Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Jul 1953

Vol. 141 No. 5

Courts of Justice Bill, 1953—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. The objects of the Bill are chiefly four. Firstly it proposes to restate the jurisdiction of the Circuit and District Courts in civil matters in terms that will be more in keepingwith the present day value of money. Secondly, it provides for a rearrangement of Circuit Court circuits and District Court districts which is long overdue and which will permit of a reduction in the number of circuits and districts and eventually, as vacancies occur, in the number of Circuit Judges and District Justices. Thirdly, it authorises the appointment of an additional High Court judge which has become necessary on account of the congestion of business in the High Court. And, finally, it authorises the grant to judges and justices of the increased salaries recommended by the Select Committee on Judicial Remuneration and makes certain alterations in the law in relation to judicial pensions. Besides the main provisions, the Bill contains a few miscellaneous provisions about which I shall have something to say in due course.

I do not think I need say very much about the judges and justices' salaries. The Bill gives effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee that an increase of salary should be given to the judges of the Supreme and High Courts as well as to the circuit judges and district justices and authorities the grant of the specific increases that the committee recommended, namely the sum of £450 a year in the case of the district justices and the circuit judges and the sum of £250 a year in the case of the other judges. From the point of view of the judiciary the present Bill's provisions with respect to remuneration are a great improvement on the provisions of the previous Bill.

Circuit judges and district justices are to receive increases amounting respectively to £75 a year and £150 a year more than was originally proposed and the judges of the Supreme and High Court who would have got nothing under the previous Bill are now to receive an increase of £250 a year. It is the view of the Government that the increased salaries now to be granted are so much better than the salaries provided for in the previous Bill and are so liberal in themselves that it would not be fair to the taxpayer to ask the Dáil to authorise payment of the new salariesfrom an earlier date than the 1st April this year. It is, therefore, unable to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee with regard to retrospection.

As regards judicial pensions, it is proposed to change the law in two respects. As the law stands, a judge is entitled to retire in the full vigour of his physical and mental powers after 15 years' service irrespective of his age. This is obviously unfair to the taxpayer and the Bill provides that in future no judge shall be entitled to retire on pension until he has reached the age of 65 years unless his retirement has been brought about by ill-health and the same provision is to apply to justices. This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee. The second change proposed is that the qualifying period of service to entitle a justice to full pension should be reduced from 30 years to 20 years. The committee recommended a reduction to 15 years but the Government has felt unable to accept this part of the committee's recommendation as it is of opinion that the considerations which may be urged in favour of fixing the qualifying period at 15 years in the case of the judges who are normally appointed late in life, do not apply to the case of the district justices. As a corollary to the reduction in the qualifying period for pension it is being provided that a justice who ceases to hold office because of age or infirmity is to be entitled to a pension after five years' service instead of ten years as at present. The pension proposals of the Bill will not apply to existing judges at all but they will apply to existing justices, if they so elect.

Before leaving the question of remuneration and pensions I should mention the question of expenses. Section 5 of the Bill is to replace Section 77 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, which has been found to be defective and difficult of interpretation. It is not intended to alter the existing practice, a description of which may be found in the Select Committee's report, and the purpose of Section 5 is simply to provide a clear and unequivocal statutory authority for what has alwaysbeen the practice. The Government has given careful consideration to the recommendation of the Committee that Section 44 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, should be repealed and that the judges of the High Court on circuit should receive an allowance to cover the cost of hotel accommodation instead of being provided with lodgings which are very costly but has decided, in deference to views expressed by the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court on behalf of the judges, not to make any change in the law but to try, by agreement with the judges, to secure a more extensive use of hotels with a consequent saving to the Exchequer.

I come now to the proposals for a reorganisation of Circuit Court circuits and District Court districts. The aim of these proposals, as I have already said, is to bring about a more even distribution of the business of the courts which will permit of a reduction in the present number of circuits and districts and, eventually, a corresponding reduction in the number of circuit judges and district justices.

To deal with the Circuit Court first —when the courts were established in 1924 the number of circuits was fixed at eight. In 1936 this number was increased to nine by the grouping together of the Counties of Donegal and Sligo to form a separate additional circuit. The case for reverting to the original idea of having no more than eight circuits is simply this—that taken as a whole the volume of business arising, outside of the Dublin and Cork circuits, is insufficient to keep a complement of seven judges reasonably fully employed and that it is plainly extravagant to have seven judges handling a volume of business that six could dispose of, if the business were better distributed.

An analysis of the number of days upon which each of the seven judges in the circuits in question sat over a five-year period shows that the annual average of sitting days for all seven circuits was 738, which means that each of the judges sat, on the average, on only 105 days in the year. Of course, the average is a purely artificial figure, as some of the judges sat much morefrequently than this. But the fact remains that the present arrangement of circuits does not provide anything like an even distribution of work as between the different circuits. Thus, in one circuit the judge has had to sit on 160 days, on the average, over the five-year period while the average number of sitting days in each of five other circuits during the same period fell below 100 days, and in one case it was well below 100 days. And last year the sittings in four of the provincial circuits fell below 100.

The intention is to constitute the new circuits with all convenient speed as soon as the Bill is law. In so doing an effort will be made to suit the convenience of all concerned and there will be as little interference as possible with the existing circuits. It has been represented by the Bar Council that the interests of the circuit-going Bar who practise in different counties would be affected by the transfer of certain circuit towns which are now in one circuit, to another circuit. Thus, a barrister who is at present practising in two towns in the same circuit may find that, if one of these towns is transferred to another circuit, the times for the hearing of business in the two towns may clash. I do not know whether there is any way of completely overcoming this difficulty but, no doubt, the interests of the Bar will receive due consideration from the President of the Circuit Court, in consultation with the circuit judge concerned, when he is fixing the places at which and the dates on which sittings are to be held in a particular circuit.

In the case of the District Court, there is room for a substantial reduction in the number of districts and a rearrangement of districts is long overdue. As matters stand, some of the justices have comparatively little to do and the majority of what I may call the country justices are not fully employed. District Court sittings take place on fixed days and, normally, on these days only, except where the justice considers it necessary or desirable to hold a special court in addition to the normal fixtures. Thus, by looking at the list of fixtures it is possible,if due allowance is made for the holding of occasional special courts, to get a general idea of the number of days on which the justices have to sit in the several districts. What the list reveals is that the fixtures do not provide for the holding of sittings, on as many as ten days in the month, in some of the districts and that the average for the country outside Dublin is less than 14 days in the month. Needless to say some of the justices sit more often than this and I am informed that the justice who is assigned to Cork City actually sits every day in the week except Sunday. Nevertheless, it is plain that there are too many districts in relation to the volume of business, which is spread so thinly over some districts that it does not provide enough work to keep the justices assigned to these districts reasonably fully employed. A survey of the position that has been made by my Department suggests that it may be found possible to reduce the number of districts by as many as six or seven without imposing an unreasonable burden of work on any individual justice. It is not proposed to interfere with the Dublin Metropolitan District.

In the case of both the Circuit Court and the District Court the rearrangement of circuits and districts will necessitate the cancellation of the existing assignments of judges and justices to their present circuits and districts and their reassignment to the smaller number of circuits and districts proposed to be created under the provisions of the Bill. Inevitably, one of the circuit judges will lose his circuit and at least five of the justices who are at present permanently assigned to particular districts will find themselves without a district. The intention is that the supernumerary judge and justice will then become liable to be temporarily assigned from time to time to any place in which their services may happen to be required and to be permanently assigned to a particular circuit or district, as the case may be, on the occurrence of a vacancy, and that there will be no further appointments to the bench in either the Circuit Court or the District Court until the numberof judges and justices falls below the smaller numbers for which provision is being made in the Bill. Unfortunately the reassignment of the judges and justices cannot be effected without a certain amount of unavoidable disturbance and the rearrangement of circuits and districts will not be free from complications. The policy will be to try to effect the proposed reorganisation with as little inconvenience to all concerned as the nature of the case permits and, with this object, to seek the co-operation of the judges and justices themselves in making the best possible arrangements.

I pass now to the proposal to increase the jurisdiction of the Circuit and the District Courts. In both cases, the justification for the increase is the same, namely, that money has lost more than half its value since the present financial limits were set by the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. What is proposed is, therefore, no more than a restoration of the status quo.It was always the intention that the Circuit Court should be able to deal with substantial actions and the Act of 1924 was so framed as to devolve on the court a general jurisdiction in civil cases, both at law and equity, subject only to the financial limits (which it is now proposed to double) and to the express exclusions specified in the Act. It is clear that a court so constituted was intended to be, for all practical purposes, a miniature High Court, and this is further evidenced by the extensive criminal jurisdiction that was vested in the court and by the fact that, in civil matters, the court was given unlimited jurisdiction on consent.

So long as the value of money remained at the 1924 level an action involving a claim for £300 could fairly be regarded as a substantial action. This is no longer the case, with the result that litigants are being put to the expense of having to take proceedings in the High Court to settle disputes about things that could formerly have been settled in the Circuit Court merely because these things have altered in their money value. Thus, if one considers the stake alone,there is an unanswerable case for readjusting the existing financial limitations to bring them into line with the present value of money. But this is not the whole story. A major item in the cost of litigation in the High Court is the expense of bringing the parties and their witnesses and, on occasion, their solicitors to Dublin and these expenses have increased very considerably in recent years. As a result, the cost of recovering sums between £300 and £600 is quite out of proportion to the amount at issue. The cost of litigation must always be a matter of grave concern for the Government and for the legal profession. For the profession, because the quantity of litigation is inevitably reduced when its cost is too expensive; and for the Government, because it is manifestly contrary to the public interest that people should be prevented from seeking justice for fear of the cost.

As to the effect of the proposed increase of jurisdiction it would be difficult, if not impossible, to forecast precisely the amount of business at present being transacted in the High Court and the Circuit Court that is likely to be transferred to the Circuit and District Courts respectively, if the provisions of this Bill become law, and I do not think that anything would be gained by my attempting a statistical assessment of the probabilities. From such statistics as are readily available, it does not appear that the change will greatly affect the volume of business in the Circuit Court but, of course, it is bound to increase the volume of business in the District Court.

As regards the miscellaneous provisions of the Bill, I must first refer to Section 12. Under the law as it stands an accused person has an absolute right to have his trial transferred from the Circuit Court to the Central Criminal Court if he is charged with an offence for which the maximum penalty exceeds one year's imprisonment or five years' penal servitude. It has been represented to me that this right has been and is being abused and that the practice has grown and is becoming more and more frequent of applying for transfers simply to delay the proceedings. As a result, more thanhalf the time of the Central Criminal Court has been taken up in recent years with transferred cases, most of which could have had a fair trial in the local venue. Thus, the High Court has been needlessly deprived, for a considerable part of the year, of the services of one of its judges who can ill be spared for the disposal of business that can and should be dealt with in the Circuit Court. The existence of the abuse to which I refer is best evidenced by the fact that most of the applications for transfers in recent years are applications for transfers from the Circuit Court in Dublin which draws its jurors from the same Jury Book that the jurors for the Central Criminal Court are drawn from. In such cases it is perfectly obvious that a fair trial is just as likely to be had in one court as in the other save in quite exceptional circumstances. But, as matters stand, the accused is not required to show that there are such special circumstances or indeed to show cause of any kind. Even in the country, there is much less justification than there used to be for permitting the transfer of trials to the Central Criminal Court, as the Circuit judge is now empowered (since the enactment of Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1951) to transfer a criminal trial from one place in the circuit to another, if he is of opinion that a fair trial cannot be had in the first mentioned place. Section 12 of the present Bill provides that, in future, transfers to the Central Criminal Court shall be made only on the order of the High Court and, instead of a transfer to the Central Court, the High Court may order a transfer to another circuit. The existing statutory provision on the subject, namely Section 54 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, is being repealed.

Section 14 of the Bill deals with the reconstitution of the Superior Courts Rules Committee by providing that the Council of the Incorporated Law Society shall be entitled to two nominated members instead of the president of the society who is at present an ex-officio member. This is being done at the request of thesociety. The section also provides specifically for the power to make rules in regard to election petitions. The rules committee are doubtful if this power exists at present. Section 19 of the Bill allows for the transfer of a part-heard action in the Circuit Court from one venue to another and validates an existing practice which is considered to be of doubtful legality. Section 28 of the Bill which deals with desertion cases also validates an existing practice which we have been advised has no legal foundation. Finally there is Section 30 which makes it quite clear that there is an appeal to the Circuit Court from an order of the District Court under Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907.

So much for the main provisions. The immediate cost of granting to the members of the judiciary the higher salaries proposed and of providing an additional High Court judge will be approximately £29,000 a year but the eventual cost, when the number of circuit judges and district justices has been reduced, is likely to be no more than £16,000 a year. The increased salaries will, of course, result in higher pension charges and there may be some slight increase in judicial travelling and subsistence expenses.

Before I conclude I should like, on behalf of the Government, to thank the members of the Select Committee of the House who so kindly gave their time to the study of judicial remuneration and produced such a helpful report.

Mr. Everett

Only a section of the House.

Mr. Boland

I said those members of the committee who gave their time to the preparation of the report. I am sorry that every Party did not send a representative.

Mr. Everett

Oh, no! There is not a word about the unemployed. There are no increases for them.

Mr. J.A. Costello

The Minister in his opening statement divided this Bill into four parts. I should like to divide the Bill into two parts because the Bill appears to me to bear on its face allthe evidence of being a compromise between the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance. In one part of the Bill, which I shall call the first part, proposals are made for increasing the salaries of the judiciary and their pensions rights to some extent. In the other part, there is provision for decreasing the number of district justices and circuit judges—obviously a Department of Finance device to decrease the general charge irrespective of the result on litigants and the public in general. My approach to this Bill is actuated by the division that I have made of the Bill into two parts. I want to see the first part put into operation as soon as possible. The other part consists of a number of miscellaneous provisions, some of which, to say the least of it, are of very doubtful value, others of which give rise to legitimate differences of opinion even amongst different members of different Parties and others of which give rise to acute controversy.

There is plenty of room, for instance, for legitimate difference of opinion on the question of whether it is desirable to increase the Circuit Court jurisdiction and, if so, to what extent. There are very grave reasons for acute controversy on some of the other topics with which I shall not now deal. I might mention as an instance the proposal which the Minister dealt with at the close of his speech, namely the abolition of the right of an accused person to have his trial transferred from a judge whom he does not like to a judge in whom he may have more confidence. I give that as one instance of matters which may give rise to acute controversy. I give as an instance of a proposal with regard to which there may be differences of opinion the proposal to increase the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. I do not know whether that has been given any real consideration at all. It appears to me that a rule of thumb method was adopted in connection with it. The old limit of jurisdiction was £300 and the value of money has since been halved as we all know. I do not know whether any consideration has been given to the type of case falling between the £300 and £600 jurisdiction, even to the extent of taking into consideration thefall in the value of money. Have the Minister and his Department considered that they are doing away with the right of individual litigants to have adequate consideration by a jury in cases of negligence? I think I may say here that juries at present, in dealing with matters of damages, have not reached the point where they do give consideration in connection with the amount of damages they award in their verdicts, to the fall in the value of money. You may have, therefore, cases where some poor person feeling that he is entitled to very much more than £600, may get £599 or even £600 and finds himself damnified in costs.

The fact is that for all practical purposes the right to a jury has gone in cases of that kind. Theoretically, the right to a jury exists in the Circuit Court, but it is very rare now to hear a jury being asked for in the Circuit Court because there is no earthly use in having a jury in the Circuit Court by reason of the right of appeal to the High Court judge on circuit.

I do not want to deal in detail with the other matters contained in the miscellaneous portions of this Bill beyond saying that in my view there are certain portions of the Bill which go very near to trenching upon the independence of the judiciary. There is urgent necessity for doing justice to the judiciary by passing this Bill, but I want to make one protest.

The question of judicial salaries has been mixed up here with the question of details. In the time given to us towards the close of the session we have not an opportunity of giving as full consideration to these matters of detail and procedure involved in the second part of this Bill as we would like to have. I do not believe this Bill was carved out after consultation with the persons primarily interested. I believe this Bill was drafted in the Department and then thrown out at the Incorporated Law Society, the Bar Council, perhaps the judges, but no member of the business or industrial community was consulted. Has any case been made by the industrial or business section of the community that the Circuit Court jurisdiction is not sufficiently high? I believe this sugisatiogestion emanated merely as a result of the departmental point of view that money has changed in value and that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court should therefore be doubled. I believe there is no other reason behind this change. From my own experience I know that a £600 case in this country is still, notwithstanding the depreciation in the value of money, a very substantial case, very frequently involving difficult consideration of law.

However hard working Circuit Court judges may be, however competent they may be, the circumstances in which they work are not conducive, with perhaps the exception of the City of Dublin and possibly the City of Cork, to the careful and detailed consideration that may be required in particular cases. There is a run-over in the Circuit Court and an appeal to the High Court on circuit but the point is that the £600 case notwithstanding the fall in money may be and very frequently is of very considerable importance to the litigants.

The Minister, having given his reasons—or lack of reasons—for increasing jurisdiction by a mere rule of thumb proceeds then to say that there will hardly be any increase in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. It strikes me as a peculiar procedure to double the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, increase substantially the jurisdiction of the District Court and then proceed to cut away the numbers of the Circuit Court judges and very drastically reduce the number of district justices. Where is the logic and the reason in that? It appears to be a Finance device to cut down the cost of the Bill and we will very shortly have a Bill asking for power to increase the number of Circuit Court judges or district justices.

I do not believe this is the proper method of dealing with a Courts of Justice Bill. This is a Bill that should be, and I think will be, largely considered apart altogether from political considerations. It is a Bill that can be dealt with in a calm atmosphere if it is approached in a proper way by allsections of this House speaking from their experience and knowledge of what they think is required. Such a Bill should be approached in its preparation with that knowledge. It should not be first prepared and then submitted. Before any such Bill is framed or introduced there should be consultation with the various parties which are in a position to give the Government their views as to the working of the existing machinery under the existing Courts of Justice Acts. There should be consultation with the judges, with the Bar Council, with the Incorporated Law Society and with business interests and the various county registrars before the Bill is drafted with a view to finding out what the problems are and how best they can be solved instead of the Minister producing a document, standing foursquare on that document and refusing to give way.

I have strong views on certain sections of this Bill. It is rather extraordinary that there is nothing in this Bill providing a measure of relief for the congestion that exists in the High Court by increasing the jurisdiction of the Master. That is one instance that occurs to me. Apart from that there are certain sections to which I take violent exception. Certain sections of this Bill trench very closely upon the independence of the judiciary. So far as my attitude is concerned to the miscellaneous sections of the Bill I duly give notice that if and when it is possible for me and my colleagues to give proper consideration to a Bill of this kind we will do so along the lines I have already adumbrated—that is, by first examining the problems, seeing the difficulties, consulting the various interests concerned, and then endeavouring, as far as possible, to arrive at an agreed measure. I do not intend to deal with these matters of controversy in detail now, or even to give my own views on them, because I object to and I protest against the provisions in relation to judicial salaries being placed in a miscellaneous Bill of this kind. I believe that was done deliberately to put my colleagues and myself into a position of some little difficulty. It iswell known that we stand for the independence of the judiciary. It is equally well known that we are in favour of the increases proposed. A Bill dealing with salaries should have been introduced as a separate measure and as such, it would have received almost unanimous support. I know one political Party has objection to it, but we stand on the principle of the independence of the judiciary and we object to a discussion on judicial salaries across the floor of this House.

It was for that reason we cooperated with the Government in setting up and working upon the joint committee. We feel very strongly that the principle of the independence of the judiciary should be continued and maintained irrespective of any change in judicial remuneration. The reason why the remuneration of judges is made a charge on the Central Fund is because it is thought undesirable that there should be an annual discussion on such matters akin to the discussion that takes place on the annual Estimates. That would be bad for the country. It would be bad from the point of view of the confidence the people have and ought to have in the judiciary if we were projected here into something approaching an acrimonious discussion on judicial salaries. I know that it is legitimate perhaps, and perhaps appropriate, to compare the position of judges and the salaries they have with the position of the unemployed and lower paid civil servants.

But there is a bigger principle at stake. I approach the consideration of this matter entirely unbiassed and independent. Most of the members of the present judiciary have been appointed by the present Government. I am glad to say that all of them are my personal friends. Not merely have I no ambitions and no desires but I rather think I have no opportunity of ever finding myself upon the Bench and I can therefore approach this matter with complete calm and independence and in the knowledge that I am standing upon the rock of principle. The principle of the independence of the judiciary is one that ought to be in my view the specialcare of every Deputy irrespective of the Party to which he belongs.

I deprecate the kind of cross talk that goes on occasionally in this House about lawyers and judges, their salaries and their fees. That does not matter to lawyers. We can carry on and we have carried on throughout the centuries. We can carry on, no matter what gibes may be thrown at our profession, or at individual members of our profession, because we cannot be done without. We will carry on in spite of all the things that may be said, going back even to the time of Chaucer. We have carried on down the centuries, and the reason why we cannot be done without is because we, the members of the legal profession and the judiciary, are the guardians of the fundamental liberties of the citizens. That is why we cannot be done without. We are the guardians of their civil rights, of their liberties and of their rights of property. That is why the independence of the judiciary is such a fundamental one as to be enshrined in the Constitution as one of the fundamental Articles of the Constitution. It is a principle which was secured down the centuries at much trouble and great misery. It is a principle that we should stand for and it is a principle that should be maintained by every Deputy because it affects the fundamental rights of the poorest citizen of this State. I deprecate, therefore, any of these suggestions, any of this talk or any of these gibes Deputies so fluently throw across the floor of the House.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I hope Deputy Corish will remember his speech in Wicklow.

Mr. J.A. Costello

Do not mind Deputy Corish. I am speaking for myself. I am dealing with something on which I feel very deeply. I have no axe to grind. This is a matter in which the public interest is greatly concerned. I can understand Deputy Corish and the Labour Party on this matter. The reason why I am speaking as I am is because I want to educate the public into the knowledge that we believe in the independence of the judiciary. We are not endeavouring tomaintain our professional privileges, nor has anything I am saying anything to do with our status as members of our profession.

Therefore, on this Bill I am protesting against the procedure adopted by the Minister which is somewhat cowardly in introducing matters of detail and of controversy in connection with the question of judicial salaries. Because he was afraid to face that issue, we are not left with an opportunity to discuss the other matters calmly over a period of months.

The position as regards some of the judicial hierarchy at present is really very serious. I have letters, and if I read them to the House, some Deputies would be shocked. I know that to ordinary people, particularly to farmers who have been accustomed to the sort of thing that we get from certain Deputies about high salaries, even the salaries of district justices appear to be a matter of tremendous moment and that they are very high indeed. But these people have to keep up their own standards. They have to maintain the standard which is expected from them by the public. They have to keep aloof, and, above all, they have to keep themselves free from not merely the actuality of corruption but from the possible breath of corruption. I am afraid that we may be very close to that unless something is done for the more lowly paid of our judicial hierarchy. That is why I am speaking strongly on this. That is why I cannot take any more part in the second part of the Bill with its miscellaneous provisions about some of which I feel very strongly indeed.

I would, therefore, ask that this Bill should be passed with the minimum of recrimination and with the appreciation that we are not giving to particular individuals belonging to a particular profession, or professions, increased remuneration at a time of great difficulty and trial for various sections of our community. The members of our judicial hierarchy who are citizens of the State have found the impact of the hard times we have gone through.They have found them very great indeed, equally with the unemployed, equally with those facing unemployment and equally with the middle classes, and very few people pretend to look after the interests of the latter class. They have felt the impact of these hard and harsh times.

May I say this, and I suppose it is an unpopular thing to say, that what I am saying now about the independence of the judiciary—at least one of the reasons for this is the prevention of corruption, of putting them above not merely the actuality of corruption but the possibility of it—would also apply to the salaries given to the Ministers of this State at present? They are not getting the salaries they are entitled to get, because they are afraid to come to the House and ask for them and because they know that so many things would be misrepresented if they did. If we did it, you would have the same thing.

Therefore, I ask for an approach to the consideration of this problem in a calm and detached way—that we should look at it from the point of view of the public interest. The Minister himself has said that it is going to cost a very small amount of money. Of course, it will be represented as something colossal outside. There has been a case made for it, and the case is that the principle of the independence of the judiciary must be maintained. It is in the public interest that the judiciary should be of such a kind and character that it will not be merely the sport of people who are looking for a job—something that would perhaps be regarded as secluded and sheltered for the political careerist.

I want all these judicial appointments, from the most junior district justice to the chief justice, to be of a kind and character that will attract the best in our legal professions, whether they be barristers or solicitors. I do not want them to be merely the goal and object of the political careerist. You will not get the best brains and the best experience to be culled from the legal profession for these positions unless they are in such a position as will command the ambition of the best brains in bothprofessions, and will command the confidence of the public in the appointees when they are appointed. As I say, the Minister has our support for this Bill because of the provisions in it in reference to judicial salaries, but I am protesting against the device of introducing something which is in the nature of a trick.

Personally, I am in the position that I am unable, in the time at my disposal—coming at the end of a very long session of Parliament when essential financial business has not even been touched much less completed—to give this Bill the calm and detached consideration that every section of it would need. We are prepared to give the Bill to the Minister because of the urgency of the provision about the district justices. The Minister has declined to honour the recommendation of the Select Committee in reference to retrospection. I will say no more than this that, even now, in the interests of justice, I would ask him to honour that recommendation, small as it was.

Captain Cowan

I want first to say how important is the speech we have just heard from Deputy Costello in regard to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of the citizen. It is only right that there should be spoken in this House words that must convey to every citizen of this country that the rights, the liberties and the freedom of the citizen are bound up with the independence of the judiciary and once the judiciary is drawn into the mire and the mud by anybody, grave damage is done to the public interest. I sincerely hope that this Bill will be approached in the way in which Deputy Costello says it should be approached.

The constitutional government of this country is vested in the Oireachtas but the protection of the rights of the citizen is given to our judiciary. It is so vital that our judiciary should be independent that I could not imagine any elected representative of the people using language that would have the effect in the minds of the public of lowering the high standard of our judiciary. It is more important to the poor person in this country that the judiciary should be independent thanit is to the wealthy person. The laws that are made by the Oireachtas are laws that must be administered by the judiciary and the poorest person depends on the judiciary to see that justice is done. By the salaries we give our judges we want to ensure that we will have on our judicial benches men who will not only be above bribery and corruption but will be above the suspicion of anything in the nature of bribery and corruption. That is why I feel that the provisions of this Bill in so far as they make for an increase in the salaries of our judiciary ought to be welcomed by everybody who realises the importance of the independence of the judiciary.

One of the fundamental rights of people is to have an independent judiciary that can act and will act independently and free from any pressure from Government, Parliament or from any body or group of citizens.

I support the recommendations that were made by the special committee, the decisions that have been taken by the Government, to give increased salaries to the judiciary and I support the appeal of Deputy Costello, even at this late hour, to carry out in full the recommendations of the committee and to grant the increases as from the 1st April, 1952.

With the other provisions in the Bill I am in substantial agreement but I have been alarmed at one section. I must admit that I had not taken sufficient notice of it until I heard the Minister speaking here this evening. The full effects of Section 12 escaped my notice until I heard the explanation from the Minister. I would appeal to the Minister to agree to omit Section 12. Under our law, an accused person has the right, if he is for trial in the Circuit Criminal Court, to ask for a transfer to the Central Criminal Court. That is a right that has been exercised on a number of occasions but it has not been unduly exercised. It has been exercised in areas outside Dublin and to a good extent in Dublin. The right, where the circumstances permit it, to have his trial heard not only by a jury but by a judge in whom he has confidence,is a very valuable right as far as an accused person is concerned. That is a right of a citizen and judges have objected to that provision although they had no right of objection; it was the law. The law said that a person had the right to apply for that transfer. Judges have objected to its exercise from time to time. They have delivered themselves of certain addreses from the Bench in regard to it. Although that right has been exercised more in Dublin than elsewhere, it must be remembered that within the Dublin circuit jurisdiction, approximately one-fifth of the people of Ireland reside and in a circuit such as this, where the circuit judges are working day after day, where they are known to the accused persons and to advocates, it is only right that there should be more of these applications in the Dublin circuit than elsewhere.

I agree to all the other provisions of the Bill, but there is an invasion of the rights of the citizen in Section 12 to which I strongly object. I would ask the Minister to agree to reconsider that section and to agree to its elimination. There would be very serious regret, there would be very serious objection, if the right that an accused person had to have his trial transferred from a judge in whom he had no confidence was taken away, as it is proposed to take it away here.

A number of matters in regard to the courts have been considered. The long vacation, which means the closing down of our courts for more than two months in the year, is not in the public interest. I have seen in the newspapers where the Bar Council, I think, or some body already has decided that there will be a reduction in the long vacation by one week. From the public point of view, one week's reduction is insufficient and that matter should be considered again.

The second matter, which is important, is the length of the working day. The judicial day should be longer than it is. A day which starts at 11 o'clock and finishes at 4 o'clock, with a luncheon interval, is not a day's work.

Mr. Everett

Of two hours, I suppose.

Captain Cowan

The luncheon interval is roughly about half an hour or thereabouts. That is one of the objections I have. I think there should be a longer day, but that there should be an opportunity for litigants' witnesses and advocates to have lunch in the middle of the day.

An Ceann Comhairle

Could that come into a Bill?

Captain Cowan

Yes, the length of the working day and the hour at which the court should stop could, in my view, be put into this Bill. There are two other matters I should like to mention. In my view, the Dublin Metropolitan District ought to be extended to include the whole City and County of Dublin. The Minister, of course, in the Bill has power to do that. The administration of the city and county is mainly directed from the District Court in Dublin. All justices who operate in Dublin City and County ought to be within the Dublin district so that the senior justices there could allocate them from time to time as required. Dublin City is growing. Rathfarnham, Kilmainham, Howth, Ellenfield and Larkhill are all parts of Dublin City at the moment, and justice should be administered for all these built-up areas by the Dublin District Court justices. I strongly recommend that to the Minister.

I would also recommend to the Minister that the Circuit Court judges in Dublin, other than the President of the Circuit Court, who is in a special position as he is also a judge of the High Court, should receive travelling expenses. Travelling expenses and allowances are provided in the ordinary way for judges who travel on circuit from time to time. A judge of the Dublin Circuit Court is not entitled to travelling expenses although he travels in and out to work every day. A judge in the Dublin Circuit Court does more work in the year than several of his colleagues in the rural areas. That is understandable. The Dublin Circuit Court is going every day of the week and every week in the judicial year. Thousands of cases of complexity and of tremendousimportance to the citizens are dealt with and a judge in the Dublin Circuit receives just his bare salary. If he travels, as he must do, from his home to his court, he pays his own travelling expenses. I think it would be agreed that a certain sum of money should be made available to cover all these expenses of a Dublin Circuit judge, and I would recommend that for consideration by the Minister.

Like Deputy Costello, I want to see this Bill passed into law, but I want to see it passed into law without Section 12, because Section 12 could give rise to a very long discussion. Obviously, Section 12 has nothing to do with the structure of the Bill. So far as it provides for increased jurisdiction and increased salaries, the Bill is one whole, but Section 12 is not entirely appropriate to the Bill. For that reason I ask the Minister to agree to defer consideration of that section until such time as we have an opportunity of fully discussing it.

There is one last point I want to make. For many years solicitors have represented defendants in the Central Criminal Court. Recently there has been resurrected some rule or practice which would have the effect of denying solicitors audience in the Central Criminal Court. I understand that there is no specific rule of law in regard to that. But to deny a solicitor audience in the Central Criminal Court may deny to a defendant the assistance that he is entitled to if he is charged with an offence. There are many solicitors who practise as advocates in the courts and in whom defendants would have supreme confidence. I do not mind what rules are made in regard to civil matters but in regard to criminal matters a person ought to be entitled to be represented in the Central Criminal Court by the lawyer of his choice, whether that lawyer is a solicitor or a counsel. I may put down an amendment to this Bill to make provision for that because I am certain that every Deputy will support that. There is no reason for any alteration in the practice now. In fact, our whole tendency should be to eliminate the differences that exist between the solicitors' profession andthe barristers' profession. However, that is perhaps a bigger problem than we can decide on a measure that we are all agreed ought to be passed into law.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. Lynch)

Unlike Deputy Costello I cannot claim I have no desire to become a member of the judiciary in Ireland; like him, however, in the circumstances in which we both find ourselves, I appreciate that my chances are just as slim as his are.

Mr. Morrissey

I hope not.

Mr. Lynch

I would say he would have a much better chance than I. For that reason I hope I can claim I can approach the question of judicial salaries as dispassionately as he did. I am not going to dwell at any length on the question except to agree with him that it was a pity that some device could not be evolved whereby such questions, if they must become a matter of political controversy, could be fixed elsewhere. On the other hand it is the duty of the elected representatives of the people to look after the expenditure of the public money and in so far as these are public moneys we can hardly disclaim that responsibility. The important matter, however, has been adequately stated by Deputy Costello and I would only add that it is our duty to see that the citizens, no matter how poor they might be, are sure that the judiciary is independent. It is the right of every one of our citizens to feel and to believe that the judiciary are independent of any outside influence in the course of the discharge of their judicial duties.

It is fairly well known, as Deputy Costello lightly touched upon, that all is not well financially with every member of the judiciary in this country. The poorest man—and surely it is in his interests—should know in coming even to the smallest District Court in the country, that the justice on the bench is completely independent and uninfluenced by the wealthy merchant who might be suing that poor man for some small debt or other. In so far as reference will be made to the increasesthat are being provided in this Bill—increases that in many cases amount to the entire salary of so many of our citizens—I hope that the lower salaried classes will not be confused by any attempt to mislead them in that regard.

It is a pity that Deputy Costello did not pinpoint for us in greater detail the very serious objections he had to so many provisions in the Bill other than the provisions giving the salary increases. He did, however, refer to some of them and I think I could agree with him whole-heartedly that they are matters for a difference of opinion. I consider his experience in the practice of the law is superior to mine; nevertheless from the public point of view I do not see why anybody should seriously object to the increase in the jurisdiction that is being provided for in this Bill.

As the Minister pointed out, the value of £300 which is the limit of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court fixed under the Act of 1924 is considerably lower, lower by about half to-day. Even if it is a rule of thumb surely it is a good basis on which to fix the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court at the present day. Deputy Costello alleged that no consideration had been given to the type of cases that would be taken in the Circuit Court for claims of an amount between £300 and £600 in damages.

Surely with his knowledge of the practice of the law he must know that even at the present time throughout the country there are litigants bringing actions for negligence of one type or another, particularly in what are commonly known as running down cases. If those people feel that the damages to which they would be entitled are somewhat in excess of £300 they are, for the very reason stated by the Minister—the cost of bringing witnesses to Dublin—reluctant to bring their case to the High Court. For that reason in many cases —and to my knowledge it has happened—they forgo their right to damages which they might get in excess of £300 and are satisfied to bring their claims in the Circuit Courtwhen they know the maximum they can get is £300. There are, of course, provisions whereby the defendant can consent to the plaintiff bringing a claim for a sum in excess of £300, but in general a defendant is not willing to concede that to a plaintiff.

Deputy Costello had one sound objection, in my opinion, to the increase in jurisdiction; that was the case where a plaintiff suing for a sum of more than £600, let us say, £1,000, and where the amount given to him in damages by the jury is £600 or slightly less, his costs would be on the Circuit Court scale and therefore, in the long run, it might have been better for him to have brought the action in the Circuit Court. There is possibly a sound objection in that respect, but on balance, I think the increase in jurisdiction will find far more favour than maintaining the jurisdiction at its present level. I repudiate entirely Deputy Costello's suggestion that cases involving claims of £600 are too important for Circuit Court judges. I do not want to misrepresent him in the slightest degree, but I think that was the clear implication from what he said.

Mr. Morrissey

He said more than that, of course.

Mr. Lynch

He qualified it.

Mr. Morrissey

Indeed he did, very much.

Mr. Lynch

He instanced two cases. He said that in Dublin or in Cork there are adequate facilities for consulting references and whatever other amenities a Circuit Court judge might deem necessary; that in those two areas a claim for £600 could be properly heard by the Circuit Court judge, but that in general, throughout the country, the circumstances are such that sufficient consideration might not be given by a circuit judge to a claim involving £600 in damages. Apart altogether from the value of money there are seldom legal principles applying to claims for £300 that would not apply in a claim for £600. I do not think there is any force in that contention by Deputy Costello.

Deputy Costello objects, of course,to the different miscellaneous provisions, as he calls them, that are contained in the Bill as well as the provision for increased salaries; but I think it is well known that apart from this Bill there are only two other Acts on the Statute Book in which the salaries of the judiciary are provided for—that is the Act of 1924, the original Courts of Justice Act, and the Act of 1947; and the Act of 1924, as he must know, is bristling with miscellaneous provisions, and the Act of 1947, even though it was primarily designed to increase the salaries of the judiciary on that occasion, still has miscellaneous provisions in that very short measure.

He objects, too, to the fact that the rights of the public may in some degree be interfered with by the fact that more work might be given to the judges in the re-distribution of Circuit Court areas and District Court districts and that therefore the rights of the citizens might be prejudiced as a result. I do not think having regard to the figures quoted by the Minister that that is likely to arise even with the increased jurisdiction that is being provided for in this Bill. I know of cases myself where the number of sitting days in some Circuit Court areas is far less than 100, and allowing for all kinds of holidays and Saturdays and Sundays I think that percentage is at the present time far too low. Therefore I think that with a bit of co-operation from the legal profession and from the judges themselves a good workable re-distribution of areas can be evolved and will make for the smoother working and administration of justice and better and fuller employment of the members of the judiciary.

There is the point made by Deputy Cowan with regard to Section 12. I agree with him entirely that all the rights of the citizens and particularly the rights of an accused person under any criminal code should be carefully watched by the members of this House, but the manner in which Deputy Cowan put it I think was not quite in accordance with what this section intends to do. He mentioned that if an accused did not like the judge of a Circuit Court area where theaccused committed an indictable offence he had ipso factoa right to bring his case out of that Circuit Court area to the Central Criminal Court. I think that the provision for transferring cases was primarily given to the accused person to make sure from the jury point of view that that accused person got justice in his trial. It often happens that a certain crime in a certain area may be committed and it is of such a character that the public generally may be so incensed against that accused person that it could happen that they could not put their feelings from their minds when they were going to try his case and, therefore, the accused should have the right in such circumstances to bring his case before a jury which he knows can have no personal feelings with regard to the offence with which he is charged.

Mr. Morrissey

Has not the State got the right to ask for a transfer of a case for their reasons?

Mr. Lynch

They have, yes.

Mr. Morrissey

And that is being retained.

Mr. Lynch

It is being retained. I am satisfied that the primary intention of the transfer of trial from one Circuit Court area to another or to the Central Criminal Court is in relief of an accused person, to ensure from the jury point of view that that accused person will get a fair trial.

Mr. Morrissey

Fair even from the point of view of the judge.

Mr. Lynch

Well, I am afraid I cannot agree with Deputy Morrissey on that point.

Mr. Morrissey

Mind you if I found myself before some of them I would like to have the right to ask for a transfer to somewhere else.

Mr. Lynch

A judge is appointed and I think without exception we place our confidence in him first of all as members of this House and as members of the public. I do not think it can be alleged against our judges thatthey lose sight of the absolute necessity of being impartial in civil or criminal cases and I think in criminal cases generally they lean more on the accused's side if there is any leaning to be done whatever.

Deputy Costello referred to another point in connection with the transfer of a trial—the fact that the Dublin Circuit Court trials are the ones that are most transferred. If it is a fact that an accused living in Dublin may have some apprehension about how he is going to be treated by the circuit judge before whom he might appear and if he feels he is going to get a better crack of the whip from Judge A, Judge B or Judge C of the High Court then he might apply for a transfer of his case to the Central Criminal Court; but the fact is that that accused cannot know in advance what judge of the High Court is to be assigned to the Central Criminal Court for the session in which his case will be called before the Central Criminal Court. Therefore again I do not see what force is in that argument put forward by Deputy Costello from the point of view of an accused person transferring to one above another.

I might add, of course, that Section 12 deprives the State similarly of the absolute right of transferring an action from the Circuit Court to the Central Criminal Court. Nevertheless, I am not so taken with Section 12 as that I must defend it at length. I think it could be more tightly drafted for one thing, and secondly, if the Minister advances reasons apart from what I have touched upon for its retention in its present form I would be very interested to hear them. Like Deputy Costello that is one of the provisions on which I am open to conviction; but by and large I think that this Bill is overdue, particularly in its remuneration provisions and in its provision for the increase of jurisdiction of the Circuit Court from £300 to £600 in ordinary cases for damages.

There is one point that I want to mention to the Minister and bring home to him as forcibly as I can. Over a number of months apart altogether from the agitation for the increasedjurisdiction there has been adoed an agitation for the establishment of a High Court in Cork. I know, and it is not because I am a member of this House, that the members of the legal profession in Dublin used that argument in bringing the need of an extra High Court judge before the Minister.

They use the argument that, in the first instance, it is desirable that a High Court should be established in Cork. Now that the Minister has given way to these arguments, I hope he will not lose sight of the fact that a High Court is still needed in Cork apart altogether from the increased jurisdiction which he provides in this Bill.

I do not want to go into all the arguments in detail that I advanced here when I first raised this matter about two years ago but I should like to mention two of them in particular. A case for the High Court may be called on a Tuesday or Wednesday of one week or may be postponed to the following week. A litigant from Cork or from any part of the south is bound to have all his witnesses, professional and otherwise, in attendance on the first day on which his case is likely to be called and, in many instances, he is obliged to bring them back the following week. That is a reason which I think the Minister cannot afford to ignore in consideration of this matter. The second point which I should like to mention concerns the reluctance of litigants to sue for sums in excess of £300 and, if this Bill is passed, for sums in excess of £600, even when they know their claims are far and away above these amounts. They are reluctant because they fear incurring extra expenses—expenses which would probably cripple them in the event of failure of their case, if they brought it before the High Court. Therefore, if the case made for the establishment of a High Court in Cork was one of the factors responsible for convincing the Minister of the necessity to appoint an extra judge at the High Court, I hope that the Minister, in bringing this Bill before this House, will not lose sight of the fact that the establishment of a High Court in the first instance in Cork is still very badly needed.

I join in the wishes expressed bythe two previous speakers that the matter of judicial salaries, the independence of our judiciary, and all the guarantees that that implies to the rights and freedom of our citizens, will not the bandied about in the course of this discussion.

Mr. Everett

I oppose this Bill and I have opposed it from its introduction. I am more convinced now than ever I was that I am right in my opposition to this Bill. I heard the legal representatives from all sides of the House— and none of them agreeing except on the one thing, namely, to grant the judges an increase of £300 or £400 a year, and some of them much more.

The argument put up by the advocates of this Bill is one of the weakest which I think I have ever heard made for a Bill in my experience as a member of this House. In the first place, we are told that if we do not grant a huge increase in salary to the judges we will not secure the best men from the legal point of view. I think that the Minister and some others of us are old enough to remember a time when the administration of our courts was carried out—and when we had the confidence of the people—without any legal knowledge; but we had what was more important—we had common sense. We had not to go back to the laws enacted during the reign of Queen Anne to interpret the meaning of something in 1952 or 1953. I think that we were very successful in those days.

The whole argument of the advocates of this Bill is that somebody has said something to interfere with the independence of the judiciary. I hope that any references that I have ever made in this House to the judiciary could not be interpreted as in any way casting the slightest reflection on the occupants of the Bench. They are a credit to any country and we have every confidence in them.

I do not agree with the last speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, in his statement about the poor man who goes before the judge and who is opposed by a wealthy man. We are told that if we do not agree to give the judges this increasein salary that poor man will not get justice.

Mr. Boland

He did not say that.

Mr. Everett

I am only interpreting what Deputy Lynch said.

Mr. Everett

I have as much right to cross-examine Deputy Lynch here in regard to the statement which he made as if he were in the witness box. Deputy Lynch said that he hoped nothing would be said to interfere with the granting of the increase in salary to the judges because it is a matter that affects the poor man. Deputy Lynch pointed out what the position of the poor man would be. He as much as said that the judge would not give the poor man justice simply because he was not granted the increase in salary which is advocated here. As a representative of the workers of this country, I oppose this measure.

Mr. Lynch

What Deputy Everett has just said is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I hope Deputy Everett will accept my statement.

Mr. Everett

I do not want to misrepresent the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, and I will accept his statement. I am not a lawyer and I am only taking the words as they were uttered by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Deputy Cowan spoke about something which was said by somebody. I want to assure Deputy Cowan and the House that I have never referred to the judiciary of this country in terms that would bring disrepute upon them. I am quite satisfied that the fact that I oppose the granting of an increase in salary to judges at the present time will not interfere with the independence of the judiciary.

It is argued that if we protest against the increase we are undermining the independence of the judiciary. What were the Minister's arguments for the granting of this increase in salary? The Minister said that the value of money to-day is only half whatit was worth some years ago. We all know that.

Mr. Boland

Is the judge's £1 not the same as anybody else's £1?

Mr. Everett

Would the Minister be so assiduous in putting up the same argument on behalf of the sick, the unemployed, the widows and orphans——

Mr. Boland

They have all got increases. Everybody got an increase.

Mr. Everett

No such case is being made on behalf of the person who is looking for increased benefit.

Mr. Boland

Yes, there is. Everybody got an increase.

Mr. Everett

As a result of the 1952 Budget, the £ is of very little value— and that applies to the unemployed as well as to the judges and the ordinary man in the street. The Fianna Fáil Party were not pleased when this matter was mentioned during the by-elections. It worked very successfully in County Wicklow.

Mr. Hilliard

And in Cork.

Mr. Everett

You propose to give £300 to certain judges and district justices, but you could not afford to give 5/- extra to the unemployed.

Mr. S. Flanagan

This is a disgraceful performance.

Mr. Everett

The legal men on either side of the House may differ in regard to politics and, though lawyers may argue bitterly with one another in court, they will make it up outside.

Captain Cowan

We are like good politicians.

Mr. Everett

Even though they may fight bitterly with one another in court during the hearing of a case, they will not be enemies outside. To the plaintiff, his counsel will appear a great man who put up a great case for him simply because he abused his opponent.

We have heard about the hard work which the judges do. They work fourand a quarter hours per day. I think that pays the lawyer, too, because he gets a good fee for appearing; I do not say it affects the solicitors, but I think the higher men get paid each day. They may not advocate working longer than four and a quarter hours per day. I think a good many people would be glad to receive their present salary for four and a quarter hours' work per day for two or three days of the week. We are promised that, if they are given this great increase of salary, they may work an extra half hour.

If we criticise or object to giving an increase in salary to a man with £4,000 a year, we are told that we are interfering with the judiciary and bringing about a position in which there will be a danger that they will be, as they are in some other countries, liable to corruption. Did anybody ever hear such a silly argument put up in a House supposed to be composed of people with common sense? Again, I will take the judges's part in this connection and say that I do not believe there is any substance in that argument, that if we gave only half the salary we are giving there would not be the slightest fear of the dreadful things mentioned by the speakers supporting this proposal arising.

I do not agree with Deputy Cowan in his view that justices in the rural areas do not work as long as those in the city. As I have said, in the past years, we acted as judges and we had the confidence of the people, although we had no legal knowledge and had not read any of the legal textbooks. We worked on a basis of common sense and we had the support of the people, and that our judgments were good is proved by the fact that, when the courts were re-established, these decisions were not reversed or interfered with in any way. I do not know anything about Dublin, but the man in the rural area has just as good a case to put up as the city man, because he is inconvenienced in having to go to outlying districts and has not got the amenities available to the man in Dublin.

I agree with Deputy Cowan withregard to Section 12, and I ask the Minister to consider the position I may be in if I happen to appear before one of these judges. Would I not like to have the right to say that I did not wish to appear before Deputy Cowan but before some other person? Surely I should be given that right and surely it should not be taken away, as it is by Section 12. It may be all right for the Parliamentary Secretary if he goes before him because he has supported the increase and may, therefore, have the confidence of all the judges. I want to protect myself. I do not say that I shall ever put myself in the position of appearing before one of them, but why take away that right? There are some men who, we know, may come before these judges soon and they should have the right, as Deputy Cowan pointed out, to ask to be transferred to another judge or jury. I have been here since 1922 and I have known many of the men who held office as Attorney General and subsequently were appointed judges. I have confidence in them and if I were unfortunate enough to have to come before them, I believe I would get full justice, even though I opposed this increase. I know that when the poor man goes before them, even if he is not legally represented they go out of their way to help him and he knows he is getting justice.

The argument which has been put up here is a bad argument and I believe that the case the Minister made is not made in any whole-hearted way, because he would prefer to be on the side of those who put up a similar case on behalf of the persons for whom we are looking for some benefits at present. I maintain that you are not being consistent. You are granting these increases because of an agreement between the two large Parties. We heard during the elections that this was a lawyers' Government and that the Opposition was also composed of lawyers—that it was all lawyers and legal men who were getting into politics. I want to say here, that, if anything I said on a previous occasion, has been taken by Deputy Cowan or others as casting any reflection on the judges, I assure them that it was never my intention and I hope thatanything I say to-night will not be taken as being in the slightest way a personal reflection upon them. As I say, I know most of them and I consider them worthy Irishmen for their positions. I feel that they would not take anything I would say here as being in any way personal.

I am opposing this proposal on principle. The Government are granting to one section of the community who are not as badly in need as other sections these increases at a time when we are told we are not in a position to implement the recommendations of other bodies in relation to civil servants and others. I think the thing is wrong and other men who have been refused increases, officials of public boards and others, will feel that we are looking after only one class. Certainly I can assure you that I will not spare the Government around my constituency in relation to pointing out that they are more concerned about granting judges an increase of salary and trying to make their lives more comfortable than they are with looking after those who are in greater need at present.

I ask the Government to pause for five minutes and consider the position. We have one large section of the community asking for a slight concession— instead of having to be nine days unemployed before they receive five days' pay, they should at least be paid from the first day of unemployment. If there was an attempt to remedy that grievance, the Government would be consistent in this proposal, but the Government are refusing to do something for a weaker section of the community, while, at the same time, helping people who, in my opinion, are well able to bear the increases imposed on them at present. If they wish to be consistent, let them start with the poor man. Let them grant them an increase and then, when their demands are satisfied, they can look after the well paid section, the judges.

Mr. Morrissey

Like Deputy Everett, I am an ordinary layman. May I say to him, when he talks about the constitution and personnel of the Committee and about the Committee being just a Committee of lawyers, that Ithink I am right in saying that, in so far as this Party was concerned, all its nominees for membership of that Committee were laymen? I do not think there was a single solicitor or barrister among them. Deputy Everett also says that he is against this proposal to increase these salaries on principle. As a layman, and as one who has, like Deputy Everett, outside and inside the House, agitated on behalf of all sections of the community that the purchasing power of their incomes, whether wages or salaries, should be brought up to the level of present-day costs, let me say to him that I am supporting this on principle.

The Parliamentary Secretary criticised Deputy Costello for his criticism of the fact that a great number of miscellaneous sections have been tacked on to this Bill and said that the 1924 Act, which was the first Act, also had a great number of miscellaneous sections tacked on to provisions dealing with salaries to be paid to the different branches of the judiciary. I think it would be truer to say that the salaries in the 1924 Act were just part of the main Bill. In any case, the salaries for all branches of the judiciary were fixed by this House in 1924 and I do not think that at that time anybody alleged the salaries for the offices concerned were fixed at too high a level. As a matter of fact, in relation to salaries paid to the judiciary in any other country they were very small. I think it is true to say that they have, perhaps, got a lower percentage increase on what I call their basic salaries than any other section of the community. I am not to be taken as arguing against proper provision being made in so far as we can make it for other sections of the community and in particular, for the most needy section. We can do that and do justice to the other sections of the community without being unjust to this section even though they be few.

Mr. Everett

£3,500 a year.

Mr. Morrissey

It is all right for the Deputy to say £3,500 a year, but I would like to know how much of that is left by the time the Revenue Commissioners are finished with it.

Mr. Everett

They are legal men.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not a legal man. I have a few words to say to the Minister. I know a good deal about the Committee. I thought I knew the main reasons why it was set up, but I will deal with that point later. I am inclined to make a bow and to say that whatever about allowing myself to be nominated to any other Committee set up by this House I do not think I shall ever again allow myself to be nominated as a member of a committee which would have anything to do with the judiciary. I had the honour and the great trouble, some 20 years ago, of being made chairman of a committee that dealt with the judiciary of this country. With a number of equally foolish colleagues of both Houses I spent 14 months' hard work on what I think was a very valuable report, very little of which, unfortunately, was given legal effect to. I am certainly not satisfied with the outcome of this Committee. I do not think that either the Minister, or anybody else, can object to the line which Deputy Everett has taken here. What we all fear and must fear in a debate of this kind is that the judiciary would be used as a sort of political football on the floor of this House.

Nobody wants to see that. I am perfectly satisfied that Deputy Everett and his colleagues are at least as anxious as anybody else in the House for the preservation of the full independence of the judiciary. As Deputy Cowan very properly said, the people who are, shall I say, more directly represented by the Labour Party in this House, are more concerned with the preservation of that independence than, perhaps, any other section of the community. I do not question for one moment that it is true that no charge of corruption, weakness or yielding to influence, can be laid against any member of the judiciary in this country.

Captain Cowan

Hear, hear!

Mr. Morrissey

I believe it is absolutely true to say that. It is our duty to see they are put in a position, in so far as we can do so, that they willnot even be open to the temptation in any form from anybody.

Captain Cowan

Hear, hear!

Mr. Morrissey

I think that is the main consideration here. I think I am right in saying that the basic salary fixed for district justices in 1924, was around £1,000.

Captain Cowan

£800, in fact.

Mr. Morrissey

I think it was £1,000.

Captain Cowan

£1,000 for some.

Mr. Morrissey

Subsequently it was reduced to £800 in respect of some. I think I could take £1,000 as the basic figure. I do not think anybody said it was too low or too high, but if a salary of £1,000 was considered a reasonable salary in 1924, I do not think that anybody can say that £1,750, having regard to the fall in the value of money, improves their position. As a matter of fact, so far as the purchasing power of their salaries is concerned they are in a worse position to-day than they were in 1924.

Mr. Everett

They are not too bad on £3,500 a year.

Mr. Morrissey

I know. May I say to Deputy Everett that he knows as do I that that is not a good argument? We know that trade unions very properly insist upon a wage for a particular job at £7 a week, but we also know that there are always people who would be prepared to go into that job at £6 a week if they were allowed to do so. That does not mean that they would be better workmen or that they would give a better return. The person with £6 per week might be infinitely more costly than the man receiving £7 a week.

I readily grant that one should not in present circumstances in this country, when the great majority of our people are finding it extremely difficult to say the least of it to make ends meet, lightly increase still further the burdens of the State. At the same time we would not only be unfair butalso unjust if we refused to give the increases that are set out here. As a member of the Committee may I say that this matter was not decided upon lightly nor was it decided upon overnight? It was discussed very fully and in detail over a long period by the members of the Committee, and it was related to a great many other things. The Committee tried to get some balance so that if there was going to be an increase in salary they would get more output from the judges. It might be no harm if we could apply that all round.

Mr. S. Flanagan

To the Health Bill, for instance.

Mr. Morrissey

I want Deputy Everett to agree with me on this. I am not so easy in my mind—I am concerned now with the principle rather than with what the Minister may be doing—with the Minister having the power to do with fewer men by making fewer men do more work and more jobs. If that were applied to other sections of the community I think there would be some repercussions.

Mr. Everett

Any of them will take a salary of £3,500 for a couple of years.

Mr. Morrissey

Well I do not know. You know the other fellow always has the best job. I remember, and so does Deputy Everett, the time when members of the Fianna Fáil Party could not understand how members of the Dáil at that time could spend £1 a day when the members of the Dáil were getting £360 a year. That was before Fianna Fáil came into this House. I heard them at it myself.

An Ceann Comhairle

We seem to be getting away from the Bill.

Mr. Morrissey

With the greatest possible respect, I think I can say without throwing my chest out, there is no speaker in the House who addressed himself so consistently and so clearly to what is in the Bill as I did myself. Let me say this. It is worth more than what it is going to cost the State in additional expenditure, to enable our people to have the feeling if they are going to court tohave their rights asserted in law, that the man sitting on the bench is being paid a salary that should enable him to be free and independent of every man and organisation in this country. I want, as I say, that we should be consistent. I will repeat again what I said in the beginning. We have argued here and we have claimed here—and rightly—that the people of this country should at least have the same purchasing power as they had years ago. We are not asking for any more for the judges.

May I say about Section 12 that the Minister has made no case for it? I do not think he has even tried to make a case; I do not think he can make a case for it. I am not competent to deal with that in the way it has been dealt with by Deputy Costello, Deputy Cowan and the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Lynch, but it does seem to me that this right was established and given there to the ordinary citizens, and that legal right particularly in relation to criminal offences ought not to be taken lightly away and certainly should not be taken away except there is an unanswerable case made for its removal. The Minister has not made that case. I would say that the right of the citizen should not be taken away, while a similar right to the State stays. The State has the right to arrange to have a case transferred from one place to another.

Mr. Boland

The State right is going too, Deputy.

Mr. Morrissey

Even if it is, we are all more concerned with the rights of the citizen than the rights of the State. The State is pretty well able to look after its own rights.

I want to come back to this report. Let me say this. I understand the Minister's position but I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Cowan when they were speaking did not speak more strongly and resent more strongly the Government's refusal to give effect to our recommendation regarding retrospective payment. The Parliamentary Secretarywho is chairman of the Committee and Deputy Cowan and other members of the House here who were members of the Committee know that that was one of the most important matters we discussed and it was a matter upon which a number of our recommendations turned and a number of our decisions were taken. I do not want to go into it fully. Perhaps, having regard to the principle at stake in the matter, I should go into it fully, but I do not think there is any purpose to be served by my doing so at this moment. The Government are doing something which I think is entirely wrong, but it is doubly wrong because the Government is doing it twice They are repeating the wrong.

It is something, I think, that no Government should do, and it is establishing a very bad precedent, and one which is putting the Government—and I am not confining myself to the present Government, but any Government that may be there—in a very weak position in the future in relation to any promise or undertaking they may give.

I am bound to say that I agree with the Minister that there is room for looking into the circuits and the districts of the district justices as they stand at the moment. I think you can get more efficient and more economic working in our courts by a proper rearrangement. I am not satisfied, and the more I consider and think about it the less satisfied I am, that there is a case—and here I differ from all the other people, I understand—for an additional judge in the High Court. I know that there is congestion and I know that citizens' cases are delayed for months. I am not satisfied that that is going to be remedied to any extent worth talking about by the appointment of an additional judge. I am not so much influenced by talk about working days as I am about the long holidays. It is all right to say the court rises at four o'clock and that is the end of the day's work. It does not necessarily mean that it is the end of the judge's work. He does work which may be as vital from the point of view of citizens after four o'clock as anything he does from the bench in the court. I am not satisfied that there is any good case to be made for thoselong and numerous holiday periods over the year. I see no reason for this long vacation. I do not know how many other breaks or terms there are in the year, but I do think for all the courts to be up completely for a period of two months or whatever it is——

Captain Cowan

Ten weeks.

Mr. Morrissey

——and for the litigation of the citizens to be thrown aside for that period all because of the long ten weeks and the other shorter adjournments puts the people to unnecessary expense. The expense which is essential to litigation in this country—and indeed for that matter, in other countries—is bad enough without having unnecessary expense piled on top of it. It must mean—and it is with some trepidation I move in here— not merely delay and disappointment and expense to litigants but also confusion and additional work and perhaps additional expense even to the legal profession in having cases delayed and not taken, and adjourned and so on. I am, of course, speaking as an ordinary layman, but perhaps, I have been able to acquire some familiarity with the situation as a result of listening for 14 months to lawyers on one Committee, then on another Committee, and in other places, and by listening to lawyers in this House.

Mr. Everett

That is the trouble in this House.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not know that anyone desires that our qualifications or rights to speak in this House should be measured or judged by our occupations. I should like to say, as a person who is not a lawyer, that I do not see any reason why lawyers as such should be attacked in the House any more than the members of any other profession or occupation. There are legal men in this House—I suppose there is hardly a Parliament in the world that does not include in its membership some legal men. I think I am putting it mildly when I say that on the whole any legislative assembly whose membership includes a number of legal men is not impoverished thereby. I know some of them can be the greatest darned nuisance and I knowsome of them are further removed from practical common sense than the average person but that is no reason why we should plaster all of them with the same brush.

Mr. Everett

You are rubbing it in now, anyhow.

Mr. Morrissey

Like my friend Deputy Everett I have been a long time here. I have seen a great many Parliaments come and go and many lawyers come and go, but I think, on the whole, both branches of the profession can give good service in this House. I want to say with Deputy Costello that I am rather sorry we did not get two Bills instead of one. I should like to have seen a short Bill dealing with the salaries, pensions and, if you like, the working conditions of the judiciary and a separate Bill dealing with the other matters which it was thought necessary to introduce by way of amendment to existing legislation. I speak entirely as a layman and as one who has got to face his constituents as well as the next. We do not know how soon or how late that may be.

Mr. Everett

You want to help the Minister for Justice.

Mr. Boland

I have to meet my constituents, too.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is somewhat more optimistic than I am that he is going to be here in 1956. However, we have all to face our constituents. Let us get this clear anyway. No matter on what side of the House we may sit or whether we are here for a short or a long period, if Deputies try to do what they believe is right, their constituents will not find fault with them.

Mr. S. Flanagan

May I say at the outset that I often felt it a disadvantage to have to sit here and listen to a long debate, there are so many thoughts that come through one's mind. One aspect of the discussion which struck me immediately—Deputy Costello mentioned it—was the fact that there appears to be a division of opinion between, shall we say, the barristers and the solicitors' section ofthe House on the question of increased jurisdiction. I think it is a good thing to be candid about these things. By increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court, we are automatically by law taking out of the hands of barristers the conduct of certain cases and putting it more or less into the hands of solicitors. I do not suggest that was the reason why Deputy Costello objected to the increased jurisdiction in the District Court or the Circuit Court, but I do know some barristers have certain misgivings about it.

I think at the same time that the real principle behind this Bill—and certainly it should be the aim of everybody to secure it—is to make litigation cheaper for the ordinary man in the street. Let us take the period from 1922 to 1940, or any time you like, since the establishment of the State, up to say, the beginning of the war in 1939, and look at the price of a cow, a heifer or a bullock during those years. You will find that you could argue 90 per cent. of breach of warranty cases during those years in the District Court. There are precious few animals nowadays however, that will not fetch more than £25 a head and that means that you must bring your case into the Circuit Court. I am talking from the point of view of the man who might have, say, three cows as his total stock. The fact is not often adverted to, perhaps not sufficiently frequently adverted to, that the amount involved for a farmer in the loss of an animal is greater according as the price of these animals increase, but if he could recover his loss in the District Court, he would be prepared to take a chance for the sake of the extra money involved in fighting the case. When, however, he has to reckon with counsel's fees, veterinary surgeon's fees and extra solicitor's fees by having to go to the Circuit Court, he says to himself that the game is not worth the candle and that he had better abandon the action altogether, although he knows, or thinks he knows, that he has a good case.

I think that the ordinary facts of economic reality should be taken into consideration by Deputies when theyare making laws for the benefit of the public. Surely it is not unreasonable to take our stand on the principle that litigation should, if possible, be made cheaper for the general public. Surely that should be the aim of the Dáil in legislation of this kind. If you accept that principle, you must agree that some increase in jurisdiction is needed in the District Court and in the Circuit Court. You can see many other different types of cases in which economic reality has forced cases out of the jurisdiction of the District Court and the Circuit Court and thereby put it outside the ability of the ordinary citizen whose means are not very great, to pursue his legal rights. It does seem wrong that should be so. It does seem right that we should make every effort to provide a ready means of obtaining justice for everyone.

There is an old axiom in the lawcourts in England that the courts are open to everyone and that everyone is equal before the law. I think we should try to make everybody here equal before the law. I would go even further than the present Bill in relation to increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court. Generally speaking, I would increasing the jurisdiction of of the District Court to the figure of £100 in contract and in tort. If we do that we will be merely taking cognisance of modern conditions.

Another matter to which no reference has been made by any speaker so far and to which, so far as I know, there is no reference in the Bill is the fact that there is no title jurisdiction in the District Court at the moment. There never has been any title jurisdiction there and it has very often happened that a case is brought in the District Court, expenses incurred by both sides, the case possibly threequarters heard when some question crops up as to title— perhaps a dispute between neighbours in the matter of trespass, fencing or something like that; immediately such a question arises the district justice has to tell the parties to pack up since he has no jurisdiction in the matter. The litigants have then to go no matter how trivial the question at issue may be, to the Circuit Court and start all over again.Time and money have already been lost in the District Court.

I would urge on the Minister the insertion of a provision in this Bill giving the District Court jurisdiction in title up to £10. In doing that I believe he would be making litigation cheaper for the man in the street. I have discussed the provisions of this Bill and the provisions of the Bill that was withdrawn with colleagues and the general opinion is that the District Court should have jurisdiction up to £100 in landlord and tenant cases.

It may appear that I am going too far in suggesting that jurisdiction should be increased as radically as that. I do not think I am going a bit too far. I think it is impossible to make a case against giving the District Court some jurisdiction in title. I think it is impossible to resist the claim that litigation should be made cheaper for the man in the street. Taking into account the variations in values at the present time I think there should be jurisdiction in the District Court up to £100 in contract and tort and in landlord and tenant cases.

In relation to the Circuit Court, I would compensate the Circuit Court for any loss of work consequent upon the increases in the jurisdiction of the District Court that I have suggested and in order to do that I think the limit in the Circuit Court should be raised to £1,000. Deputy Cowan said that one has to wait years in the High Court at the present time. That is literally true and there is every case to be made for the appointment of anextra High Court judge. I think, however, that there is at least as strong a case to be made for taking as much as possible of the work of the High Court and transferring it to the Circuit Court. That can be achieved by increasing the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in all matters up to £1,000.

The figures given by the Minister relative to the hours of work done by Circuit Court judges would suggest that the judges could cope with the extra work that would be thrown on them by the increases in jurisdiction that I have suggested. I would not like to be taken as saying that I do not think they are working hard enough at the moment. I do not think that at all. Many people seem to forget, particularly men like Deputy Everett, the burden of responsibility that rests upon the bench. However humble the court may be, the occupant of the bench has a grave responsibility towards the people that come before him. I do not think Deputy Everett can be sincere when he says that the salaries of judges and district justices should not be increased at all at the present time. I cannot comprehend how he could be sincere in that and I think he is pandering to rather low political motives. Nobody gains more by the independence of the judiciary and by its honourable discharge of its grave responsibilities than does the poor man. That point was admirably made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 29th July, 1953.