Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 1949

Vol. 115 No. 4

Financial Resolutions. - Courts of Justice (District Court) Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (General MacEoin)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This short Bill proposes two changes in the existing law relating to district justices, one affecting the retiring age of justices and the other providing for an increase in the maximum number of justices that may be employed at any one time.

The present position as regards the retiring age of justices is that, under Section 15 of the Courts of Justice (District Court) Act, 1946, all justices must retire automatically on reaching the age of 65. The only exceptions to this rule are three of the Dublin metropolitan justices and the Cork City justice, whose right to remain on until 70 was preserved for them by Section 15 of the 1946 Act. There is also a provision in Section 47 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, which empowers the Government to extend the retiring age of a justice assigned to an Irish-speaking district, provided that the Government are satisfied that he is able to do the work of his courts through the medium of Irish and that he is not suffering from any disability which would render him unfit to continue to discharge the duties of his office.

In Section 2 of the Bill we are proposing to confer power on the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Minister for Justice, to continue a justice in office from year to year after he has reached the age of 65. The maximum period for which a justice may be so continued in office is five years. The justice must each year satisfy the Chief Justice that he (the justice) is not suffering from any disability which would render him unfit to continue to discharge efficiently the duties of his office. As a corollary, Section 47 of the 1936 Act, which I have just mentioned, is being repealed.

Views may differ as to the wisdom of keeping justices in office after they have reached the age of 65, which has been the normal retiring age for the general body of justices ever since our own system of courts was set up in 1924. I am fully alive to the fact that Section 15 of the 1946 Act, in so far as it reduced from 70 to 65 the retiring age of the Dublin and Cork justices (with, of course, the saving for the justices then in office in these two districts), reflected a policy with which it may be said the proposal now before the House is in conflict. The conflict may, however, be more apparent than real and in any event I do not think that the proposal in the Bill is to be condemned merely because it may appear to conflict with what was done in 1946. I may, indeed, recall that when the 1946 Act was under discussion in this House more than one Deputy expressed the view that it was a mistake to reduce the retiring age of the Dublin and Cork justices to 65, and some Deputies, in fact, urged that the retiring age for all justices should be 70. I do not subscribe entirely to that view myself. I think that it is better that the normal retiring age should be 65, but, having regard to the safeguards that are provided for in Section 2 of the Bill, I do not think that any valid or reasonable objection can be urged against the proposal in that section to enable the retiring age of any particular justice to be extended beyond 65.

I would invite the special attention of Deputies to the fact that, unlike Section 47 of the 1936 Act which conferred the power of extension on the Government, Section 2 of the Bill proposes to confer that power on the Chief Justice who is the titular head of the judiciary. I feel sure that there will be general agreement that this is an improvement. It will remove even the suggestion of any possibility of interference by the Executive with the independence guaranteed to the judiciary by the Constitution. If a justice, when he is about to reach the age of 65, is able to satisfy the Chief Justice that he is fit to continue to discharge the duties of his office and, year by year, during the next five years, is able to produce satisfactory evidence of this fact, I can see no reason why he should not be retained in office. From the State's point of view the pension of the justice is saved and the State, moreover, benefits by being able to retain the services of a skilled and experienced justice. The risk of loss to the State resulting from a serious and protracted illness is reduced to a minimum by the requirement that the justice must produce evidence annually as to his fitness to continue to discharge the duties of his office. The proposal has manifest advantages also, of course, from the justice's point of view. He will continue in gainful employment instead of being "put on the shelf" while still capable of doing the work of a justice and, in many cases, will be enabled to qualify for a higher pension. This is a consideration of some importance because many justices are appointed to office at 40 or over and they cannot hope to qualify for anything like full pension on retirement at 65. An extension of the period of office for five years will go far in such cases towards improving the superannuation prospects of the justices concerned.

I should perhaps say a word about the provision for consultation with the Minister for Justice. Such a provision is considered desirable because there may be circumstances affecting either the particular justice or the position generally in the District Court at the time of which the Minister for Justice might be aware and which it might be proper and desirable to bring to the notice of the Chief Justice before he decides to extend the period of office of the justice. I want to stress, however, that the Chief Justice is given a completely unfettered discretion in the matter and is not bound to act upon or accept any suggestions or representations that might be made to him by the Minister.

In the new circumstances there will no longer be any need for the provision in Section 47 of the 1936 Act which empowers the Government to extend the retiring age of justices in Irish-speaking districts. In fact, it would be altogether illogical and undesirable that there should be two separate authorities vested with the power to extend the retiring age of justices. Accordingly, the Bill provides, as I have already mentioned, for the repeal of Section 47 of the 1936 Act.

I turn now to the provisions in Section 3 of the Bill for an increase in the maximum number of district justices. Prior to the enactment of the Act of 1946 the position was that under Section 68 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, the number of district justices was limited to 33. The Courts of Justice Act, 1928, provided, however, for the appointment of not more than four assistant justices. The office of assistant justice was distinguished from the office of justice only in that the assistant justice was paid a smaller salary than a justice and was not permanently assigned to any particular district. In 1946 there were three assistant justices holding office. For several years before that temporary justices had been employed on an everincreasing scale, as many as seven or eight such justices being necessary at times. I do not think that I need dwell now on the reasons for this except, perhaps, to mention that the main reason was the extraordinary increase in the volume of business in the Dublin District Court, particularly in the war years. There appears to have been general agreement that the employment of temporary justices on so extensive a scale as had become necessary was most undesirable and open to serious objections, and I think I am correct in saying that one of the main objects of my predecessor in office in introducing the Act of 1946 was to get rid of the necessity for the continual employment of temporary justices. The Act of 1946 abolished the office of assistant justice and provided for an increase to 40 in the maximum number of justices. The three assistant justices in office at the time were appointed justices and permanently assigned to the Dublin metropolitan district where, in fact, they had been continuously employed for several years before that. The position then was that there were six justices permanently assigned to Dublin. Four new justices were then appointed, bringing the total number up to 40 as permitted by the new Act. The four additional justices were not permanently assigned to any district and were, in theory at all events, supposed to be available to be assigned, from time to time, to any district in which their services might be required. Hence they became known as "moveable" justices. It was recognised quite frankly at the time that the services of at least two of these justices would be required in Dublin for some time to come but it was thought, or, at any rate, hoped, that the four "moveable" justices, with, perhaps, occasional help from "temporaries," would suffice to meet all needs including the provision of reliefs for country justices as well as the extra help required in Dublin. In fact, two of the "moveable" justices have been employed continuously in Dublin ever since their appointment in the autumn of 1946 and a third "moveable" has been similarly tied down in that district for the last 15 months or so. The fourth "moveable" justice has been immobilised for more than half of his time in one of the districts adjacent to Dublin in which the volume of work for several years past has been far more than the permanently assigned justice could cope with.

In these circumstances it is not surprising to find that the hopes entertained at the time of the passing of the 1946 Act that it would be possible thereafter to do without temporary justices, except perhaps occasionally, were doomed to be very quickly disappointed. Except for a brief period last year, there has been since the 1st October, 1946, no time when we have not had at least one temporary justice operating and on occasions we have had as many as four, five or six. In the period from the 1st October, 1946, to the 31st March last, which covers two and a half years, temporary justices were employed to an extent which was the equivalent of more than two full-time justices. Present indications are that additional assistance to very much the same extent will continue to be required for a very considerable time to come.

I want at this stage to revert to the position in the Dublin metropolitan district. As I have explained, following the permanent assignment to that district of the three assistant justices on their appointment as justices in 1946, there were then six justices permanently assigned to that district. Two of the "moveable" justices, as I have also explained, have been employed continuously in that district for the last two and a half years, and the Government, when I recently brought the matter before them, decided that as these two justices were doing exactly the same work as the permanently assigned justices and that as there was no prospect of being able to do without their services in Dublin in the foreseeable future, they should now be given the status of Dublin metropolitan justices which would entitle them to the increased salary of £1,430 per annum as compared with £1,300 per annum. In pursuance of this decision, the Government formally appointed the two justices in question permanently to the Dublin metropolitan district as from the 1st April last.

The present position, therefore, is that, instead of having four "moveable" justices as was contemplated by the 1946 Act, we have only two and one of these is at present immobilised in Dublin and is likely to remain there for some considerable time to come, while the other will continue to be required to give at least half of his time to one particular district adjacent to Dublin. Faced, therefore, with a situation in which the services of temporary justices would be required more or less continually for an indefinite period, the Government have decided that it would be preferable to increase the number of permanent justices rather than carry on as has been done for the last couple of years by having recourse to the employment of temporary justices. The Bill, accordingly, proposes to raise to 42 the maximum number of justices that may hold office at any one time. I want to stress that the figure of 42 is a maximum figure and that there will be no obligation to have that number all the time if the state of the business in the District Court does not warrant it. On the other hand, I should like to make it clear that I can give no guarantee that, even with the maximum number of justices raised to 42, it will be possible to dispense entirely with the services of temporary justices, but I think we may hope that in the altered circumstances it will be possible to avoid employing "temporaries" except very occasionally. No reasonable person would, I think, expect that we should maintain a permanent establishment of justices sufficient to meet all and every kind of emergency. To do so would be to err needlessly on the side of extravagance. What we should aim at is to have a permanent establishment as nearly adequate to meet all probable needs as is consistent with prudent economy and so reduce to a minimum the occasions upon which recourse must be had to the services of temporary justices. This is the underlying idea in Section 3 of the Bill and I am confident that it will commend itself to all sides of the House.

Mr. Boland

I must say that I am surprised that so soon after the passing of the 1946 Act we should have a proposal like this, particularly in view of the answer given yesterday to a question of Dr. Maguire. He asked the Minister for Health why doctors were required to go at the age of 65 and he received this answer:—

"The principle of an age limit for retirement is well established in the public service and the extension of the principle to cover additional classes from time to time is inevitable and is, in general, in the public interest."

I thoroughly agree with that and I cannot see for the life of me why the Minister should wish to reverse a decision made here in 1946. I agree that there were Deputies on the Fine Gael side who objected to the proposals contained in the 1946 Bill reducing the age at which a justice could remain in office from 70 to 65 in Dublin City and in Cork City and who wanted to allow justices all over the country to remain in office to the age of 70. But apart from the Government Party, there was strong opposition to that proposal by the Labour Party. There were some members of the Labour Party who very strongly objected and who thought that the provision whereby a justice should retire at 65 a good one and, as the Minister for Health said, in the public interest.

I am at a loss to know what case there is for this at all. This proviso that the Chief Justice must be satisfied means nothing except that in every case the Chief Justice will be satisfied. I know the present one well and he is a soft-hearted man and will not turn anybody down. Whoever gets his place afterwards will probably do the same. This is a reversal by one Department of a principle proclaimed yesterday by another. I agree with that principle although I admit I am almost 65 myself. When I had that Bill before this House Deputy Coburn said that he was already 65 and Deputy Dillon, I think, said that the then Taoiseach was as lively as a kitten although he was 65. It is a good principle, for a man gives his best services up to the age of 65 and deteriorates after that. Something could be said in the case of judges but they have not to travel in the way a district justice has to travel from one town to another, and I think that the provision that they should retire at 65 is a good one. This is a particularly objectionable change and I do not think there is any case for it. I was not satisfied with the case made by the Minister at all. He says that it is a safeguard that the question should go to the Chief Justice, but he knows as well as I do that there is none and that in fact it means that the age limit is going to be 70 from this out. I do not think I can say any more about that part.

With regard to the question of increasing the number to 42, I think the Minister is very foolish to agree to that. It was a long time before I agreed to extend the total number of permanent justices up to 40, because I was satisfied, and the Government at the time was satisfied, that conditions were abnormal.

There was a great number of temporary justices and I agreed that it was a bad thing to have temporary justices, and I still agree. If you continue to increase the number of permanent justices, however, you will find pressure brought to bear all along; you will find that you will have more temporary justices and I think the Minister admits that himself. He does not see any hope of reducing the number of temporary justices if he gets the 42 permanent and that means that you will merely have two more permanents. Something could be done as was done in the Circuit Court reorganisation scheme, which took place, I think, during our last year in office, 1947—but I am not quite sure—whereby a Circuit Court judge could be required to give help in an area where there was a lot of work to be done if his own area was slack. I am sure there are rural areas where there might be slackness and, if so, a provision like that might be useful and the Minister would be wise to consider it. This is a bad thing. The Minister should not give in yet but should stick it out as there might not be so much necessity for extra justices when things become more normal. We are only a couple of years past the war period and people have not settled down. There is still more crime than we will have when things settle normally. I believe that, and I think the Minister should not agree to that proposal. He should not have done it. It is a bad idea. I do not know why he brought it in at this time, because there does not appear to be any necessity for it, particularly following the statement of policy by his colleague yesterday. I am surprised at his attitude in this connection.

I think most people will agree it is in the public interest that these people should retire. Look at the Civil Service and all this talk about men's experience. In the Civil Service men with great experience have been required to retire at 65—they are men with the experience of a lifetime in the service—and many people feel that they would be a great loss but, nevertheless, it is a well-established and a sensible proposal. Let us remember that there are young people who want a chance and you will be preventing them getting promotion. That is one of the ideas behind that proposal.

I think this matter was very fully discussed and, apart from the Fine Gael people, the rest of the House were favourable and they agreed to the proposal to reduce even the Dublin district justices from 70 to 65, and we may take it that they must have convinced the Fine Gael people because they withdrew their amendment. We took it they were convinced and that there was a good case made and I do not think there has been anything to alter the position since.

Captain Cowan

I have certain misgivings with regard to this Bill and these are based on my own experience. I would have no objection—I would not have the same objection—if the Minister went the whole hog and said "We will increase the age to 70". I think that would be less objectionable than what is contained in this very peculiar clause, that a district justice when he reaches the age of 65 and wishes to carry on will have to submit himself to the Chief Justice each year and the Chief Justice then will decide whether he is to carry on or not. In the machinery of the judiciary there is no contact at all, good, bad or indifferent, between the Chief Justice and the district justice. The Chief Justice knows nothing about what is happening in the District Court unless some case from the court may reach the Supreme Court, and there are not so many of these cases at all.

The Chief Justice is, by the nature of his position and appointment, detached from the District Court and from the Circuit Court and where he can be of any help in this matter I cannot see. If it is agreed that it is a good principle I think it would be much better that the Minister should deal with that himself. A district justice may look perfectly all right; if he has to have an interview with the Chief Justice it may be a satisfactory interview and he may be able to talk very plausibly to the Chief Justice. If medical reports are required he will be able to produce one showing that he is perfectly capable and fit, whereas the Minister for Justice may know, through the machinery of the Guards, that that particular justice is unfit to be on the Bench.

I think there is a very serious principle involved in this. I have always felt that the age at which district justices are appointed is too low, that before a man is made a district justice he should have plenty of practical experience in the courts. That will mean that between the age of appointment and the age at which he retires he will have short service and it would be a very easy method to get over the difficulty in that connection by providing a full pension for the district justice after a shorter service. If a man has given up his practice, if he has taken up his appointment as a district justice and if he has to retire in accordance with the law at a certain age, it is only right that he should be able to enjoy the full pension, even though the service he renders is short. That would be a much better approach than saying: "Let us extend his service so as to give him the opportunity of getting the full pension."

I ask the Minister to reconsider this part of the Bill. Undoubtedly there are many possibilities of improper conduct in relation to this particular matter. It is not so very long ago since a district justice thought he should have got an extension of service. He did not get it. He entered into a public controversy in the newspapers about it. Now, if a man will do that is it not likely that some individual, a year before his term expires, who is anxious to continue his appointment, may consider that it would be a good thing if he courted certain people who might have the ear of the Chief Justice? Human nature is human nature and certain people will do everything in their power to achieve some small end like that. At least, they may do it and I think the likelihood that some individual of the 42 at some stage may do that would be objectionable. It is for that reason that I think it would be preferable to say right away "Extend the age to 70."

A district justice who is 65 does not deteriorate an awful lot between 65 and 66. I think age helps; age is a great asset, a great benefit to a district justice adjudicating on the Bench. Age, I have discovered, is more important than youth and probably brilliance and if there is a viewpoint that the age of these men should be extended to 70, then let us give the extension right away; let us do it in this House, let Parliament do it and not have this roundabout method that may provide these objectionable things to which I have referred.

I have always thought that we have too many district justices and, while in Dublin City our justices may have to work very hard — a grinding job day after day — the same thing does not apply in rural areas. It is not an unusual thing in rural areas for a district justice to commence his court at 12.30 and to finish it at 1.30. Practitioners who have to travel to courts in the country find that in some parts of the country a district justice manages to fit in two courts, one at 12 o'clock and one at 3 o'clock. That was all right when travel was difficult. The court had to be held in a particular place and the justice had to go there, and, with travel difficult, he might be able to do only one court in the day. With the improvement in travelling facilities —nearly every district justice I know has a motor car—they can get around more easily, and, by a rearrangement of the courts, it would be possible for them to do more work.

There is another matter which has often struck me in this regard. We are very fortunate in Dublin City in that one of our senior justices, the justice who deals with summary cases, is exceptionally satisfactory. He can get through a list of hundreds of cases in the day and those of us who have to practise before him find that the work in that court is done very well. Certain people may like to have a field day on a small case, but neither the busy practitioner nor the sensible person wants that. What they want is to see the case dealt with expeditiously. The District Court was intended to be a summary court which would give speedy justice to the public, but some of our district justices are acting as if they were chief justices. They must defer or adjourn a case to give judgment at some time in the future. I suggest that, after all this consideration of the verdict, it is no better than it would be if it had been given on the spot, and in fact it might be better if given on the spot. If our district justices could realise, as the great majority of them do, that the district court is a summary court to give speedy justice to the public, I believe more work could be done.

Our courts have been cluttered up with all kinds of offences and I suppose that we in this House are responsible for it. Some years ago, if a child was seen by an adult doing something wrong, the adult gave the child a "clip" on the ear and justice was done on the spot. What happens now, particularly in Dublin? A child does some small wrong which 20 or 25 years ago would have been dealt with satisfactorily by a "clip" on the ear and the child has to go through all the machinery of the law as if he were an adult on a very serious charge. The justice has to sit and listen to the statements made by the child, taken down in writing, and the statements made by the Guards, and in Dublin there may often be four, five and six of these children's cases dealt with in a day.

I suggest to the Minister that this is an opportunity for him to have the whole matter of the District Courts— the number of justices required, the hours of work a justice is expected to do and so on—considered. I am sure it would be quite illuminating if the Minister had a record—I do not know whether any such record is available— showing the actual number of hours in the month for which each district justice sits. If we had that information, we would be able to judge whether or not there was any necessity for the increase suggested, because, once the authority is given, the appointments will be made and then additional temporary justices will have to be taken on. It will be discovered after a year or so that it is very unfair to these temporary men who have lost their practices and their chance in life, and the Minister may have to come to the House and ask for a further increase in the number of justices.

I ask the Minister to reconsider the Bill on the basis of going the whole hog and extending the period of service to 70 years right away. I do not know what machinery there is at the moment for inquiring into the capacity of a district justice who becomes incapable of working below the age of 65. I do not know if there is machinery to deal with that or not but, if there is, it can be applied to the justice between the ages of 65 and 70. There is in England at the moment a tendency to keep people in industry well beyond the age of 65; in other words, to get all the work they can possibly get out of everybody. I think that is right. When certain popular justices have had to retire at the age of 65, I have seen leading articles in local newspapers urging that it was a shame that a particular justice should have to retire when he was at his absolute best, and we have seen some of these justices who have retired taking up the humdrum work of a solicitor. If a man can retire from the Bench and commence to practise as a solicitor or at the Bar, he is still fit to be on the Bench.

The Minister for Finance, in his Budget statement to-day, talked about saving money and spoke of better production and more work. I think the same principle ought to apply here and I would certainly be strongly in favour of increasing the retiring age to 70 by this Bill and of doing away with this cumbersome machinery which has been recommended to the Minister. This, like the other Bill introduced by the Minister recently, is not a Bill which is approached from a Party point of view. It is not put forward just as a Government measure and opposed by the Opposition merely because it is a Government measure. I think it is the duty of each and every one of us to endeavour to improve this type of legislation particularly, and I ask the Minister seriously to consider the points I have made. If he does so, he may discover that it would be much better to increase the retiring age to 70 years in the Bill rather than to adopt a procedure to which there are many objections and which may become very objectionable if adopted by the House.

Mr. Seán Collins

I was rather surprised at the argument advanced by Deputy Boland on the question of the comparative age of judges and justices. I subscribe very strongly to the opinion that there is a good deal more stress and strain attached to the average district justice's job than there is, in the main, to that of members of the higher judiciary. I have felt all along that, no matter what the merits of age limits may be, there should be, where judicial responsibility is concerned, the same age limit for members of the judiciary as such and members of the District Court as such. I know from experience—and I am sure that Deputy Moran, sitting behind the ex-Minister, has had the same experience —that some of the older district justices are riper in their experience and far more effective at their job than some of the younger ones.

I welcome this Bill in principle, as I feel that the Minister is directing his mind to something that we may overlook in the technicality of the Bill, that is, that the pension rates and pension rights that accrue in the District Court are completely and absolutely different from those that accrue in the Circuit Court, in the High Court and the Supreme Court. Many men who entered the District Court in this State in 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925 did so at a time when the remuneration was satisfactory and the future was bright. Over that long period, their remuneration has been increased only in very recent years and has not been increased in any way commensurately with the increase in their cost of living. I feel that this Bill is an attempt to relieve the dire necessity that may face some of the district justices, if they have to retire arbitrarily at 65, as many of them will not have the years of service that will entitle them to a decent pension. I welcome this as a humane and realistic approach to the problem.

I think, however, the Minister will have to reconsider the Bill to some extent. He is giving into the hands of the Chief Justice powers that I should be very slow to have this House give to him. The administration of the District Court in its present form is mainly controlled directly by the Department of Justice and the time has not yet come when any of that power should be delegated to the Chief Justice. The Minister may say he does this because he wants an independent, impartial mind addressed to the problem and wants to take it out of executive control that might be subject to the fluctuation of Governments or the fluctuation of Ministers. That does not alter the fact that fundamentally he is giving the Chief Justice a virtual power of life and death over the district justice from the time he attains the age of 65. I do not think that that is a good principle. We must face the issue straight and fairly. The Minister should fix the age limit at 70 or 72 and leave it at that.

I would go further than that, since I feel that the purpose of this Bill is to protect certain members who have entered the service of the District Court and who, under present circumstances, in the fullness of their work and in the ripeness of their experience, may have to retire from the District Court with only a meagre pension and who may face a rather difficult future in the world they have to face when pensioned. If that is what the Minister is seeking, he should decide on an extension of the age limit for district justices who entered the service before a certain date, leaving the case of others subject to the normal incidence of their long service and who would be retirable as the Bill suggests, possibly at the age of 65.

There is one difficulty which presents itself in this Bill, a difficulty that is recurring constantly. If the argument is that the judge has less to do and can preserve himself better and, therefore, is entitled to serve until he is 72, I would not agree with it at all. In general, the proof has been the reverse: it is the man who has to lead the more full, the more energetic and realistically active life who is infinitely better preserved at 65 than the man who may have to lead a sedentary life. This must be faced, once and for all. Even though the relative degree of responsibility may be different, to the normal litigant in the District Court the district justice has the same significance as higher judges have in various subsequent actions. The Minister must make up his mind to level them all up in some way. The time has come when he should take the district justices out of the category of civil servants altogether, by changing their pension schemes which are only on Civil Service rates, and he must put them where they should be, in the minor judiciary class. He should make their pension rights and extent of service which must be given before a pension accrues, virtually the same as that of Circuit Court or High Court judges. If he does that, never again will this House be troubled with the problem of having to face this from a humanitarian angle. We all know—at least all of us, practitioners, know—of certain justices who, even at the age of 65, are in the fullness of health, agile in mind and adept at their work. We know that and we would hate to see them go. Never again should this House be faced with the problem of having to allow a humanitarian outlook to influence our judgment on legislation as such.

I would urge on the Minister in an earnest way, while I thoroughly agree with the humanitarian approach to the problems of this Bill, to clarify the position regarding the particular category of justice who needs the benefit of that approach. After that, he should fix the age on a definite basis, be it 65 or 70. I would suggest to him to bring it, if possible, into conformity with the age for the retiral of the judiciary. Above all, he should lift the district justice out of the category of having to serve a practically indeterminate period to entitle him to any kind of reasonable pension. If the circuit judge or the High Court judge, with due respect to the learned gentlemen, can, after 15 years, attain to the full pension attached to the office, I feel we should not leave the district justices under legislation which would not provide properly for them. I urge on the Minister that, even though he may not concede such a short period of service as a pensionable period for the district justice, at least he should go some reasonable way towards it, so that, after 20 years' service in a District Court, a district justice would not be faced with the prospect of retiring on a microscopic pension which would not enable him to live properly as a respected member of the community.

I thoroughly subscribe to the principle underlying this Bill, but I think it is unwise and unnecessary and practically useless to leave this discretion vested in the Chief Justice, in relation to the District Court. I would prefer the Minister to be frank with the House and to tell us exactly the number of district justices involved and the period of service which he wishes to give them. I think he should allow the machinery of the district courts to continue to operate as it does at the moment and that there should be no interference of any kind either by the Chief Justice or by anybody else.

Mr. Moran

It is rather amusing to hear Deputy Collins appealing to the Minister to be frank with the House. The Deputy knows quite well that the Minister cannot be frank in connection with this measure. This Bill is introduced deliberately to do a certain job. Everybody in the House, including Deputy Collins, knows that.

Mr. S. Collins

I would like you to give me the information because I do not know.

General MacEoin

It is strange that I do not know it myself either.

Mr. Moran

This Bill is described in its long title as "An Act to amend certain provisions, relating to the District Court, of the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1947". It would be more appropriate to describe it as a measure to safeguard Fine Gael pals of 1949. Deputy Captain Cowan asks the House to make some improvements on this Bill. This is a Bill dealing simply with the extension of the period of service of a district justice. It is extraordinary that the Minister can find time to introduce a Bill such as this when there are so many other pressing matters with which his Department should cope. For years we have been waiting for a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the District Courts. For years we have been waiting for some kind of law reform. We all know that much of our legal code is completely out-of-date. Instead of getting a Bill such as we might naturally expect from the present Minister for Justice we get this Bill which is obviously a political Bill. No matter how the Minister or his friends may try to cloak this Bill it still remains a political Bill.

It is extraordinary that as far as the district justices are concerned the Bill is merely one to provide for certain district justices who are evidently near the retiring age. There is one in particular who is at the retiring age. He will be given a new lease of life for another five years. The official attitude has always been that a man should retire at 65. Yesterday the Minister for Health, in answer to a question, said:—

"I am aware that the Local Government (Officers Age Limit) Order, 1946, has inflicted, and will continue to inflict, hardship on some officers of local authorities, including doctors for whom retirement on reaching a particular age limit had not previously been mandatory but the principle of an age limit for retirement is well established in the public service and the extension of the principle to cover additional classes from time to time is inevitable and is, in general, in the public interest."

What the Minister for Health in his wisdom finds is in the public interest is now to be evaded. The principle of retirement at 65 is enshrined in legislation. Recognised by the Government, it can now be put completely on one side when the Minister for Justice thinks that in the interests of a certain pal that pal should be continued to the age of 70.

Mr. Byrne

Is that in order? Is it in order to say that the Minister is introducing legislation in the interests of a certain pal?

Mr. Moran

Is it in order for the Deputy hypocrite for Dublin to interrupt me?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a political charge and I take it there is no personal charge against the Minister.

General MacEoin

The Deputy has said that I am guilty of some particular conduct and that I am using my public office in the interests of a pal. He has used the word "pal." I suppose one would not pay much attention to what Deputy Moran says and in that way one can, perhaps, overlook it. But there is a charge and it is a personal charge.

Mr. Moran

Might I assure the Minister that I am making no personal reflection whatsoever on him?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No reflection on the Minister?

Mr. Moran

Definitely not. I make no personal reflection on the Minister. The only precedent for a Bill of this kind was also introduced by a Government of which the present Minister was a member. He was certainly a supporter. There was a time when the judicial age of a certain judge was extended from 70 to 72.

Captain Cowan

That was done in the 1946 Act.

Mr. Moran

It was not the 1946 Act.

Mr. G. Boland

It was long before it.

Mr. Moran

Long before it and the Deputy knows that well. By a strange coincidence that judge who was given an extra two years' official life was a political pal of the present Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does this become relevant on the present Bill?

Mr. Moran

I am pointing out that the principle of this Bill is wrong and I am giving reasons as to why it should not be accepted. I suggest it is a political Bill introduced for the purpose of extending the life of——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And incidentally going back nine or ten years.

Mr. Moran

I submit I am entitled to give analogies for this Bill. If the Minister thought it wise in the public interest to retire members of the judiciary at 65, 68 or 70 there is a very different procedure that the Minister could adopt. It is a much more satisfactory procedure. If judges and district justices are not able to do their job they can do a great deal of harm. If the Minister was concerned with that aspect of the matter some procedure should be evolved whereby the Minister would be enabled to appoint either a judicial committee or a committee of this House to examine the matter and advise him on any problems that might arise. So far as I am aware there has been no demand from the public or from the judiciary for a measure of this kind. We have not heard of any hardships being inflicted because of the present retiring age. I go a long way with Deputy Cowan in connection with the appointment of district justices. Every practitioner in the country feels that the community would be better served by the appointment of men of experience rather than by shoving briefless barristers on to the Bench. In the main the District Courts have been most successful. They are doing a very good job. Unfortunately the Minister has not yet got round to giving them power to deal with a larger section of the community.

I think it is ridiculous, having regard to the present value of money, that the jurisdiction of the District Court has not been increased and substantially increased. It is absolutely absurd when a case is brought in a District Court—it may be only a case concerning a hen crossing a fence-that when the defendant raises a question of title the jurisdiction of the court is ousted and the parties are compelled to engage in a full dress trial in the Circuit Court with all the attendant expense of the briefing of barristers, etc. If the Minister had concentrated on that aspect of the matter, instead of taking up the time of the House with a Bill of this kind, his efforts would have met with the appreciation of all sides of the House. Without any particular demand that I know of to deal with this question, he comes along with this Bill which plainly on the face of it is going to increase the judicial life of a district justice by five years. The Minister has not given any reason for this step. He has not given any instance in which hardship would occur if the present regulation concerning the retirement age of district justices were continued. He has not suggested to the House that the community is suffering in any way by the mere fact that John Jones, a district justice, must go at 65 and devote his energies to fishing from that age onwards.

There may be quite cogent arguments on the question of the pension rights of district justices. I, like Deputy Cowan and some other Deputies who have spoken, think that the work of district justices is not sufficiently appreciated by the Department of Justice. I think they are doing their job and doing it very well. If their pension rights are not what they should be, that is a matter with which the Minister might deal, but I do not think that bringing a Bill of this type into the House is the way to deal with it. As I know and as every single individual sitting behind the Minister knows, this Bill is brought in to deal with one particular man. It is brought in to deal with the case of one justice, who, according to the present age limit, would have to retire at 65.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Who is the man?

Mr. S. Collins

Who is he?

Mr. Moran

The Minister, being a good political friend of his, takes up the time of the House to ensure that he will not have to retire at what was hitherto the usual age. If the Minister thinks he is hoodwinking the House he is only fooling himself. I intend to oppose this Bill to the bitter end.

Mr. Timoney

I think we have just heard a most unworthy speech from my colleague. So far as I am personally concerned I have not the remotest idea as to the identity of the individual to whom he refers, if there is such a person. This is the first suggestion I have heard that such a person exists. I have heard my two colleagues ask the question as to who this person is, and I am sure they are in the same position of ignorance as I am. From what I know of the Minister, I am perfectly sure he would not lend himself to any such unworthy action. I think that the principle of this Bill is a good one. I understand that the principal purpose of the Bill is to increase the number of permanent justices and that the other provisions, such as that dealing with the extension of the period of office, are merely incidental. I do feel somewhat disappointed that the Bill does not propose an increase in the jurisdiction of the District Court. To that extent I entirely agree with what Deputy Moran had to say. Any lawyer practising in the District Court has had experience, I am sure, of the anomalies to which he refers. Take a case where a question of title is raised. The jurisdiction of the court is consequently ousted, although the district justice would otherwise have been perfectly competent to deal with the case.

The question that presents itself to my mind about the number of justices is: is the Minister satisfied that he now has enough? He gave in his opening statement a history of the increase from 33 under the 1924 Act to 40 under the 1946 Act. It is now proposed to increase the number to 42. Is the Minister sure that he will have enough now? The principle of having them permanent is a good principle or, in other words, the principle of having a temporary man, feeling himself dependent on the whim of the Executive, is bad. If the Minister is not satisfied that 42 justices are enough I certainly would have no compunction whatever in supporting him if he asked for an increased number. If he accedes to the request of Deputy Moran and myself as to increasing the jurisdiction of their courts, he certainly will have to increase the number of district justices again.

With regard to the extension of the age limit, I should be very slow to depart from the present limit of 65. I think it is quite a sound principle that justices should retire at that age and it has worked satisfactorily. At the same time, I can see cases in which it would be desirable and of benefit to the community to allow a district justice to remain in office until he reached 70 years of age, and I think that the plan outlined in the Bill is a valuable one. As the Minister mentioned in his opening statement, the giving to the Chief Justice of the power to extend the age does take the matter out of the category of political patronage. I observe, of course, that the Chief Justice "may, if he so thinks proper, after consultation with the Minister for Justice, by warrant made before such justice attains that age, continue him in office for one year, commencing on the date on which we will attain the said age". I can appreciate that there would be, of course, necessity for the reference to the Minister, which obviously means the Department, by the Chief Justice. But if, in fact, it could be taken away from the Executive altogether it would, in my opinion, be better. I would have no fears whatever, like those expressed by Deputy Boland and Deputy Cowan, as to the approach of the Chief Justice in cases of this kind. The number in the State to be dealt with under the present Bill is only 42. I think that everybody in the House would be perfectly satisfied that the Chief Justice would discharge that new duty put upon him with complete impartiality and with complete satisfaction.

I do not think there is much more to be said on this stage of the Bill. I really thought that there would not be so much latitude allowed on the Second Reading. I thought that would be more or less for the Committee Stage. I do not think there is any necessity to go into any further detail save to revert to the appeal for consideration, in any event, by the Minister of the proposal for an increase in jurisdiction. Unless he is perfectly satisfied that he will not have to come back soon again to increase the number of justices I think the Minister ought to do that now. I think he certainly will have to do that if he does not increase the jurisdiction.

Mr. de Valera

I was waiting, when the Minister was explaining this Bill, to hear his reason for bringing it in at the present time. It is not so very long ago since the Dáil had this question under consideration and came to a certain decision. Now we are going to have the decision reversed. I am quite willing to admit that it is not easy to form a firm opinion as to what it is best to do regarding these retiring ages, whether in the case of civil servants or any other public servants. Some people might say that 65 is too high and why not 64, or that 65 is too low and why not 66. However, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Health, yesterday gave the general view, namely, that 65 is to be taken as the age at which public servants generally ought to retire. Is it a question of finance? Is it a question that there are, as has been suggested—and indeed suggested, perhaps, more by his own colleague, Deputy Collins, than by anyone else—a certain number of cases coming up for retirement of people who are in good health, who have had perhaps short service and who, in the Minister's opinion, ought to be continued on? If that were true I think Deputy Collins was right in suggesting that the Minister should be frank with the House and tell us exactly the position. It is likely that there are, amongst the justices, men in fairly good health who have come to the retiring age and who may have a short period of service which would mean retiring on a small pension. The Minister did not, however, come down to deal with it on that basis at all. We are dealing with it on general principles then. I have met this question of retirement at a certain age myself; we have met it in the Government and in other realms also. Most people will admit that very many people are in good vigorous health at 65, the retiring age, and that it does seem a waste of energy in one sense and a waste of manpower, if you like, and also a waste of money to dispense with their services. But we have to try to get a general average on which we are to work. There has been a sort of general agreement at any rate on the age of 65 and I think we ought to stick to that unless we have very good reasons to the contrary. I think that is the first thing—we ought to stick to the age of 65 unless a good case can be made to the contrary. One of the things that would make it easy would be if you had some machinery by which you could determine whether a man was fit to continue on or whether it would be generally in the public interest, in the case of a public servant, that he should continue. I doubt if any such machinery is ordinarily available. I do not think such machinery is available in the case of the district justices. Nobody is going to admit that it should be in the hands of the Executive. It is quite clear that if it were put in the hands of the Executive—no matter how honestly, how fairly and how justly the Executive was going to act in any particular case—it was bound to be suggested that the extensions were the result of favouritism of one sort or another and that they were going to be used by the Executive as a reward for service of one kind or another.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Why was it bound to be so? Is the only reason not because Fianna Fáil is in opposition?

Mr. de Valera

Not at all. What is the meaning of the independence of the judiciary? What is the whole purpose of it but to keep it free from the suggested influence or possible influence of the Executive?

Mr. G. Boland

From Deputy O'Higgins' family more than anybody else.

Mr. de Valera

I am trying to deal with it quietly and calmly. I suggest that if the Executive has control of it —it does not matter what Executive it may be and it does not matter how honestly they may do it—it will be suggested, when they act in any particular case, that that particular case has been affected by some considerations outside the considerations that should really have affected the case. Of course it will. We are not living in an ideal world. We know the sort of suggestions that are always made. I have not suggested that the Executive would do wrong but I said that it will always be suggested that it will do wrong. Therefore, the Minister himself was perfectly right in saying that this machinery which he was suggesting was not going to be machinery which was going to be worked by the Executive. The difficulty is to get a machinery of any kind that will work. The Minister tries to get machinery in this case by letting the Chief Justice be the person to make the decision— giving him the information which the Department of Justice and the Minister may have at their disposal about the particular ability and the state of health and capacity of the person in question. If you are going to use this particular machinery it is probably as good as any. Nobody is going to suggest that the Chief Justice is going to have the intimate knowledge the Department of Justice would have of the capacity and the power to continue his work of a district justice.

We then come to the next stage, to the person of the Chief Justice, whoever he may be. I am not thinking of any particular Chief Justice. I am thinking of the Chief Justice who may be in office at any particular time. That Chief Justice will, if he is of one type of character, do one thing and if he is of another type of character he will do something else. If he is a rigid type he will, possibly, act rigidly according to some rules. If he is a man who is likely to take into account the considerations which, in my opinion, have suggested the bringing in of this Bill, he is likely to take another course. I have seen some of these machines at work. My experience throughout has been that inevitably they have leaned towards favouring the individual as against the community— in other words saying: "Ah, yes, poor fellow. It would be very awkward and very hard for him. He would have only a very small pension if he retired now and, after all, he is able to do the work fairly well." When public money is being spent at all we ought to see that it is spent on efficiency. Money that gets for it efficient service is money well spent. Money that does not get efficient work in return is money badly spent. Sometimes it is a difficult thing to decide whether, for instance in the case of pensions, the public money is being more efficiently spent by waiting until a candidate for the office of district justice or judge has had experience of so many years that his years in office would be relatively few. Then you have to ask how many years of service should entitle him to a pension.

Suggestions have been made for the improvement of this Bill. One suggestion was that it is better that the axe should fall at 70 without any intervening machinery. The idea of our Government at the time was to let the axe fall at 65 without any intervening machinery and the reason was that I do not think it is possible to find any machinery which will work satisfactorily in this regard. The individual who will be given the task of saying whether a man should continue or go out is bound to lean on the side of the particular person involved. All sorts of considerations will be put up. It is not fair to put an individual in that position. In another case, where a group was responsible for doing certain work, they inevitably leaned almost entirely on the side of the justice when in our opinion that was unwise. We could not deal with it afterwards, but that was our judgment. If you have machinery such as is suggested by the Minister, you will have a leaning on the side of the individual in question.

I believe that the axe should fall at 65. If you extend it to 70, you will have hard cases at 70. It is true that there is a five-years period in which the service given would count for pension. I would rather cut off five years from the period necessary to qualify for a pension, even though it might mean an increase of expenditure. I would rather do that than what the Minister is doing or what was suggested by Deputy Cowan. I would rather by far reduce the number of years necessary for a justice to serve so as to qualify for full pension rights than extend his service by five years. It may be said that this would mean more cost to the Exchequer. In my opinion, it would not, because it would be money paid for efficiency in work.

The Minister has not told us why he is proposing to reverse the previous decision of the House. It was not put up as being a big political question in which there were strong differences of opinion amongst the Parties. The Minister has not told us why it is being brought in at the present time. I believe that the previous decision of the House was a wise one and I will stand for that.

Mr. Timoney

Will the Deputy say what that decision was?

Mr. de Valera

The decision was for 65 years. This whole question was discussed in the House in 1946. It was a decision given by the House after full consideration of this question. It was, of course, given consideration by the Government beforehand. I am therefore for 65. Instead of enabling justices to give five years more service to qualify for a full pension, I think it would be more in the public interest to shorten the period of service required for a full pension, whatever it is.

General MacEoin

It is 30 years for a district justice.

Mr. de Valera

I think it would be more in the public interest to say that 25 years' service would qualify for the pension rather than to say that a justice can work on for another five years if, in the opinion of A, B or C, he is regarded as fit. With regard to judges and justices, it is very important for the public that those filling these important positions should be in possession of every faculty; that they should be able to dispose of cases quickly; that they should be able to seize points quickly. I do not think that these qualities are likely to continue in the average case in the same way after 65 as up to that age. In regard to the first part of the Bill, therefore, I am against the machinery and the extension of the age beyond 65.

The next matter is the number of justices. I have also wondered, just as some Deputies who have spoken, whether in certain areas we have not too many justices for the work to be done and in other areas perhaps too few. This city is undoubtedly growing. I suppose the number of cases is likely to increase roughly in proportion to the increased population, so that, in ordinary times, with the increase in population in Dublin, the number of justices to deal with cases is likely to increase. Perhaps there is some fallacy in that argument, but I do not see it. At any rate, I would not be surprised if, in ordinary times, with the increase in population, the number of justices required to deal with the cases which come up for consideration in the city would increase. But, as has already been suggested by some Deputies, I do think that, with modern transport, it ought to be possible for the justices in rural areas to cover much wider areas than they are covering at present and that there ought to be some machinery by which we could readjust these rural areas so as to reduce the number of justices. I agree that it is a very bad system to have a large number of temporary justices; nobody wants that. So far as we were concerned, it was only tolerated because we felt that during the emergency period there were quite a number of cases arising out of the emergency which called for extra work but that that would disappear when the emergency period was over.

I think the time has come when there ought to be a very close examination of this matter to see whether we have not more justices than are necessary. It is true that, if you extend their jurisdiction, you will give them more work and that ought to be considered. I do not know whether any consideration has been given to this matter. The Minister has told us anyhow that he has not given any consideration to the possibility of giving to individual justices in various parts of the country more work than they are doing at present. Deputy Boland suggested that some such system as we have in the Circuit Courts might be evolved by which it would be possible, where there is little work for a justice in certain cases and in other cases there is a good deal of work, to have a transference from one district to another. I think the whole of this matter requires examination and consideration and that we ought not to increase the number of justices by two unless we are absolutely convinced that it is essential that it should be done in the public interest while each person does a decent day's work; in other words, that the justices' time is reasonably occupied throughout the country as a whole. I am afraid, however, that that is a matter which we shall have to leave in the hands of the Minister and the Department. We have no machinery here by which we can satisfy ourselves whether or not the areas could be changed so as to ensure that there would be something like uniformity of work for the justices. That is a matter for the Department. I think the Minister ought to examine that carefully before he proceeds with this Bill.

My own belief is that he is bringing in the Bill because there are justices about to retire. I am not saying that he is doing that for any political motive. It would seem to me that the point of urgency is that some such cases are arising in the immediate future. If it is not so, then he can tell the House. However, I can quite understand the Minister on seeing a number of such cases saying "I had better decide now. If there is a succession of these cases coming along I do not want to be unfair to the men coming out to-morrow and the day after." I think the fairest thing would be to leave the law as it stands. If it is to be changed I suppose it is desirable that it should be changed as quickly as possible. We are in the dark. From the attitude of the Minister I take it that we are wrong in assuming that there are cases like that coming up.

General MacEoin

I might say, for the information of the House, that the urgency of the Bill is the congestion of work at present existing in Dublin. We have a large number ill and we have been compelled to appoint temporary district justices. As far as we can see these conditions are going to obtain for a very long time and therefore it is essential to get rid of this system of temporary men. We propose in this Bill to increase the number of justices to 42. There is no compulsion to keep 42. There is the question of appointing two when there are about 12 perfectly good district justices who are going to retire in a period of years and who appear to us to be perfectly capable to act and who will not have a full pension. I felt that when the Bill was coming in for the purpose of extending the number of justices I would make this other change, too.

Mr. de Valera

I accept that from the Minister. If I were Minister and saw a number of cases coming along and one justice going to retire, and if I had any idea of changing the law I would do it quickly. I agree that that is fair. However, I think that the age of 65 should be kept to because, taking it on the average, it makes for efficiency. It is a rule which applies to the Civil Service and elsewhere. Any attempt to bring about a change by providing some machinery by which a person can be continued on from year to year will inevitably be abused. The inevitable result will be the continuance of people beyond the time in which it would be in the general interest that they should be continued. I think the Minister is unwise and we are opposing that.

With regard to the number I have nothing definite on which I could form a sound opinion because it is a matter of administration and of careful examination and I have no means by which I can judge whether the number is too great or too small. I do realise, however, that an increase is probably required. I believed at the end of the emergency this necessity would disappear. However, I do understand that the number of justices for Dublin should be increased with the increasing population. At the same time I think that with modern conveniences, transport, and so on, it ought to be possible to create wider districts in the country and to get some arrangement, as suggested by Deputy Boland, by which those justices in slack areas would be able to help those in areas where there is a greater volume of work. I am, therefore, going to oppose this Bill.

Mr. Connolly

I speak as a layman on this subject but I was rather alarmed at some of the revelations made by Deputy Cowan of his experience in the District Courts. Though it does not exactly come under the terms of this Bill it directs one's thoughts to the question of the work done by these district justices. I take it that the main principle of this Bill is to avoid the overcrowding of the law lists, to overcome the large delays that are generally talked about and the congestion of the courts which are a serious burden on many litigants. In that respect I listened with horror, I may say, to Deputy Cowan saying that district justices were able in the course of a couple of hours, a short session, to dispose of hundreds of cases. If that is the nature of the work they do, then certainly they are being overworked to an alarming extent rather than being underworked as he would suggest. No sound justice is being given to a litigant if his case does not occupy more than three minutes of a justice's time, no matter how summary these cases may be. That, I think, was a very good argument on his part for a very great extension of the number of district justices. What we want to see and what we are concerned with in this Assembly is not so much the economy or the administration of this Courts of Justice Bill as that justice is done to the ordinary people of the country. I have heard complaints myself though I have no experience of these courts except occasional attendance before and after trades' disputes. The frequent complaint of the ordinary litigant is that the solicitor he employs to take up his case does not open his mouth to say a word in his defence. I can understand, if the treadmill of justice proceeds at the terrific pace instanced by Deputy Cowan, that the poor solicitor who is defending his client has no opportunity whatever of opening his mouth. That is not a type of justice. It is a very serious matter and it will, in the minds of the ordinary people, lead to a disrespect of the law which will have serious consequences. To avoid this loss of time in the courts there should be some overhauling of the whole procedure and the Minister might well have brought in, in this Bill, some powers to enable his Department so to do.

However, the main purpose of this Bill, as I see it, is to do away with the temporary justices and to have the power to increase the number of justices if necessary. If there is congestion to which the Minister has referred in some of the courts in Dublin and throughout the rural areas then everything is in favour of permanent justices rather than temporary ones. Temporary justices are just like temporary teachers in any school; they cannot give full satisfaction, they cannot devote their whole time to their subject and they do not command the same standing as the man who can be there and occupy all his time in that work. A temporary justice, as far as I can see, is a solicitor or barrister who is taken from his ordinary work and put on to the Bench where the rules are reversed. Having performed for some time in that capacity he then reverts to his former position of again coming before the Bar of the courts. He has perhaps certain advantages in that respect in so far as that he has been a district justice and is likely to obtain a better hearing from the then sitting justice than some other of his colleagues. On the other hand, he has the disadvantage of being very embarrassed since he is once more appearing in the ranks in court rather than on the Bench. On the whole, the idea of temporary justices is, I think, repugnant to the proper execution of the law and the proper carrying out of justice.

I would be very much in favour of the idea of reducing the number of temporary district justices and of increasing the number of those permanently engaged on that work. With regard to the question of the proper age, it is undoubtedly a fact that we had expressions of opinion in the House much in favour of the age of 65. Deputy Boland said that most of the members of the Labour Party, when he was Minister, were in favour of drawing the line around that age. I remember that in 1943 this question was raised very largely in regard to local government officials and vocational education teachers. I put up the plea at that time—I think it was a valid plea and has as much weight in the case of district justices as it has in the case of teachers—that there could be no hard and fast line. There should be some method devised of standardising, testing or finding out what is the efficiency of a man when he comes near some set age limit, but that his retirement should not be automatic. Some men are dead from the neck up when they reach 55 and should really retire. The same is true of some in public life, and yet they hang on the benches here. Here we are dealing with people in responsible positions who are concerned with the administration of the law and with the whole life of the country. I think that a case can be made out for not sticking too strictly to one given line at 60 or 65. Some of the greatest judges that I have read about delivered most of their best judgments when some other people of their age were in their dotage. The matter is a very difficult one unless the Minister is able to compile an intelligent test to be applied to these justices.

I am not very much enamoured of the idea of going before the Chief Justice with a doctor's certificate to certify that a man is then able to do his work for another year. I think the Minister might reconsider getting some better method of overcoming that difficulty. It is a real difficulty. Some district justices should be retired before the age of 65 if they prove incompetent or that they are not efficient or cannot do their work, while others who, in the opinion of some board or some impartial authority are able to continue, should be permitted to continue for a certain number of years later than 65. I think that is an eminently reasonable common-sense plan, and I commend it to the Minister.

The Minister might revise his proposal with regard to going before the Chief Justice. It may be that it is the best he has been able to think of. No matter how august the Chief Justice may be, or how high his position in the judiciary, that proposal in the Bill does not appear to me to be entirely satisfactory. No matter who the Chief Justice would be, unless he was a hanging Jeffreys or someone like that, he would have sympathy with a man coming near the age when he has to retire. The position would be as difficult for any other set of men or even for the Minister himself. As it is impossible, I suppose, for the ordinary Deputy to think out any better formula than that before us in the Bill, we are back, I am afraid, to the position that we have to accept what the present Minister for Justice has devised as a temporary expedient to overcome this problem. On the whole, therefore, though I have doubts about the method of operation of the age of 65, I think that we, in this section of the Government Party, welcome the Bill.

Major de Valera

The question involved in this Bill is really one of principle, and a difficult one of principle at that. Like Deputy Boland, I want to ask the question, why should this House reverse itself in relation to this one aspect of State administration and in respect of one profession? Why should we make this exception with regard to this one case? We have, over a period of years, uniformly adopted a certain policy in regard to public servants, and I use the term "public servants" in its broadest sense. The previous Government introduced very drastic age limits in the case of the Army. They were introduced because the circumstances warranted them; and, in regard to public servants generally, an age limit is in operation. The general principle has not been challenged, and apparently was recently reiterated by the Minister for Health. Why, therefore, should there be a sudden reversal of engines?

In the case of the legal profession, is there anything specific about the profession of the law and the profession of the courts, so to speak—I am using the word "profession" for want of a better one—or is there anything in any facade of court administration, of the law, that calls for such a reversal? I think that we should ask ourselves that question in a calm, contemplative state of mind. I have used the words "reversal of engines" deliberately. Volume 102 of the Official Reports contains the debates on the Courts of Justice Bill, 1946, which dealt largely with this question of district justices. There is enshrined in that measure the principle of a retiring age of 65. Now, it is significant to note that the Bill was accepted in principle by this House and by all Parties in it because, if one refers to column 215, one will see that the Second Reading of the Bill was agreed to.

There was no division. Therefore the principle of that Bill was accepted unanimously by this House, and by all Parties in it, in 1946. If one turns to the Committee Stage one will see that various amendments were moved. The discussion on the Bill was altogether on a proper plane. Amendments were moved and were argued upon reasonably. One will see from the record that many of the amendments were divided upon. In other words, when there was a clear divergence of opinion between, notably, the main Opposition Party at that time—now the main Government Party—and the then Government, and where, so to speak, the difference of opinion was not resolved in debate, matters were pressed to a division. There were a number of divisions on these matters.

However, when Deputy Cosgrave, the present Parliamentary Secretary, moved to substitute an age limit of 70 for an age limit of 65, the debate on that amendment commenced at column 383. The amendment was not pressed to a division, so that the inference to be drawn is that this House unanimously accepted the principle of an age limit, and the difference between 65 and 70 was not regarded by that Party at that time, or by other Parties in the House, as being of sufficient importance to call for a division, notwithstanding the fact that other matters in the Bill were divided upon. Therefore I am, I think, warranted in concluding that there was unanimous acceptance of the principle of an age limit at that time and that even on the question as between 70 and 65 the House finally unanimously accepted the provision of the 1946 legislation.

What is the case for reversing now in regard to the appointment of district justices? Let us face the arguments pro and con. Immediately one can say that in the case of a lawyer it is mental alertness that counts; that that does not deteriorate normally as quickly as physical fitness; that a man may be competent to discharge such duties at a later age than he would be competent to discharge duties calling for physical effort; that appointment to such office is bound to be relatively late; that experience and maturity are bound to be assets. All reasonable arguments of that nature can be advanced in favour of extending the age limit there, if one wishes so to do. On the other hand, equally cogent arguments may be advanced in favour of maintaining a uniform limit for all services. One can immediately ask, why is not the experienced Departmental officer to have the same length of service as the experienced justice on the Bench? As far as the physical equation is concerned, the situations are comparable and experience and faithful service are as necessary in that category as in any other. One can pursue it that way and then one finds that there is another argument. It was expressed, as a matter of fact, rather aptly by Deputy Davin of the Labour Party on that very amendment to which I have referred and on which there was not a division. He said, at column 384 of the Dáil Debates:—

"Apart altogether from that, there is a recognised rule in the public service—and in my opinion it is a very good rule—that all public servants should retire at the age of 65. I do not see why any exceptions should be made in the case of judges or district justices to that very proper rule. If we are to solve the problem of unemployment in this country—I do not say that we will solve it to any great extent by employing more of the legal profession on the Bench—there must be a recognised rule in regard to the age of retirement from the public service and from public service companies. I fully support the present position. I hope the lawyer Deputies will not press this to a division. If they do, and the Minister stands over the 65 rule, I shall go out with the Government."

There is an equally strongly arguable case to the other side, very concisely put. Finally, one can make up his judgment on that point by balancing the pros and the cons and personally, having done that, I should be inclined —and I think I must definitely so express myself now, I should decide— to come down on the side of the uniform age limit even in this case, unless a very specific and extraordinary case can be made the other way.

So much for the principle. Why do we reverse in this Bill? Why does the Government bring in an exception in regard to the legal facet of State administration, granted, a very important one indeed. What is the case for a specific exception here as against others? I feel a sufficient case has not been made out and in a reversal on a question of principle of that nature, even if I were to feel that there was a strong case to be made in this individual instance, I would immediately ask myself, where shall we be logically and from the point of view of the confidence of the community—and democratic Government has its roots in the confidence of the community. Where are we going to be if we are later faced with exactly the same pleas that can be made in this case for extending the service of district justices, in respect of the Army, the Civil Service, teachers, the police, in regard to practically any category you may care to think of? Upon what grounds shall we differentiate? Upon what grounds could we differentiate and still preserve that balance as between all people that democratic Government must preserve if it is to maintain the confidence of the community as a whole and if it is to retain democratic forms as a working institution?

This is the first step. Therefore, let us face what ultimately is involved. There is a question of principle here. I am not suggesting that it is a morally or objectively binding principle but it is a principle in the sense of being a guiding line. As in all questions of principle, whether fundamental or merely working rules, one must look to the consequences of an infringement. We are now going to infringe for the first time upon a principle that has been accepted unanimously by this House, with very broad ramifications. Let us, therefore, in making our decisions on this matter fully realise what is involved in this. Let the Government realise that now they are taking the step, that they through the agency of the Minister for Justice, are taking this step. Where is it going to stop or can such a differentiation in principle be made as between the case specifically contemplated in this Bill and the general case in regard to such matters as I have already mentioned. It is only right to stress that because, fundamentally, that is the reason, and that is the only reason, for my part, that this Party is opposing this Bill in principle. On that matter the question of individuals is beside the point. It is regrettable that in all problems of this nature you will find that some very good men are about to retire. In this case there is the specific problem and, let me be fair and let me say it, there is the specific problem that very often the best justices may not be appointed until relatively late in life and therefore there may be pension difficulties. I would subscribe to what has been suggested by certain other speakers in this debate that the way to deal with that is to deal with the pension rights. It is worth while paying for efficiency, integrity and knowledge in the case of such an important court as the District Court and the preferable way of handling the matter is to let the age limit operate and to deal with it properly on a pension basis. There could be a case made here in favour of discrimination, namely, the frequently late date of appointment.

There is one other objection which I did not hear but I understand that Deputy Collins referred to it. I want briefly to refer to it now. Apart from the broader aspect, what we are doing here is to throw the onus on the Chief Justice. I quite subscribe to the view that the Executive should have very little control over judicial functions, and there is a case for not having such power in the Executive at all. Generally, I agree with the people who hold that view, but I do not think it right to throw the onus of this on the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary and is, so to speak, the head and the symbol of the impartiality and universality of our law and should not be left to deal with such matters as the appointment of personnel. He should be shielded and protected from having to take decisions which would bring him down to the level of competition between individuals.

It is, I submit, fundamentally wrong that the Chief Justice, charged as he is with the guardianship of what I called the integrity and universality of the law, should be asked to come down to making individual decisions of this nature with the consequent odium and criticism which must necessarily attach to such decisions no matter by whom they are made. I think that principle would be disastrous. Our courts, particularly our superior courts, have always stood separate and apart from any influence of the Executive. There has never been a breath of suspicion that anything was done in them but justice according to the law. Here we are making an inroad, a dangerous inroad, by imposing a function on the Chief Justice that will expose him, no matter how well he exercises that function or were he a Solomon, to criticism, and in the measure of the criticism and odium which he attracts in the exercise of such a function will the dignity and importance of his office before the people deteriorate.

I am surprised that a Government which is graced by lawyers of distinction, a Government which numbers in its Cabinet three lawyers of eminent distinction, should countenance the coming before this House of a Bill which is fraught with such potential danger. From the point of view of the administration of justice as a whole and the whole principle of the exclusiveness of the courts——

General MacEoin

The three lawyers should stop a country yob from bringing it in. You have said it very nicely.

Major de Valera

Oh no, but it was a shock to me from a Party so largely composed of lawyers who have fought as the Taoiseach and the others fought so consistently—and I think there is a lot to be said for their arguments— for the judiciary. In imposing such an administrative function involving the selection, the favour if you like, as between individuals, you are bringing the office of the Chief Justice into a sphere that attracts odium and discrimination, and, to that extent, you are endangering the position which that office holds and the superior courts with it. I may seem rather vehement in that view, but it is because I think that we should in regard to this Bill realise with our eyes wide open that we represent the people here and that our function is to preserve the balance equally between all, and that from our decisions follow consequences.

It would be better for the Government to come in and say one of two things. They could simply say that the age limit was to be 70 and let them make a case on that. I have given some arguments and Deputy Davin has epitomised the arguments against it. It is, however, definite and does not infringe upon the Supreme Court or upon the Chief Justice and there would be no ramifications through breach of the principle. We could argue about it or agree to it and if the Minister made a good argument for that specific case, he would not meet with the opposition which he is meet ing at the moment. That would be one solution and it would be a definite clean solution. The other is, as has already been suggested, to deal with it on a pension basis. There again you can make a specific case without going into the dangerous ground which this Bill of necessity brings us into. So much for Section 2.

The question of the number of district justices is a moot one and it will always be to some extent difficult to find the correct balance in this matter. One would have hoped that the number of justices would have decreased with the passing of emergency legislation. On the other hand, I think it would be infinitely preferable for us to have the courts and to divert certain types of disputes to be determined in these courts rather than to have the system which has grown up all too easily in modern times in this country and elsewhere of leaving judicial powers to the executive.

Talking purely personally, I am not in a position to express an opinion on sub-section (3) for want of facts beyond saying that the people who think that the District Court has not enough to do are probably mistaken. Again in the absence of information, I am not prepared to be more definite than that.

The bone of contention of this Bill is in Section 2 and even if the Minister feels that the limit must be extended for these justices or if he feels that on the restricted grounds that they would, so to speak, evacuate themselves more quickly than others when pressure decreases in the future, I would strongly urge upon him, even on the Committee Stage, to come in with a clean, straightforward Bill to amend section so-and-so of the 1946 Act by putting in the word "seventy". I think it would be infinitely safer than what the Minister is doing not only for himself where the Guards are concerned but in practically every other Department of the State, through the form and intention of that section.

General MacEoin

For a very simple Bill this has generated a good deal of controversy. The principle that I wanted to establish with this was that the judiciary should be independent and I felt that it was not possible for a temporary justice to be independent of the Executive because his reappointment depends upon a whim of the Executive. I felt when we must have temporary justices that we should get rid of that as quickly as possible. For that purpose an examination was made as to how it could best be done and it was felt that the simple direct method of doing it this way was the best and the simplest way. There is a need for it in that we have a great number of district justices who unfortunately are ill and the number of temporary justices required will be at least two all the time and by appointing these we get rid of that difficulty.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition took a very reasonable view. We are examining this matter carefully and there will be a Bill introduced as soon as possible extending the jurisdiction of district justices and reorganising the districts. I am there up against a very positive difficulty, because an extension of the districts may mean a worsening of the existing district justices' terms of appointment They may rightly argue that this is an interference with them. We hope that by reasoned thought on their part and reasoned thought on the part of the Department of Justice we will be able so to reorganise the districts and the work of the district justices in the country that we will not require the 42, but as far as we see at the moment there is no possible chance of doing with anything less.

We have cases in arrears in the City of Dublin and elsewhere that should not be in arrears. As regards the taking of depositions, there are people in prison and on remand for considerable periods and it is unfair to them. They cannot be released or dealt with until the depositions are taken. For that reason it is very essential that we get the number required. That is the main and only reason for bringing in the Bill. When the question of appointing two justices arises we will be then running up against a situation in which there will be people quite fit to act as district justices, and the principle has already been accepted that in the City of Dublin district justices can and do and will operate up to the age of 70, and the Government have the power, if a justice is able to speak Irish in the Gaeltacht and is capable of acting as a district justice, to extend his service from year to year until he is 70. I do not think that is quite a good principle because that district justice is practically in the position of a mendicant to the Government and he should not be.

Having consulted my legal advisers —though I do not depend on my legal advisers exactly for advice in this matter—the case was put to the Government that it was felt that the Chief Justice would be a reasonable person to decide whether or not a person was capable not only on a doctor's certificate but mentally, of carrying on the work of a district justice. In that way we would be removing from the Executive any power it might have over the district justice. I believed I was establishing a very excellent principle, but the Opposition have indicated that in their opinion I would be establishing a rather peculiar principle. I have no doubt that the Chief Justice in this country will always be a person with so much integrity that if anybody tries to fling mud at him, such as was suggested by Deputies on the Opposition Benches, it will not stick.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Mud was slung some years ago.

General MacEoin

I have absolute faith in the wisdom of the Executive here in their appointment of a Chief Justice.

Major de Valera

There is no question about the appointment of a Chief Justice.

General MacEoin

The Deputy himself said that if we put this duty on him we would lower his position. I ask the Deputy to read his speech.

Major de Valera

There will be more than one person anxious to extend his period of service and the Chief Justice can decide only on one person. Let the Minister, with his political knowledge, realise what will be said by the persons who do not get a favourable decision.

General MacEoin

All the district justices will not reach 65 on the one day.

Mr. Boland

They will all have to get it when their turn comes, or else you will hear plenty of criticism.

General MacEoin

I do not think they will all ask it. There are many of them who have been out ill for long periods and unable to exercise their functions and surely those men will not say to the Chief Justice: "I am perfectly fit and well able to carry on." I think the function of the Minister for Justice in such a case would be to consider that there were a number of occasions when the district justice was unable to act owing to ill-health. I think that is all quite reasonable and I do not see anything objectionable about it. I think there is a reasonable ground for it. If you were establishing any new principle or reversing your decision on the 65 issue there might be something for it, but you are not doing that.

Mr. Boland

Under the law as it stands at present this will apply only to the present justices, but in the future the age limit will be 65. This applies only to the existing justices in Cork City and Dublin City.

General MacEoin

And those justices who speak Irish in the Gaeltacht.

Mr. Boland

Yes, the Gaeltacht, but there are only three others in Dublin and one in Cork; only these four are entitled to stay until they are 70, apart from the Gaeltacht areas.

General MacEoin

I suggest that in order to meet the immediate difficulty, to relieve the existing congestion, the Bill should be passed. I think there should be power there to extend the age limit. It is quite true that one person will be retiring soon and, by way of reply to Deputy Moran, that person is not on the political panel. It would be too bad to close the door on those people now and because of that I am asking the House not only to give me the Second Reading this evening but to be more generous with me and help me along the road as far as possible.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

Will the Minister say whether he has consulted the Chief Justice on this matter?

General MacEoin

The answer is "yes."

Question put.

The Dáil divided:—Tá, 68; Níl, 59.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A. W.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Kennedy and Ó Briain.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Committee Stage?

General MacEoin

I wonder if the House would give me the remaining stages now?

Mr. de Valera

Is the Bill so urgent? There are certain amendments which we would be precluded from moving because they might be regarded as involving a charge on the Exchequer, but there is an amendment that occurs to me which, though I have not given it serious thought is of a type we should consider—that is, instead of having the burden on one individual it would become more impersonal if you had three on it. There used to be a committee consisting of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the Attorney-General, where complaint could be made in the case of irregularities on the part of a district justice. It is hardly fair to put a responsibility of that kind directly and immediately on one person, as the personal element becomes too obvious. We would like to have a little more time to consider it. Surely it is not a question of days or hours?

General MacEoin

Practically. The Senate meets next week and would not meet for a considerable length of time after that.

Mr. de Valera

There is a case which would be affected?

General MacEoin

There is. If this does not go through, it would be no good to that person. Supposing all stages were given to me to-morrow?

Mr. de Valera

Would the Minister himself consider the amendment I am suggesting? I suggest to the Minister that he could put down an amendment himself to-morrow. I do not know if it could be accepted by the House now. That is the only one which occurs to me. Instead of a single individual, a committee would be more satisfactory and it would be better to have such a group. I understand there is such a group already for considering certain cases. It is there for another purpose. If the Minister would agree, it would be wiser to do this. He can easily see the sort of pressure of various kinds that might be brought. I do not say that it would influence the individual or that he would not do his best, but still we are all inclined to be very soft in these cases.

General MacEoin

That would be giving the matter more importance than it deserves. It is a very simple one and will be a factual thing for the Chief Justice to find.

Mr. de Valera

I am sorry, I do not agree with the Minister on that.

General MacEoin

To extend it to three people would be making it impersonal. I would have to establish some machinery by which it would go to these three. In the present way, it would be a direct message from the justice to the Chief Justice.

Mr. de Valera

That can be done still.

General MacEoin

Then you have the machinery for calling these people together. I think it would create difficulties for everybody concerned. I would be prepared to consider it, but I do not think it would be an improvement.

Mr. de Valera

It would be a very great improvement. I do not agree with the Minister and I think he is making difficulties where difficulties do not exist. I am anxious to get this Bill through, but in the public interest I want to see it as good as it can be. It is not a simple matter by any means, nor a trifling matter, but one of considerable importance in the public interest. My suggestion is that this group of three, which formerly met for disciplinary purposes, could act. The district justice could make his application to the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice could arrange to have the others meet him and consider the case. The Minister for Justice could put before them the facts that he would put before the Chief Justice.

Mr. Boland

The Minister said that there was going to be some other legislation dealing with District Courts. If we agree to this now, will he agree to consider this matter when the new Bill comes in?

General MacEoin

Yes.

Mr. Boland

If it is so urgent, I make that suggestion.

Mr. de Valera

I am afraid I am not as easy to satisfy in this case as the former Minister for Justice. I think it is an important matter. We would not have voted against it at all or be anxious to contest if we did not regard it as an important matter. Now that we have been beaten on the principle and that the axe does not fall at 65 definitely, I want to see that the machinery for extending the age as good as we can make it. I do not think it is fair to have an individual responsible in a case like that, where it would be very much better to have a group of three. If the Minister is at all anxious to meet us, he can do that. He can bring in an amendment, or wait until to-morrow if he wishes for more time to consider it.

General MacEoin

May I point out that this was already the law under Section 72 of the Courts of Justice Act of 1924? The ages were 55 and 60 and then it would be referred to the Chief Justice, who could extend it if he thought fit. The section operated at that time.

Mr. de Valera

Would the Minister please read the section.

General MacEoin

Section 72 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, says:

"The age of retirement of a justice of the District Court for the time being assigned to the Police District of Dublin Metropolis or to a district comprising or including the City of Cork shall be 70 years, and the age of retirement of every other justice of the District Court shall be 65 years: Provided that in the case of a justice of the District Court who shall have been a district justice under the District Justices (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 6 of 1923), and at the date of his appointment to the last-mentioned office was over 55 years of age and under 60 years of age, the Chief Justice may, if he thinks fit, extend the age of retirement of such justice to such date as will enable him to complete a period of service sufficient to qualify him for a pension."

Mr. de Valera

While that may have been used before there is no reason why we should not improve on the machinery now if we think it desirable to do so. I think the machinery could be improved.

Captain Cowan

Might I ask the Minister has the Chief Justice been consulted in regard to this?

General MacEoin

Yes.

Captain Cowan

And he agreed to accept the responsibility?

General MacEoin

He agreed to, yes.

Mr. Moran

Has the Minister been consulted by the district justice concerned in this Bill?

General MacEoin

I am prepared to consider amending it to-morrow if I can get all stages to-morrow.

Mr. de Valera

If the Minister is prepared to consider it and if he agrees to the particular amendment we will try to give him the Committee Stage to-morrow.

Agreed to take Committee Stage to-morrow.