. I consider that the Minister might take that clause out of the Bill.

The office of sheriff should be confined either to a barrister or solicitor with five years' practice. Again, I would say that the procedure for collection of debts needs stringent overhaul. For that reason, I am in favour of the provision that the office of sheriff be held at the will and pleasure of the Government. It is necessary that the Minister should have complete control over the sheriffs so as to ensure that they carry out their duties properly regarding the collection of debts. It too often happens, particularly in my experience, that a decree is given to the sheriff, the sheriff's messenger goes to the house of the debtor and, if he is good enough to take him cut and give him a few drinks in the local public-house or give him a little present, the decree is marked nulla bona and handed back to the solicitor. That is all you can do about it. There are too many cases in which the sheriff fails to collect debts where the debtor concerned has goods. For that reason, I am in favour of the Minister having absolute control over the sheriff.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Costello hoped that it was not for reasons of a passing nature that the provision regarding the duties of the Master was introduced. I can assure him that the reasons are not of a passing nature. A man might be an excellent barrister and, as such, qualified for the office of Master, but he might have no experience of administrative work. He would require to know all about Civil Service procedure, and it is not desirable, we think, that a man who is appointed because of his special qualifications as a barrister should be asked to discharge duties of which he has had no experience and for which he had no training. Therefore, we intend to relieve the Master of those administrative duties. That is being done after a great deal of consideration and it is not due to reasons of a passing nature. Deputy O'Connor wanted us to extend his functions, but I do not think we could do that. As regards the appointment of a second Examiner and the mention of the Minister for Finance in that connection, the Minister for Finance is responsible for the entire Civil Service. Every Minister has to consult him regarding staff matters and it would not be right or proper that his consent should not be required for such appointments. So far as this question of the examiner is concerned, he intends to agree to the proposal, but we have to get his formal consent. That is a thing which, I think, will be insisted upon by every Government.

As regards the sheriffs' work, I understand that, with the exception of Dublin and Cork, the county registrars have not found the extra work which came to them when the under-sheriff passed out of office too onerous. As Deputies are aware, there was no way of continuing the office of under-sheriff. Once the under-sheriff went out of office, all his duties devolved on the registrar and, in the County and City of Dublin and Cork, it is or would be practically impossible for the county registrar to discharge both duties. Therefore, this Bill was necessary to enable sheriffs to be appointed, where necessary. As regards the probate question raised by Deputy Moran, we have had no complaints that that has involved very much extra work for the county registrar. It is not the opinion of the Department that it has involved a great deal of extra work. We think that the work is being done satisfactorily and that it is not necessary to provide separate officers to carry out the duties.

I agree with Deputy Dillon as regards those who should be eligible for appointment as sheriffs. If there are any persons of the type mentioned, there should not be any question about appointing them. If there happens to be in the office of the sheriff some experienced clerk, it would be a pity not to give the appointment to him, because he might be much better at the work than a solicitor with only a few years experience. We are taking power to do that, if necessary. I should not be prepared to deprive the Government of that power and to change the Bill in that respect. As regards the phrase "will and pleasure", that is common form. In the Court Officers Act, 1926, it is set out that the county registrar "holds office at the pleasure of the Executive Council." The Minister must have control. He will not interfere unnecessarily but, if the officer is not doing his duty, there must be some way either of compelling him to do it or of getting rid of him. I do not think that anybody will deny the necessity for that power. We hope that it will not be necessary to use it. The intention is that the office of sheriff will be part-time. The occupant of the office will be paid partly from remuneration provided by the Government and partly by fees. The salary has not yet been fixed. A solicitor who gets the appointment can carry on his ordinary work in addition to the work of sheriff.

As regards pensions for the clerks, that question is under consideration and we are doing all we can in the matter. I was unable to get a solution of the question in time for this Bill. I do not know whether or not it will be necessary to introduce legislation to provide pensions for persons who were not previously pensionable. However, consideration of the matter is being expedited and I hope we shall be able to do something for the persons concerned. We have, of course, to get the consent of the Minister for Finance. He has to be very careful in these matters because, if he concedes a particular type of demand, all sorts of demands from persons in similar positions may follow. The question was not settled in time for this Bill, which is more or less urgent, but I am doing all I can in the matter. Deputy Dillon suggested that we should amalgamate adjoining court areas where there are part-time court clerks. That is being done wherever practicable so as to permit of a worth-while salary being paid to those officers. In a number of cases recently, that has been done but it is not always practicable. As Deputy Dillon pointed out, many of those clerks do other work and it is merely part-time employment.

As regards the fees of summons servers, if we were to raise the fees, it might create trouble from another angle. I shall have that question inquired into, but I do not think that very much hardship is involved. Most of the points raised are points which could be better dealt with on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for next Tuesday, 29th May, 1945.