Vol. 106 No. 14
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (3), line 19, to delete the word and figure "Part IV" and substitute the words and figures "Parts IV and V".
This is purely a drafting amendment. By an oversight, no provision was made in Section 2 for a commencing date for Part V of the Bill.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To delete sub-section (2).
This proposes to delete the provision in this section that the President of the Circuit Court shall be an ex officio High Court judge. During the course of the Second Reading debate on this measure, I gave in detail my reasons, which were reasons in principle, for my objection to the proposal to make the President of the Circuit Court a High Court judge. It seems to me that the whole scheme of the courts of justice code is to keep the various divisions of the judicial system in separate compartments. That scheme has its roots in and is derived from the Constitution itself—the 1922 Constitution, followed as it was by the present Constitution. I endeavoured, during the course of the remarks I made on the Second Reading, to make it perfectly clear that my objection was one in principle and not to any particular person who might or might not be appointed to the position.
It is highly undesirable that the President of the Circuit Court should be in the position that he can be called upon to be a journeyman in the High Court. I think he will have a position of dignity and influence as the president of the court to which he has been appointed, namely, the Circuit Court. The system in this country, as I understand it, consists, under the Constitution, of courts which will have full original jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. These courts are known as the High Court and I emphasise that the provisions in the Constitution from which this courts judicial system is derived speak of that court, which has full original jurisdiction, as the High Court. It is one court—the High Court. From that High Court, there is an appeal to the ultimate tribunal in this country, the final court of appeal, the Supreme Court. It is again referred to as the Supreme Court, emphasising that it is one separate, self-contained judicial entity.
The Constitution then provides that, in addition to these two divisions of the judicial system, two of the superior divisions of the courts, there shall be courts of local and limited jurisdiction. The Circuit Court is one of these courts of limited and local jurisdiction and the District Court is the other Again, it will be observed that the idea running through the whole system is carried into the Circuit Court, which is referred to as the Circuit Court. It is not referred to as Circuit Courts—the Circuit Court of the City of Dublin, of the City of Cork or of this, that or the other. It is the Circuit Court. Similarly, the District Court, with justices sitting in various parts of the country, is referred to not as a series of courts but as one court.
The whole fundamental idea traceable from the Constitution is that each of these tribunals should be one court —the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court. It is, in my submission, contrary to principle, and, I would venture to say, contrary to what was envisaged in the Constitution, that there should be such a mongrel system, as is proposed in this Bill, that the head of the Circuit Court should be a member of the High Court. These arguments are based upon a consideration of the judicial system as it exists to-day and the provisions of the Constitution.
I adverted to some of the extraordinary consequences which might ensue from the present proposals. I drew attention to the fact that this President of the Circuit Court, sitting as a journeyman High Court judge, would be entitled to hear appeals from his colleagues. In accordance with the comity of the courts as given effect to in the past 22 years during which our own judicial system has been in operation, each of the Circuit Court judges followed any decision on similar facts or laying down the law given in a previous case by one of his colleagues. Now we will have the system that one of the circuit judges, the chief of the circuit judges, may find himself hearing an appeal from a judge of the Circuit Court who gave a judgment following a previous decision given by the President of the Circuit Court, and considering whether or not he will reverse the judgment he has given, and which has been followed by his own colleagues.
It is fatuous and useless for the Minister to say, as he said in his reply on Second Reading, that this President of the Circuit Court will not be used to hear Circuit Court appeals. What authority has the Minister to say that? What authority has the Minister to bind future judges in the conduct of their proceedings? What right has he to say that the President of the High Court will not use this judge at any time in the future? What control has he over him? Maybe the Minister thinks he will not be used. The very fact that he says he will not be used is itself a condemnation of this proposal.
I object, too, to the second so-called argument of the Minister in favour of this proposal, that it may happen that some of the High Court judges may become ill and that it would require legislation to appoint a substitute. The system has been in operation for 23 years and no occasion has arisen for the appointment of a deputy High Court judge to deal with the case of a High Court judge being ill. It is to be assumed, and I think it is a fact, that the High Court judges as constituted at the moment are capable of performing and do perform their duties, and that the business of the High Court is reasonably up-to-date, and can certainly be kept fully up-to-date by a little adjustment of certain sittings. I find, therefore, on a perusal of the Minister's reply to the arguments I advanced on Second Reading, that he has given no justification whatever for this proposal. I am perfectly prepared to accord and will accord during my professional time homage to the dignity of the position of President of the Circuit Court and to the person who holds that office, irrespective of who he may be, but I think it would be more in accordance with that dignity that he should be a colleague among colleagues, that he should be primus inter pares rather than a High Court judge masquerading as a circuit judge or a circuit judge masquerading as a High Court judge.
I have been unable to find any reason in principle for this proposal. It was not without serious consideration that I made the objection I did make on Second Reading. I felt that anything I would say in opposition to this proposal might be subject to serious misunderstanding, but I felt an impelling sense of duty to oppose the measure and to draw the Minister's attention to the consequences of the proposal. Not having obtained any reason, and receiving no argument from the Minister as to why this proposal should be accepted, or as to why it was conceived, I felt compelled to put down this amendment to the section, in spite of my personal dislike of having to repeat the arguments I have had to repeat here to-night. I urge upon those Deputies who have no particular knowledge of, or intimacy with, the working of the courts to ponder upon the arguments I have advanced. They are advanced in a mood of extreme seriousness and with every sense of responsibility. I am unable now, after the lapse of time since the Second Reading debate, to see any reason in principle, or even in expediency, for the proposals contained in the Bill, and I urge the Minister to withdraw them.
On the Second Reading of this Bill I stated that I agreed with my friend, Deputy Costello, on this matter of making the President of the Circuit Court an ex officio judge of the High Court, and I am still in agreement with him. My reason was that I feared the President of the Circuit Court might be called upon too often by the judges of the High Court to help them in their work and that his duties in regard to the Circuit Court might be neglected accordingly. The main object of this Bill is to improve the working and administration of the Circuit Court. The Minister and his officials have more experience of the working of the courts from the inside than anyone outside the Minister and his Department could possibly have. I would prefer that the Minister would leave this provision out of the Bill, because I think that the President of the Circuit Court can be just as effective in regard to the Circuit Court without being an ex officio judge of the High Court. I do not think it would be derogatory to the High Court if the provision is left in the Bill, but I would prefer to have it taken out.
If the Minister is satisfied that, for the attainment of his purpose of improving the working of the Circuit Court, he should have this provision, then I would be prepared to withdraw my objection to it. The Minister will take the responsibility. None of these Acts are permanent, and, if any consequences ensue which are not desirable, the Minister can always come to the House with an amending Bill. I do not think that the matter is of such grave importance as to justify a difference in the House and, accordingly, if the Minister still considers that it is desirable to have this provision I will be prepared to withdraw my objection to it.
I do not intend to accept this amendment. This provision was put in the Bill after considerable thought. We were most anxious to uphold the prestige and status of the President of the Circuit Court. We also had the matter looked into from the point of view of the Constitution. Somebody may have to decide whether it is in conflict with the Constitution, but I am advised that it is not in conflict, with it. The Courts of First Instance are referred to in Article 34 (3) of the Constitution, which states that these courts shall include the High Court and, lower down, that they shall also include courts of local and limited jurisdiction with the right of appeal as determined by law. They are linked together. The appellate court has a special paragraph to itself which says that the Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court. In that way, it seems to me that there is just as much, and more, reason to mix the Courts of First Instance as there is for the present arrangement between the High Court and the Supreme Court. As Deputy Costello is aware, appeals from High Court judges are heard by other High Court judges. If it should happen that the President of the Circuit Court should hear an appeal from the Circuit Court, it would be no different from what is happening now when High Court judges hear appeals from another High Court judge. The whole idea was to give status and prestige to this new office.
It was not the intention, and it is not the intention now, that the President of the Circuit Court should sit regularly in the High Court. Apparently there was an idea in the mind of the Deputy that we intended, as a sort of cheap arrangement, to send the President of the Circuit Court into the High Court and not fill the vacancy then existing. That was never the intention. The fact is that he may be called on, but it is not anticipated that he will be called on very often. The President of the High Court will use his own discretion as to how often he will ask the President of the Circuit Court to take part in the proceedings of the High Court. It is not anticipated, however, that it will happen often. If it should happen that a High Court judge is ill for any length of time and arrears accumulate, it may be convenient to have the President of the Circuit Court available to assist. The main object of this provision is to add to the status and the prestige of the President of the Circuit Court. For that reason, I am not going, by accepting the amendment, to appear to lower that standard.
I want to make one or two observations on the Minister's so-called reply. I am quite unable to understand even yet why the proposal has been inserted. The only reason I could extract from the Minister's observations is that it is to improve the status of the President of the Circuit Court. What is the necessity for that? It does not require any additional improvement. He is president of his own court and takes precedence of the other members of his court. He has very wide powers under the Bill, which must be, in accordance with the law if this is enacted, carried out by his own fellow judges. What is the necessity for putting anything extra by way of dignity upon him? I fail to see why there should be any encroachment upon what has so far been the operative principles in connection with the judicial architecture.
It is of no importance to the Minister or his Department that the Bar Council have expressed disapproval of this particular measure. I was not present at the meeting, so that it cannot be said that I put it across them. That is at least an expression of opinion by those from whom the members of the Circuit Court are drawn that it is not proper that there should be this connection or any relationship between the Circuit Court and the High Court. So far as I know, there was no consultation between the Bar Council and the Department of Justice, or between the Incorporated Law Society and the Department of Justice. I do not know where the proposal came from. I fail to see how it adds any dignity or prestige to the office. I fail to see that there is any analogy with the case where, in very exceptional circumstances, a member of the High Court has occasionally to sit in the Supreme Court, because a Supreme Court judge is ill or happens to have some personal interest in the subject matter of the litigation before the court.
It was stated by some Deputy on the last occasion that the President of the High Court is a member of the Supreme Court, that he is second in precedence in the judicial system of the Supreme Court and the High Court. That was probably due to a false analogy with the old system when there was a Lord Chancellor and a Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor being first in precedence and the Lord Chief Justice second. It now appears that the only reason for this proposal is that there should be some enhanced prestige given to the President of the Circuit Court. I refuse to accept that as the reason, and I believe we are not getting the proper reason for this proposal. If it is the proper reason, then it is not a good reason.
Deputy O'Connor supported my objections during the Second Reading of this Bill and gave as one of his reasons that the President of the Circuit Court might be brought into the High Court too often. He stated he would withdraw his objection if the Minister assured him that the idea behind the proposal was to secure the better working of the Circuit Court. The Minister has not given him that assurance. There is nothing necessarily involved in the President of the Circuit Court being a High Court judge and seeing that the work of the Circuit Court is properly carried out. I based none of my objections to this proposal on the Second Reading on the suggestion that the vacancy which then existed in the High Court would not be filled. I had no such reason at the back of my mind, nor did I state it specifically, so far as I recollect it, as part of my objection to this proposal. I believed that vacancy would be filled and I would certainly be surprised if I had made any suggestion, expressly or by implication, that that was one of the reasons for this proposal. I did not think it was, and I do not think so now. I am reducing, one by one, every suggestion or alleged reason for this proposal. I can find none.
I would urge the Minister for Justice favourably to consider this matter. The Bill sets out that the President of the Circuit Court will have certain functions to perform; it does not require that he should be made a High Court judge. What is provided in the Bill, I respectfully suggest to the Minister, is quite enough without giving him the status of a High Court judge.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (3), to insert at the end thereof the words "and shall take precedence over all other circuit judges".
Section 38 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, provides that the judges of the Circuit Court shall rank among themselves according to priority of appointment. It might not happen that the president would be the senior by appointment and we want to make quite clear, by adding those words, that he shall take precedence over the other circuit judges.
I want to make clear the reason I am objecting to this. It is because the Minister has insisted on the continued inclusion of the proposal to which I objected, and for no other reason.
Amendment No. 4 has been ruled out of order.
Are we entitled to ask the reason for that ruling?
Because it introduces an element outside the scope of the Bill as accepted on the Second Reading.
Not in regard to the Title, which says:
"An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1946."
Is the Deputy entitled to question the ruling of the Chair?
I merely asked a question.
The Deputy is entitled to ask the question. The Chair has ruled on the amendment.
If it had not been ruled out of order, I would have put in amendments suggesting that barristers should be appointed county registrars, and other matters of that kind, and perhaps the Deputy will now appreciate why it was ruled out of order.
Question agreed to.
In connection with this section, I want to express regret that the Minister has not seen his way to include within the scope of the Bill those district justices who retired within the past few years. The position, as I understand it, at the moment is that there are not more than three district justices who retired within recent years. Their pensions were, of course, fixed on the salaries which were then in existence and they will not get the benefit of the increases in salaries which it is proposed to give to district justices under this Bill.
We all know and appreciate the reasons, while perhaps not agreeing with them—sometimes very definitely disagreeing with them—why, in the past six or seven years, no increases were allowed to meet the cost of living in various positions. For reasons which appear now to be adequate, it is felt by the Government that the salaries of district justices should be increased fairly substantially. But those district justices, who had the misfortune to have retired some short time before this Bill comes into operation, will have to live the rest of their lives, be it long or short, on a wholly inadequate pension; inadequate, having regard to the salaries of district justices now proposed, and wholly inadequate to meet the rise in the cost of living. I earnestly urge upon the Minister to endeavour to meet those cases. The actual cost would be negligible. The length of time during which that cost will be borne by the taxpayers will not be very long. These district justices have reached an age at which it was deemed they should retire.
In all human probability they will not draw their pensions for any period such as would impose any great hardship on the taxpayer. At all events there are, I think, only three cases, and I do respectfully urge on the Minister for Justice that they should be brought in some way within the scope of this measure. It will be appreciated that it was not possible for a private Deputy to put down anything by way of an amendment to this Bill to raise that point. I can raise it only on the section, but I do ask for the support of all Deputies in the House for the claims of these three persons on the grounds of ordinary justice and fair play. I do think that the Minister should use his influence with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to meet those few cases. The cost will be negligible, but if their claims are ignored that injustice will continue for the rest of their lives to the detriment of themselves and their families.
I beg to support Deputy Costello's plea. I think there have been some cases of considerable hardship in regard to district justices who retired shortly before the amending regulations in regard to pensions were brought in. The same applies to county registrars. There is only a very limited number. They have gone a few years over the age for retirement, so that the burden on the State would be very slight. I suggest that the Minister might consider these cases and treat them in the same way as he proposes to treat a case in which the district justice has passed away, where he is giving the benefit of the increased allowance to the personal representative.
This section makes provision to give pensions to district justices on the same basis as to county registrars. We have also made provision for two deceased justices who elected for the judicial terms. The matter raised by Deputy Costello, in which he was supported by Deputy O'Connor, is a different matter altogether. If the Minister for Finance proposes to do anything for other public servants who have retired during the emergency, I shall ask him if he can do anything in the matter of the district justices. That, however, would have to apply to every class. I do not think we could segregate one class from the others. What he will do I cannot say, but it would not be a matter for this Bill. If it is going to be done it will have to be done in connection with the more general question. I think the matter is under consideration at the moment in connection with the claims of civil servants and other public servants who retired during the emergency. I cannot make any promise. The only thing I can do is to ask the Minister for Finance to look into the claims of these men. I think we have treated the justices fairly well in this particular section.
It is no consolation to the people who are not being brought within the scope of the Bill to know that the widow of a deceased colleague, one person, is being given a measure of justice. I think there is only one so far——
There are two.
Possibly two. The Minister knows more about it than I do. It was felt that in the case of a district justice who dies, an amendment of the Bill should be made, so as to enable his widow to get a year's salary where her husband had died in office. I see no reason why a similar measure of justice should not be given to those justices who have survived and whose pensions are based on salaries which were not increased. It is no consolation to them to know that at some future time the Minister for Finance may introduce a Bill dealing with the claims of somebody else. It is highly probable that they will be dead before that time, but on this occasion the Minister has an opportunity to do justice by these people. To the best of my knowledge— the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—there is in existence at the present time only one Circuit Court judge who has retired and who gets the benefit of this Bill.
I think there are two.
I am informed that there are two—one a Supreme Court judge and one a Circuit Court judge. The Minister states that the time to deal with the claims of justices is when a Bill dealing with civil servants is introduced.
Public servants generally.
It would be a very peculiar thing to find bracketed with Post Office employees and other people of that kind, provisions relating to deceased judges and retired members of the Bench. This is the time to do it; this is the appropriate occasion. If there is a provision in the Bill giving a year's salary to the widow of a deceased district justice, the same measure of justice should be given to the widow of a Chief Justice, if it is thought appropriate. Whether that may be so or not, I am only asking that justice should be given to the three or four justices—I think on consideration there are four district justices—who have retired recently. The outside number that would be affected by the proposal I make is four. The amount involved would be very small indeed and the expenditure will last for only a very short time.
I think that between now and the Report Stage of the Bill the Minister ought to consider the proposals I make to him. May I mention that I should have spoken on an earlier section of the Bill on which I intended to ask the Minister to reconsider the proposal regarding the salaries of district justices generally? It is a matter I intend to raise on the Report Stage. At present I ask for a measure of justice for these four men, who because of the accidental circumstance that they retired a short time before this Bill comes into operation, get a smaller pension than they would otherwise get while a particular judge, who in fact retired before this Bill, is brought within the scope of the Bill by a special section. I do not think there is any reason in fairness for that distinction. I approve of the proposal that the judge who retired before the Bill was introduced should get the benefit of the Bill but if one ex-judge gets it, I think these four other puisne judges, or district justices, who did Protean work in the early days of this State should get the same treatment. These were men who blazed the trail in the early days of the State, who inspired into the hearts of the people an affection for the Irish courts which the State set up in 1924, and who created respect for the law administered by these courts. These are men who have been in the service since 1924 and it would be a terrible injustice that they should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill which proposes that a judge who retired some months ago should get the benefit of the new salary arrangements for pensions purposes. I heartily approve of that proposal but there is no reason why these four men should not also be given the benefit of the proposal.
The reason for this amendment was that there were about 22 cases of district justices dealt with in Section 18 some of whom opted for judicial terms and we are giving them the right now to postpone their election until they are about to retire. It was because two justices died while in office and were not provided for in this section that I brought in the amendment. So, although the amendment deals with only two cases, I would like Deputies to bear in mind that there are about 22 dealt with under this section. I want to make that clear.
That is perfectly clear.
Other Deputies might not understand.
It is quite relevant to the remarks I make.
I want that understood.
It is perfectly understood. Nobody misunderstood it or said anything about it but it has nothing to do with the four gentlemen——
I know that.
——Who are not having their pensions calculated or reassessed on the basis of the increases contemplated in this Bill——.
That is a different matter.
——while there is one Circuit Court judge who retired before this Bill was introduced and who by virtue of a special sub-section, is getting a pension on the basis of this Bill. I do not begrudge him that; I approve of it; but I want to know why it is that these four gentlemen should be differentiated from this single individual.
There is one Circuit Court judge who retired after the date laid down. That is why he is included.
What is the date?
1st April.
And when was this Bill introduced?
At the beginning of the financial year.
Yes, but it was introduced after he had retired. Is not that correct?
Yes.
That is what I am asking. This Bill deals with one man who retired before the Bill was introduced. I am approving of that, but I want to know——
I think that is wrong. It was March, I believe, we introduced the Bill but it was not circulated.
It was not circulated until after this gentleman had retired.
It was not circulated.
Therefore, the remarks I am making apply, that it required a special section of the Bill to bring him within it. I want to make it clear—I have said it several times and at the risk of repeating myself I say again— that I approve of it, but why should not these four other gentlemen also be brought in?
Because they retired before the 1st April. If they had been lucky enough to retire after the 1st April they would have been included.
And they are excluded because the 1st April is put in. Is there any principle or justice in that?
Fair enough.
Unfair enough.
May I remind the Minister that I understood him to say he is considering at the present time reviewing the pensions of officers and members of the Garda who retired during the emergency?
That is not in the Bill.
I quite understand. I want to make the point that he has already established the precedent by reviewing the pensions of retired officers and members of the Garda. I understood him to say recently in the House that officers and men who were retired during the recent years of the emergency would have their pension claims reviewed.
That does not arise under this Bill.
It is a precedent for the case Deputy Costello has made.
He is dealing with justices.
I quite understand.
I am showing it has been done before and can be done now.
The Minister has said that the cases of other public servants are being reviewed in the manner in which Deputy Costello is putting to the Minister he should include these four gentlemen. I am putting it to the Minister now that he is actually considering reviewing the pensions of officers and members of the Garda who retired during the emergency and that he has at least a precedent to go on for the inclusion in this measure of the four gentlemen who have retired. I want to say, in regard to these four gentlemen, that they are men who gave very long service in the office of district justice. I have known some of these gentlemen in the very early days of the Garda to spend their nights and their leisure time in the various Garda stations in the area coaching the members of the Garda in police duties. I have found these men everywhere devoting themselves to the work of training our police when we had to send police raw and untrained out into the country and I would ask, in virtue of their long and faithful service, that the Minister would now see fit to include them. I think it is unfair to ask them to await the general review of the position of State servants who may have retired during the emergency. The opportunity is there now for the Minister and I would urge him to avail of it.
May I inquire through you, Sir, of Deputy Coogan if I understood him correctly? He states that he recollects the days when the justices he refers to, in the early days of the Garda Síochána, called to the various police stations and coached the Guards in their duties?
Yes.
I never heard of cases of justices coaching Guards before. I am amazed to hear it now.
Deputy Flanagan is probably too young to remember 1922 and 1923. He must bear in mind that we had to take men untrained and put them into police uniform and put them out into the country. These justices lent their services to us.
Section agreed to.
Is the Minister not going to consider it?
I think I have said all I can say on that matter. I know it is very hard to satisfy Deputy Costello. I have said all I can on the matter.
It is not a matter of satisfying me. I have no personal interest in these four gentlemen whatever.
I am sure the Deputy has not.
I find it difficult even to remember their names. I cannot recall having spoken to one of them ever in my life. I certainly have not spoken to another for 20 years and I really cannot remember ever having spoken to the other two. But I do put it forward as a measure of justice and that is the reason why I am so persistent in this matter and I think we have considerable support from all sections of the House on it. If the Minister would put that to the Minister for Finance before the Report Stage to cover up what I may call the sole remaining blot in this Bill in reference to pensioning district justices, I think his hand would be greatly strengthened with the Minister for Finance in a small case of this kind where no precedent is created, where, as Deputy Coogan has said, there is a precedent and where justice will be done at very small expense to the taxpayer, such small expense as to be completely negligible —a couple of hundred a year.
Amendment No. 8.
Section 18 has not been put yet.
I will put it again to satisfy the Deputy. I put it and declared it agreed. Is Section 18 agreed?
No. I object to it for that reason, that this is not in it.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before the Schedule, but in existing Part V, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Every pension granted under the Acts to a justice of the District Court and every award under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1946, granted, by virtue of the Acts, to or in respect of a justice of the District Court shall be charged on and payable out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.
(2) In this section, the expression "the Acts" means the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1946, and this Act.
This is to consolidate and clarify the existing statutory position in relation to the charge on the Central Fund of district justices' pensions or any award, pension or gratuity made under the Superannuation Acts to justices or their legal personal representatives.
I move amendment No. 6:—
Before the Schedule, but in existing Part V, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Where—
(a) a justice (including an assistant justice) of the District Court, who held office at the date of the passing of the Act of 1936, did not exercise the election provided by sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act of 1936, and
(b) such justice died before the passing of this Act while holding office,
the Minister for Finance may pay to the legal personal representatives of such justice a gratuity equal to the amount of his annual salary at the date of his death.
(2) Every gratuity payable under this section shall be charged on and payable out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.
This is the amendment that makes provision for representatives of the two justices who died, who opted for the judicial terms and who, if they had survived would be in the same position as these other 22. We are making provision that their personal representatives may be paid the money they would have got—a year's salary in each case. There are two cases.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In Part I, in column (3), of the entry relating to the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, to insert before the expression "Section 40" the following: "In Section 37, all words from the words ‘the Minister' to the end of the section;".
This is merely a drafting amendment to correct an error in the text of the Bill as it stands.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In Part I, in column (3), of the entry relating to the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, to insert after the figures "22" the following: "sub-section (7) of Section 48".
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are consequential on amendment No. 5.
I move amendment No. 10:—
To insert at the end of Part I, the following:—
|
No. 21 of 1946 |
Courts of Justice (District Court) Act, 1946. |
Sub-section (2) of section 19 |
I move amendment No. 11:—
In Part II, to delete the whole of the entry relating to the Courts of Justice Act, 1924.
This amendment goes with amendment No. 8—to delete in Part II of the Schedule the whole of the entry relating to the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. The two amendments are merely drafting amendments the purpose of which is to correct an error in the text of the Bill as it stands.
I do not understand it. What is the meaning of the words "to delete the entry".
The entry to the Schedule. Look at Part II of the Schedule. As a corollary to Section 13 of the Bill, which gives the Government power to make an Order altering the composition of the circuits of the Circuit Court, it is proposed to repeal that portion of Section 37 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, which empowers the Minister for Justice, with the consent of the Chief Justice and the circuit judges concerned, to transfer a county from one circuit to another or otherwise to alter the areas of the circuits.
Section 13 is contained in Part IV, which will come into operation on the passing of the Act, and the appropriate place, therefore, for the repeal of the relevant portion of Section 37 of the 1924 Act is Part I of the Schedule. The effect of the two amendments is to transfer the relevant entry from Part II to Part I of the Schedule.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
Next Tuesday, the 17th June.
Will the Minister have time to consult with the Minister for Finance?
I will have time but I do not know how I will get on.
When the Minister is consulting with the Minister for Finance, will he bring to his notice proposals from all sides of the House for a flat rate of £1,500 a year for all district justices?
I have already done that. I may say that, in comparison with other public servants, they did well. They got 30 per cent. Others on a comparable salary did not get that much. I say that on the assumption that they were paid sufficient before. That is the way the Minister for Finance looked at it.
The Minister for Finance is in a generous mood this week.
Yes, he is.
Will the Minister get the Minister for Finance to agree that justices outside the City of Dublin will get the same as justices in the City of Dublin?
I will talk to him on the matter.
