Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 May 1949

Vol. 115 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Courts of Justice (District Court) Bill, 1949—Committee and Remaining Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before sub-section (1) to insert the following sub-section:—

"(1) (a) In this section the expression `the Committee' means a committee consisting of—

(i) the Chief Justice,

(ii) the President of the High Court, and

(iii) the Attorney-General.

(b) The Committee may act by a majority of its members and a warrant under this section shall be sufficiently authenticated if signed by two members of the Committee."

I gave an undertaking last night signifying my consent to move an amendment in response to the views put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I have consulted the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the Attorney-General and they are prepared to act on the committee. Therefore, I am moving that Section 2 be amended in the form set out, and that a committee be set up. The Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the Attorney-General will act as the committee in this matter.

I might refer to the fact that last night a good deal of stress was laid on 65 as a retiring age. I find that, in the case of county registrars, both myself and my predecessor have very often exercised the right to extend the age in their cases from 65 to 70. Therefore, the principle involved is not a hard and fast one. I think that this amendment will meet with the wishes of the Opposition, and I am glad to be in a position to give way to their views.

Of course, I heard the discussion that went on across the House last evening between the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in regard to this suggestion. The time available for submitting amendments to this Bill was very short. I think the Bill will be improved by this amendment, which is, substantially, an agreed one.

I would like to see on this committee some people who are outside the law It was agreed last night that the Chief Justice has no contact with district justices. The President of the High Court has very little contact with them. There is this objection to the Attorney-General being on the committee—that the Attorney-General directs prosecutions. Prosecutions before district justices are taken in the name of the Attorney-General. While I believe that any person who would occupy the position of Attorney-General would be an honourable person and would carry out this function, which is a semijudicial one, in the same correct way as he would carry out any other function, there is the danger that if a prosecution or certain prosecutions were initiated by the Attorney-General before a district justice in the last year of his service, the district justice might consider that the fact of his application going before a committee consisting of three people, including the Attorney-General, it might unconsciously influence his decision in the case. For that reason, I, personally, would prefer if the Attorney-General was not a member of this committee.

I think it would be a wise thing—it cannot be done now unless the Minister agrees, though probably it can be done in the Seanad—if there were laymen of standing on a committee of this kind. I think there ought to be. My suggestion would be, if there had been an opportunity to put down an amendment, to include the president of the Trade Union Congress and the president of the Congress of Irish Unions, those two men to represent the ordinary people of the country as members of this committee. I do not think this is just a humorous matter at all. I think that the ordinary people have, and ought to have, some say in important matters of this kind. I am perfectly certain that the two people I suggest would carry out their functions in a responsible way, and that my suggestion, if acted on, would give greater confidence in this committee. As I say, I am not in a position to move an amendment now, unless the Minister agrees to it. It may be that some person will move such an amendment in the Seanad.

I know that all stages of this Bill have been promised to the Minister to-day. I take it that he will take the Bill to-day as it is, and there is nothing that I can do about it. I raise these two points now, the first with regard to the Attorney-General and the second, that the committee could be enlarged by the two individuals I have mentioned, or by some other two people who would not be lawyers.

Mr. de Valera

I should like to thank the Minister for receiving the suggestions that I made last night and for bringing forward this amendment. The objection that has been raised by Deputy Cowan did not occur to me. I thought of the three mentioned in the amendment because they happened to be members of the former disciplinary committee. I would like to say to the House that another suggestion occurred to me to-day. I was not going to mention it because it might be suggested that I wished to change the committee for some reason. If the Minister were considering an alternative, I might say that when that committee was the disciplinary committee we did not have the judge who is President of the Circuit Court. He possibly might be regarded as a suitable person to act on this committee since he is not concerned in an official way with District Court prosecutions. However, the Minister can see why I did not like to amend my suggestion, but if the Minister wished to consider it I would be quite happy about the change. If the Minister thinks there is any substance in the objection that has been raised by Deputy Cowan, I mention that as an alternative that he might consider.

I would like very sincerely to compliment the Minister on accepting the suggestion that was made to him last night and for incorporating it in the Bill. Although I compliment him, I do so not because I agree with the suggestion. I think that the Bill was probably better as it was. I believe that the more simple the type of machinery you set up the better purpose it will serve. I believe it is important, particularly in what should be non-contentious Bills of this sort, that the Government should give very careful consideration to suggestions which are put forward in a reasonable way by the Opposition. I think that will encourage all Deputies in their work here in relation to Bills, particularly on the Committee Stage. For that reason I would compliment the Minister on accepting Deputy de Valera's suggestion. Once that suggestion has been made and accepted, I would not like to see any alteration made in it. As far as I know, the Attorney-General is the person responsible for appointing district justices. I may be wrong about that. I am sorry; I was thinking about State solicitors. The Attorney-General has much more close contracts with district justices than either the Chief Justice or the President of the High Court. The fear which Deputy Cowan has expressed might be a real fear, but I do not think it is likely to have that effect at all. In so far as it is necessary to have a committee that will know something about district justices and something about whether or not they are fit to continue, it is essential that there should be on the committee somebody who is rather close to them and who will know what work they have been doing and what work they are to be called on to do.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister will make representations. He is supposed to have that information and to present it to the committee.

Yes, but for the recommendation going from the committee to the Minister when the actual decision is to be taken.

They have full power.

The committee must, under the measure as it is, come to a decision and can come to it by a majority. They, I take it, will meet without the Minister. He is not on the committee, but he may be consulted by them, and, at the committee meeting, I feel it essential that someone with rather close knowledge of the district justices should be functioning. For that reason, I should like to see the Attorney-General retained. I think he would be more suitable ex officio than the President of the Circuit Court.

Major de Valera

I think there is a point of considerable importance in what Deputy Cowan has submitted in this regard. It is desirable that these people who are administering the law should be completely independent of the Executive and that was always one of the big arguments urged against the appointment of temporary justices and assistant justices. The Attorney-General is virtually in the same position as the Executive, even though he is a law officer. In principle, there is the relationship to which Deputy Cowan has drawn attention and I personally think that, if the Minister were to consider a further amendment, there is substance in that point and it would be desirable to replace the Attorney-General by somebody else.

I am in this difficulty, that, having decided to put down the amendment, I consulted these people with regard to their acting, and I think it would be rather peculiar for me to start changing again.

Mr. de Valera

It is a job which nobody will be looking for, I can assure the Minister.

I think the arrangement with regard to a decision by two being final obviates any danger of the Attorney-General being capable of carrying out his view, no matter what the view of the Executive would be. I think it is ample protection. It is true that you may have the Attorney-General and a judge putting a person on instead of knocking him off. I am afraid there is something in what the Leader of the Opposition has said, that there will be a certain amount of softness in favour of the applicant and I do not want to take that away.

Mr. de Valera

The whole Bill is based on softness.

But not too much of it. I think the committee is a good one and I should be glad if the House would accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is offered.

The Minister could consider between now and the time the Bill goes to the Seanad ——

That would involve coming back to the House again. There is a time factor, and, if the Bill takes its normal course, it will mean that one person will be cut out—I am quite candid about that—and it would look as if we were legislating deliberately against that individual.

I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has tabled the amendment, and, while I know he has discussed it with the Attorney-General, I am quite sure if he said to the Attorney-General that this point had been raised, the Attorney-General would be delighted to have the responsibility taken from him. The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned the President of the Circuit Court, but there is another man, the Master of the High Court, who also is in an independent position. I do not want to hold up the Minister, but if, between now and the time when the Bill goes to the Seanad, he considered making a change, it would be only a matter of his coming to the House to be facilitated.

There will be some legislation in the future extending the jurisdiction of the District Courts and dealing with the reorganisation of districts, and on that Bill it would be possible to amend this arrangement after it has been working for some time and after we have seen how it worked.

That Bill will not get a smooth run through the House.

The solicitors will not be on the same side as the barristers in that case.

Amendment agreed to.
The following amendments were also agreed to:—
2. In sub-section (1), page 2—
(a) in lines 17 and 20, to delete "Chief Justice" and substitute "Committee", and
(b) in line 20, to delete "he so thinks" and substitute "they so think".
3. In sub-section (2), page 2—
(a) in lines 29 and 32, to delete "Chief Justice" and substitute "Committee", and
(b) in line 32, to delete "he so thinks" and substitute "they so think".
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. de Valera

Has the Minister had any examination made of whether the areas are arranged in point of size to give the various district justices a reasonable amount of work and to ensure that they are engaged for a reasonable amount of their time, and has he in mind any means by which something could be done, as in the case of the Circuit Court, to see that those who are slack at certain periods will help those who are unduly pressed?

The matter is under examination and we have gone a long distance towards readjusting the districts, but we are up against this difficulty, that, once they are appointed to a district, you worsen their conditions if you make them do more. I have not been fully advised yet by the Attorney-General or the law officers as to what power even the Dáil would have to extend the districts.

That difficulty was got over in the case of the Act dealing with the Circuit Court.

I presume that there is just the same staff in the Department now as then. I do not want to say too much on the matter until the proposals have been completed because it might give rise to agitation or maybe to a strike of district justices.

Mr. de Valera

We are in no position to judge exactly what can be done in that regard—we have to depend upon the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. de Valera

I simply want to point out that, although we will not divide on this, our fundamental objection to the Bill stands. We voted against the principle of the Bill and we do not see any particular point in having a vote on this stage, seeing that we have not got the numbers to ensure that our point of view will obtain. At the same time, we think it a pity that the Dáil, within a year or two, should be asked to make changes with regard to a matter on which there is obviously a considerable difference of opinion, a matter in respect of which it is easy enough to come down on one side or the other. I think it unsettles things and gives room for the suggestion that if you have sufficient interest in matters of that sort you can get the Government in power to change in favour of a particular section. That is a mistake.

I want to reaffirm my view, that if this is based on the idea that the years of service of a district justice would not be sufficient to entitle him to a full pension, that could be met in another way, even though it might not appear to be favourable to the Treasury. I said on the Second Reading that the important thing is to see that the money is spent on efficient service. If you do not get efficient service the money is wasted, no matter what reasons are given for spending it. These justices are really the men who safeguard the rights of a large section of the community and it is a very important matter that they should be in full possession of their faculties at their best, that they should be active and should be able to do their work with reasonable rapidity.

In this case there could be a wiser arrangement instead of giving a possible extra five years and getting, perhaps, inefficient service for it. It is not so easy to judge these things. It is all right if you can keep a person under constant observation. In that way you know whether the person is constantly in good health and is able to do the work properly. But there is no machinery by which you can do that. The service of the public demands that you should have, as district justices, men who are quick and whose judgment is sound. It would be better, instead of adding the five years by this indirect method, that you should directly give them five years by cutting down the period required for full pensionable service.

I should like to make a few remarks on one aspect of this measure. When district justices were originally appointed there was a new system of government and it was essential that young people should be appointed to the position in order, as it were, to bring the new system into operation. At that time, looking at it from the point of view of providing pensions, the Department of Finance calculated that the average age of appointment was 35 and they decided to make the justices serve for 30 years. As a practitioner in the courts I would say that no matter how efficient a justice may be, you get fed up with him after 30 years. I think the period is too long and I suggest to the Minister that when he comes to consider this aspect in the new legislation he has in mind, he should consider paying full pension to a district justice on completion of 20 years' service. That will enable a much older man to be appointed, and I think this is one of the positions in which age counts and helps.

When the Minister was dealing with the amendment he said that county registrars had had their years of service extended occasionally, but that was before the pension conditions of county registrars were improved. I am prepared to agree with Deputy Cowan that they were not improved sufficiently. I think that in some respects the county registrar has a more important position than a district justice. A shorter time for pension purposes would have been a much better way of settling this. On Tuesday we had a declaration of Government policy by the Minister for Health. Medical officers were in question then and he said it was in the public interest that they should retire at 65 years. I subscribed to that and I was in full agreement with the attitude of the Dáil in 1946 on this same matter. On that occasion our Party and the Labour Party—the Labour Party in particular—were very strong indeed about the retiring age being 65. We had to assume that the principal Opposition Party at that time were also satisfied. They had an amendment down to extend the age of retirement of all district justices, but they withdrew that. It is a good principle and it was reaffirmed by the Government on Tuesday. Then the next day this Bill reverses that decision.

I firmly believe this committee will extend the period in every case that comes before them. If they do not there will be all sorts of recriminations. Every man who is turned down will have a grievance and he will say "If I were so-and-so I would get it." That is bad business. It would be much better to have the same law as for the civil servants. There is a great loss to the State by the enforced retirement of experienced civil servants, some of them in the prime of life at 65. At the same time it would be bad not to have the rule to retire at that age. It could be said that so-and-so could get it done, but that is not advisable.

It is a bad Bill and it is a pity the Minister gave way to some sort of pressure—I am afraid he did. I had to stand up to it on a few occasions. The cases were hard cases but I felt it was in the public interest to keep to the law as it stood. I have a feeling that I will not get the prayers of some of the district justices that I allowed to go. They were good men but I could not do anything else. If that is the way things will work here it will be very bad. We may have one Department saying that it is in the public interest to retire officials at 65 while other Departments will take a contrary view. We will have no public confidence and it will be simply an invitation to other sections of the service to bring pressure to bear on the appropriate Minister to have the same applied to them as in the case of the District Courts.

I would say 20 years' service is ample. A man 45 years of age should be in a position to receive a pension after 20 years. A judge in the higher courts can get the minimum pension in five years and the maximum in 15. I dare— say that is all right because you require more experience for a High Court position. This is not a matter that is approached in a Party spirit. We are all anxious to see this matter settled in the best interests of the community and that the people will be served in the best possible way. When the Minister brings in legislation, as I believe he intends to, he should reconsider this matter. The whole House is united on getting the best service for the people and the Minister should induce the Minister for Finance to improve the pension position rather than resort to this method which could never be satisfactory.

I am glad that this measure has been received by the House in this way. In the case of the lawyers, there has been this particular extension of years which has not been given to any other section and the reason is that the lawyers were appointed late in life. The Civil Service cannot be compared with the lawyers in this case. The civil servants are caught young and they are trained in the arts and crafts of the service and they have a long period before them.

Mr. Boland

On that point, there are technical people who should be brought in later and that is a fault. Technical people should be brought in later as they have more experience.

The fact is that civil servants and this sort of people are not exactly the same. As I say, power is being left with the Minister for Justice to extend the period of service of the registrar. In the Gaeltacht area the Minister has power to extend the period of service of a district justice. I agree that there should be one guiding rule and, as far as I can ensure it, that will obtain. When this has been working for a while and we see how it goes, when the Minister for Justice is bringing in a further Bill at some stage, all this can be reviewed. I think I shall have to set up some further committee to examine the matter in detail because the whole question of the jurisdiction of the District Courts is a very elaborate matter. I am glad the Bill has been received in the way it has been received and I am very grateful to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share