Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jul 1953

Vol. 141 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Courts of Justice Bill, 1953—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. O'Higgins

I was dealing with the matter raised by Deputies Moran, O'Donnell and MacBride in regard to a possible increase in the jurisdiction of the District Court not provided for in this Bill. As I understand it, it has been suggested that the District Court should have jurisdiction in title. That is a proposition that has been suggested for a number of years, and as I said before, I have no very definite views one way or the other. If it were done, it would be necessary to make the District Court a court of record, and certain consequences might follow from that. Speaking about the Circuit Courts in the country areas, I do not think that the costs of title cases areextreme. I can see, of course, that if arrears now accumulate, as a result of a reduction in the number of Circuit Court judges, that, possibly, the position may be different, but at the moment I cannot see any sound reason why the jurisdiction of the District Court in relation to title should be changed.

There is only one other suggestion that I would like to make with regard to the Bill itself. I think Deputy MacBride, in questioning the extent of the increase in jurisdiction proposed for the Circuit Court, mentioned the fact that, by increasing the jurisdiction of that court to £600, that, in effect, the poorer litigant who had a claim for damages over £300 and under £600, would be deprived of his right to a trial by jury. I think that is so, but I do not see any reason why that difficulty should not now be tackled. I would like to see the trial by jury of civil actions in the Circuit Court given some realism. At the moment, as Deputy MacBride has said, civil juries are not availed of by many litigants in the Circuit Court because, when their case is decided by a jury, there is an appeal, which is a rehearing, to the High Court judge who happens to come down as the High Court on circuit to that particular town. That judge rehears the entire evidence that has been tendered before the jury and then gives his own decision on that evidence.

For that reason, since the Courts of Justice Act of 1936, litigants have more or less discontinued the practice of having their cases tried by a jury in the Circuit Court. In the 12 years prior to 1936, it was quite a common thing to see jury actions tried by the Circuit Court—that is claims for damages tried by a civil jury. Up to 1936, the finding of the Circuit Court judge and jury was a final finding unless, in fact, the trial had been a mis-trial, or if the Circuit Court judge had gone wrong on some question of law. Then there was an appeal to the High Court, not on the evidence but on the conduct of the trial or some question of law.

Personally, I would suggest to the Minister that now that we are endeavouring to give the Circuit Court more or less the same jurisdiction that it had in 1924, we should seriously consider providing that, where a case in the Circuit Court is tried by a civil jury, there should be no rehearing on appeal to the High Court—that the only appeal from the jury's findings in the Circuit Court should be an appeal with regard to a mis-trial or on some question of law. If that were done litigants who desire to have their cases tried by a jury in the Circuit Court would have available to them, in their own area, a jury in their own court able to try the case. I appreciate that the question of giving jury actions that reality in the Circuit Court might involve serious consequences.

I am conscious, with regard to juries, that it is an irksome burden that people have to bear in relation to their service as jurors. I have no doubt that is a matter that may be dealt with in the near future. I do think it is not right substantially to increase the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and still maintain the absurd situation whereby the jury's verdict in the Circuit Court can be set aside on appeal on a rehearing of the same evidence by a judge of the High Court on circuit.

I would also like to refer to the suggestion made by Deputy McGrath with regard to the High Court having original jurisdiction sitting in Cork. It is true to say that for some years back the suggestion of a High Court in Cork has been mooted by the Cork Bar, by Cork business people and by Cork Deputies. Deputy Lynch, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, who suggested it here in this discussion has, for the last two years, been in a position to influence the Minister. I understand that, when this Bill was originally drafted, it contained a provision for a High Court in Cork. I do not know what the difficulty has been, or whether, in fact, those who have been suggesting this provision have changed their minds; but, with Deputy MacBride, I agree that if there is to be a High Court, apart from one sittingin Dublin, it should not be confined to the City of Cork. If we are going to concede the idea of having a permanent High Court judge assigned to areas outside the capital, I cannot see why it should be confined to the City of Cork. Galway, Limerick and Sligo command a very large area of litigation in their immediate surroundings. It is a matter that should be considered not in relation to any particular city but in relation to the country generally.

I should like to avail of this opportunity to mention one particular case, the facts of which I have already brought to the notice of the Minister. The Bill provides for an increase in salaries for judges and district justices. It does not contain any provision with regard to salary, pay and allowances of county registrars or Circuit Court and District Court officials, who will have to meet much of the extra work occasioned by this Bill. I am not sure what the present position of Circuit Court officials is, but for many years they were not established civil servants and were more or less the forgotten children. Possibly it may not be necessary to do it by statute, but I do not know why some provision is not made in this Bill for an improvement in their establishment and their salary. The same applies to country registrars and District Court clerks. I should like to hear the Minister's views on that.

I also brought to the Minister the case of a particular former county registrar who served as State solicitor for a number of years in County Laois, who was then appointed county registrar and who served six years in that position. On reaching the retiring age his service as county registrar was not continued. He was retired under the age limit. This particular solicitor's service as county registrar for slightly more than six years failed to qualify him for a pension. He is now in his eighty-fourth year and has continued to practise as a solicitor, meeting great difficulties by reason of his age. I suggest to the Minister that the case of this former officer of the courts who, in fact, had nine years in the public service, if his services as State solicitorbe included, should be covered by some provision in this Bill so as to provide him with a pension which he undoubtedly has earned.

These, Sir, are the only matters I want to raise on the Bill. As I said in the beginning, we all on this side of the House, particularly those of us who, as lawyers, are interested in social reform and social questions of that kind, naturally have different views with regard to this Bill. Many of the points of detail that I should like to mention can be covered by amendments on the Committee Stage. I know that the Minister brings to the discussion of the Bill a measure of goodwill. I am certain that he is anxious to meet reasonable suggestions made from any side of the House. On Committee Stage, suggestions can be made in more detail but, certainly, from my point of view, I agree with the principle contained in the Bill while I differ from the Minister in certain matters of detail.

Having a very limited legal knowledge and very little association with the courts, my contribution to this debate will be necessarily brief. I am not in a position to give an analytical contribution as to the merits or demerits of the Bill but I am opposed to Part II which deals with the question of remuneration. I do not see that those servants of the State are being dealt with in any niggardly way. In fact I think it is correct to say that many other servants of the State would have a far more just cause or reason to look for increased remuneration. It is very improper for any member of this House to suggest that those gentlemen who are administering the laws of this country, or any other State servant, would be liable to act corruptly because of the standard of their remuneration. That is something that should not be said. It is unfair to the servants of the State in the first place and it might create the very thought in minds where it did not previously exist.

If any member of the judiciary feels that the State is not dealing generously enough with him, he has a very ready alternative. The number of applicants for his post, should he decide towithdraw his services, would clearly indicate that there is a very big number of people in the country who feel that these people are sufficiently remunerated at the present standard.

It is time that we came to realise that the cost of administration in every section of the State needs to be checked. I do not know what demands were made on the Government for the increases which are being granted here.

As far as the public are concerned, they do not think that the members of the judiciary were dealt with niggardly, whether they be High Court judges or district justices. In many cases, members of the judiciary—I am not now referring to the district justiues but to the higher ones—have a very short day's work. They usually begin about 11 o'clock and adjourn for lunch before 1 o'clock. They return from lunch about 3 o'clock and they adjourn for the day at 5 o'clock. I think that these will be found to be the aggregate hours of employment they put in. Anybody who suggests that their present standard of pay does not compensate for the time that they spend at their job must place a very high value on the services of the judiciary.

And they must have a very good fire in the courthouse or they will not sit there.

We know that county councils are often reprimanded for the condition of courthouses. There is one type of person engaged in the courts who is not mentioned in this Bill, and he is the man with whom I have the utmost sympathy, and that is the juryman. He must give his services free; he must neglect his own work and, in some cases, has to spend up to a week away from his home without any remuneration. I think that the Minister would have found no opposition from any Deputy if he made some provision for the jurors. I have often thought that it was grossly unfair to take a man away from his job, as happens regularly in the City of Dublin in criminal cases, and keep him away from his work for practically a week. Of course, he gets free accommodation, but he is kept away from contact with the public. He issometimes granted the privilege of reading a newspaper, but he gets no compensation or remuneration. It is suggested that an increase of £250 in some cases and £400 in others should be granted. I do not agree with that and I would not support it. I do not feel that they are inadequately paid at the present time. If there was a commission set up to examine expenditure generally with a determined effort to reduce expenditure. I think the first section they would deal with under the existing circumstances is the judiciary.

At a time when we have a Budget of over £100,000,000 and when the Minister for Finance asserted recently that there should be a determined effort made to reduce taxation and hopes to effect a reduction of approximately £3,500,000 this year, I fail to see the consistency of these proposals. Peculiarly enough, when there was a suggestion made to effect economies, the section that was selected, tentatively at any rate, was the agricultural community, as there was a recent suggestion to change the scheme for the relief of rates on agricultural land and to effect a saving of £500,000. There is a demand for economy, and I would support any move the Government would make towards effecting economy, but I would like them to act consistently in the matter and not to increase the salaries and allowances of men whom I consider are sufficiently remunerated at present.

There is another point I should like to mention. The ordinary individual in this country usually has to work about 40 or 45 years in his position before he establishes a right to a pension. A judge need only work 15 years, and these years are worked out on a four-or five-hour day.

A sit-down strike.

I say in all seriousness that the people who have been marching through Dublin during the last couple of weeks are encouraged in the illegal manner in which they are acting by legislation of this type. That is the truth, and those who mislead those people, and who are availing of the conditions which exist in the country have only to point to this kind of legislation to incite them. If I wentdown to Middle Abbey Street to-night I have no doubt that, with my limited powers of oratory, I could work up a fever of excitement amongst the unemployed people in the City of Dublin without referring to anything except this piece of legislation.

There are servants of the State who are very poorly paid. We have the unfortunate rural postman trudging round the country on 365 days of the year practically, in summer heat and winter snow, for £3 or £4 a week. We have the policemen on duty for practically 24 hours a day for a few pounds a week.

I do not see how the Deputy can discuss that matter on this Bill.

I merely want to make a comparison. I am opposed to this, firstly, because it is unwise legislation in the present economic circumstances of the country and, secondly, because I think there is no honest case for it, and no reasonable demand for it.

Like other members of my profession, I look upon this Bill as, in principle, a very useful and effective Bill. There are details to which I take exception, not in any spirit of animus, but rather in the spirit of trying to place whatever limited knowledge I may have of the working of the Circuit Courts and the District Courts at the disposal of the Minister. I was rather taken aback by the vehemence of Deputy Finan's condemnation of Part II of the Bill. I must confess that I do not find myself very sympathetic so far as the High Court judges are concerned. I do feel, however, that any of us who have occasion to be associated with the District Courts and the Circuit Courts in Dublin, could not in fairness, taking into consideration the present value of money as given to us yesterday by the Taoiseach, deny increases to the district justices and Circuit Court judges, particularly the district justices. Personally, I feel that their increase of remuneration is long overdue and, in view of the proposed alterations made in this Bill, that undoubtedly they will have a substantial increase in their work.

I think it was unwise to take the Bill as it is being taken at present. I think it might have been less contentious and less distorted if the Minister had found it possible to bring in a small amending Bill applicable only to remuneration and pensions without putting in a section with regard to the jurisdiction, etc., of the various courts. To that, all I say is, I feel the Minister should, if possible, honour the undertakings we know were given to certain sections who are going to be affected under this Bill. I am not going to press it any further than that. The Minister knows full well that the undertakings were given and that certain commitments were entered into on foot of those undertakings. I feel in particular where the junior step—as I call them—of the judiciary are concerned, the increases in remuneration now granted to them are indeed long overdue.

I am not going to enter into arguments or discussions on the merits or demerits of what happened at discussions between certain people and the Minister. Suffice it to say, it is incontrovertible that undertakings were given and that as a result of these undertakings, people were committed in a way they would not have been committed except that these undertakings were given. In those circumstances, I would urge the Minister not in any spirit of animus but rather in the spirit of trying to do what I feel the Minister himself would like to do— the essentially just and right thing— to reconsider the date of payment of these proposed increases to the district justices. As I said, I am not going to enter into acrimony on that point. It should suffice to make the plea to the Minister, not in any spirit of anything other than pressing him to do what I feel he, in his own true spirit, would be desirous of doing himself.

We have had much discussion over many years on alterations of the jurisdiction of both the District Courts and the Circuit Courts. I personally take the view—and have taken it for a long time—that with the present value of money, and the present standards,laid down when money was of different value, this alteration is long overdue. We want to argue logically on the issue as suggested by the Bill. My colleague, Deputy O'Higgins, when he was arguing to-day very wisely took the line, I think, that this Bill, in the main, proposes four or five different principles of issue. The first is increased jurisdiction for the District Courts with a reduced number of district justices and rearrangement of district areas. There is to be considerably increased jurisdiction for the Circuit Court and a reduced number of Circuit Court judges. The natural consequence of that is that there will inevitably be less work for the High Court, but the extraordinary position arises of having more judges for the High Court. I feel, myself, that the appointment of an extra High Court judge, with the present clutter up of litigation in the High Court, is essential, but I do not like the feature that seems to be appearing on the scene, of increasing District Court areas and increasing jurisdiction but reducing the number of district justices. I am inclined to question the bona fidesof the Government's approach when I remember in the very recent past there was another district justice appointed.

Mr. Boland

Not permanently. Only for holiday work and relief of sick people.

Does the Minister not agree that whatever complaint there may have been against the district justices in the past—and I heard Deputy Captain Cowan, who has very wide experience of the District Court, talking about some of them working for only 100 days in the year— surely, with the increased jurisdiction now proposed, there is a reasonable certainty that the volume of their work will be considerably increased? And is it in a situation of an increased volume of work that we should start reducing the number of district justices? Is that going to make for efficiency? Is it going to make for ease of litigation?

I do not think it is, because my own personal view is that with the increased jurisdiction that is going tobe given to the District Court, it will become a court of more considerable argument than it is at present and there may be a tendency with the increase of contract and tort jurisdiction to have what you might describe as a miniature Circuit Court in the District Court in the future and most probably we will have the District Court afflicted with more persons of my profession.

How do you say they will have to do more work?

There will be a greater number of cases within the purview of the District Court than there were before. The District Court only dealt with matters up to £25 before. They are now doubling the scope of jurisdiction and that means that a case concerning £30, £40 or £50 which would normally go before the Circuit Court now comes within the purview of the District Court.

They are fining men for not working.

Mr. Collins

Well, of course, if Deputy Everett is anxious to start that type of interruption I would suggest that he should wait and make a speech on the issues of this Bill himself. I am trying to talk on the questions of jurisdiction and capacity and if it is annoying the Deputy I would rather he would go out.

Deputy Everett has already spoken and he should allow Deputy Collins to make his speech. These conversations in the House should cease. If the Deputies want to have conversations they can go outside.

If Deputy Everett is finding it hard to listen, he is not compelled to remain in the House.

We would rather have a discussion on the old age pensions, or the unemployed.

I have been as good a friend of the old age pensioners or the unemployed as any other Deputy in this House.

Look up the record of your Party and see how they voted.

If you can find one occasion when I did anything to the detriment of either of those sections I will keep quiet for the rest of the time. Projecting the unemployment question on to this Bill is one of the causes of irritation which puts it into a contentious situation in which I do not think it should be. That is why I said that the Minister might have been wiser to deal with the question of remuneration in a separate Bill and let us get down to a discussion on the merits of what the jurisdiction should be in the various courts.

Let us go a step higher, into the Circuit Courts and, taking them by and large in a comparison of the present situation with the future, there is a likelihood of an increase of at least 40 per cent., I would say, in the work of the Circuit Courts in the immediate future when this Bill becomes operative as law.

It is suggested here now that we should cut down the number of Circuit Court judges while we increase by 100 per cent. their jurisdiction. I do not think that is going to make for efficiency, apart from the fact that it might entail hardship in the rearrangement of circuits for members of the legal profession who have built up a circuit practice. It goes deeper than that. It means that with this increased jurisdiction and the increased volume of work on the circuit, there will be, I respectfully suggest, more and more work and more time spent in the Circuit Court than hitherto has been the case. There will possibly be more detailed argument and more detail in proof and evidence than heretofore, with the increase in the type of litigation to be decided by the Circuit Court. I feel quite seriously that it would be infinitely wiser for the Minister and his Department to experiment on the increased jurisdiction and on the tightening up of districts and circuits before they embarked on possible reductions in the number of district justices or circuit judges.

I think the Minister would require to have a picture of what the effect of the increased jurisdiction might be in relation to the volume of work in the courts before he could readily evolve the plan that might benecessary in regard to the number of justices or Circuit Court judges. I am not a believer in jobs that are sinecures and I do not believe in paying a person an enhanced salary if the work is not there for him to do but I do suggest earnestly to the Minister that, whatever the situation may have been in the past, once the increased jurisdiction becomes effective there will certainly be no tendency to a reduction of work for these people. The whole tendency must be towards an increase.

There will be nobody on the dole.

It is in that spirit of analysis that I question the wisdom of envisaging too readily a possible reduction of personnel. The district justices in the main have given very admirable service to the State. We have had the position undoubtedly that some districts were overworked and we had scattered around the country districts in which it would be possible to say that there had not been a sufficient volume of work to keep a man fully occupied but, taking it by and large, reasonable adjustments would have made it possible to give sufficient work to all and not overwork anyone. I think that in the increased jurisdiction that is now envisaged, there is a distinct possibility of a tremendous overloading of work, particularly in the District Court in Dublin City and County and, possibly, in the District Court in Cork City and County. I would urge on the Minister that he should sit back for a while, watch that picture take shape and have his Department assess the effect of the change before he would eliminate, for all time, any of the districts. He may have to enlarge a district or to reduce another district here and there to get equilibrium of work, but I would earnestly suggest that a reduction in the number of districts should not be contemplated until a comprehensive picture can be obtained from 18 months' or two years' operation of this Bill.

With regard to the Circuit Court, I do not think that Deputy Finan wasfair in his observations about the hours served by judges. Some of the Circuit Court judges, in my experience as a circuit practitioner, have sat much longer hours than the normal court sittings for the purpose of accommodating litigants and for the purpose of assisting people to get litigation completed. The layman is too apt to look upon a day from 11 o'clock, with an hour's interval for lunch, to half-past four or five in the evening, as a short day without any realisation of what is entailed for the staff of the court, whether it be the official stenographers or the officials of the court itself, by way of additional work in records, etc., apropos of a normal five hours' discussion in court. I conceive the judiciary in our democratic institution as one of the protecting arms of our civil rights and liberties. Having designed them as such and having accepted them as something above the normal democratic institutions, something as an ultimate protector with certain limiting powers to assess what might be an erroneous view of even Parliament itself, once we put them in that position, it ill-behoves us, either by cynicism or unfair comparison, to try in some way to degrade them. I feel it ill-becomes members of this House to be churlish or cynical to the occupants of these high offices for the purposes of either the popular Press or just mere vociferousness.

In the main, it can truly be said that since the establishment of this State we have been given an impartial, loyal and dutiful service by our judiciary. They have discharged their functions within the framework of our democratic institutions in a manner worthy of the best traditions of legal training and principle in this country. We have been projected into a discussion on this Bill which lacks realism. We have been projected into it, in the main, by the unfortunate exigencies of our time. It does seem ironical—I agree with my Labour colleagues in this—that we are discussing a Bill in relation to a privileged class in circumstances of political and economic exigency. I think it is unfair to these people, since they have no redress, that we should irrationallyand unreasonably project that unfortunate circumstance into what should be an impersonal and practical discussion on the functions of our courts, their jurisdiction and remuneration.

I hope the preparation of this measure has focussed the Minister's attention and that of his Department on the many inadequacies and difficulties of establishment that exist in relation to the various officers of the various courts. It is a matter of supreme cynicism if, having tried to remedy the difficulties in relation to the personnel of the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court so far as remuneration is concerned we do not accept the corollary of ensuring that the people who carry out the greater part of the burden, be they clerks, registrars, county registrars or officials, get a consequential increase that will equally ameliorate the economic circumstances of their lives.

Mr. Boland

On that point, these officials have all received the Civil Service arbitration award. I did not object when Deputy O'Higgins raised this matter, but it is not appropriate to this Bill. These officials would have to be dealt with by a Court Officers Bill. If other Deputies follow the line that Deputy Collins has taken we will find ourselves discussing a matter that is out of order.

If it does not arise on the Bill it cannot be discussed.

On the Second Reading of this Bill I can refer to what is in the Bill and to what is not in it if I think it should be in it. I will not pursue that line.

Mr. Boland

That matter would be appropriate to a Court Officers Bill, not a Courts of Justice Bill.

I do not want the Minister to take me as being other than helpful where this measure is concerned.

Mr. Boland

I am afraid we may have an extension of the debate in relation to a matter not appropriate to this particular Bill.

I will argue that with the Chair with due respect.

Mr. Boland

I rise formally now on a point of order. It is out of order to discuss the pay of court officials on this Bill.

The Deputy cannot argue that because it is not relevant to the Bill. He may only argue what is relevant.

I submit the Long Title makes the matter relevant to all officials of the courts.

The Minister has said that they would be the subject of a different Bill.

The Long Title and the substance of this Bill deal with the jurisdiction of the various courts and the general functions. It would be quite relevant if I were to discuss the remuneration of officials employed by the courts.

The Deputy can rest assured it would not be relevant.

I am submitting that it is.

The Deputy is entitled to his opinion but the Chair rules the matter is not relevant.

I would like to know from the Chair on what ground he rules it is irrelevant.

Everybody is out of step but our Johnny.

In this connection it is our Bobby. If the Minister had not become agitated the matter would have passed with a mere reference.

Mr. Boland

It would not have passed because other Deputies would have followed Deputy Collins and we would have had a debate on these officers. That is why I rose.

There will be no debate so far as I am concerned. It has been my experience in dealing with the Minister that we got a reasonableand sympathetic hearing from him. There were certain ameliorations for these officers. I think the position of people in a quasi-judicial capacity, such as county registrars, is very relevant to this measure.

Mr. Boland

They would have to be dealt with by a separate measure.

They are officials of the courts, and we are dealing with their jurisdiction here.

Mr. Boland

The Chair has ruled.

He has not ruled in relation to county registrars. County registrars have certain judicial functions. They make certain decisions. I cannot understand why a passing reference should raise such a storm of protest. I think the Minister has done a worthwhile job so far as this Bill is concerned. Many of the reforms are long overdue. The Minister deserves the thanks of the House for the suggested increases in jurisdiction.

Deputy Cowan raised the question of Section 12 last night. I think the section must be radically altered or omitted from the Bill altogether. We should safeguard to the utmost of our powers the rights of prisoners. If an accused person for any reason feels it is prejudicial to his interests to be tried in the Circuit Court it is unwise to take away from him the right he hitherto had of applying for transfer to the Central Criminal Court.

That is a matter on which there will be divided opinions. Where prisoners are concerned, I subscribe to the view that it is better to err on the side of being over-considerate than to lean in any way in the other direction. It might well be that, even with the proposed change, the trial might be transferred from one circuit district to another without improving materially in any way the situation from the prisoner's point of view. It is reasonable to suggest that, in certain areas where interconnection is as strong as it can be in rural Ireland, it would be of benefit to the prisoner himself that the previous method should operate.

I feel that this section is drafted asa convenient one for State personnel dealing with prosecutions, whether they be superintendents, chief superintendents, State solicitors or the Attorney-General. I think myself that this is an unwise departure. Whatever limited abuses may be suggested, I think that the principle underlying the present arrangement—with its safeguards and the lack of prejudice that operates against accused people under the present system—is one that should not be lightly changed. I seriously suggest to the Minister that I would need very strong convincing in regard to the need of this section, before I could support it. However, the matter is one that can be dealt with more fully on the Committee Stage. On Second Reading, we deal, in the main, with the principles of a Bill. I suppose that, outside that type of departure, the Bill, in the main, can be described as a good Bill. It is one that will need amendment. With the goodwill that we generally get from the Minister for Justice, I feel that this Bill will emerge from the Committee Stage as a substantially improved Bill.

I would ask the Minister to reconsider the main feature of the Bill. I would urge on him that he should not contemplate any drastic reduction in the number of Circuit Court judges or of district justices until he has had an opportunity of viewing the picture in operation under the new jurisdiction. I suggest he will then find that the complaints which have been suggested of district justices not having enough work to do will disappear.

I think, in conclusion, that this Bill serves a worthwhile advance. I think it will be welcomed by all who are interested in the functioning and development of our courts as a valuable contribution to the ultimate settlement of the jurisdiction of all types of courts, and so I trust it will get a speedy Second Reading.

I have just listened to a long speech from Deputy Collins. I am not surprised that the lawyers, from their point of view, should make a case for the judges. I am here representing the rank and file of the working classes. Yesterday, we had a Bill before us dealing with workmen'scompensation. I should like Deputy Collins to pay attention to this, that if a young man meets with an accident in his employment and is disabled for life all he gets is 50/- a week. There is no provision of an increase for him.

I am surprised that the Government and the Minister should come in and ask for £16,000 after all the wailing that we have had from the Minister for Finance, the Government and Fianna Fáil Deputies that the country was bankrupt, and that the inter-Party Government had spent all the money that was there. We have thousands of people unemployed trying to exist on 50/- a week.

We, on the Labour Benches, are being asked by some of the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael solicitors to support this Bill. I know that in the constituency which I have the honour to represent this Bill has been discussed by all sections, rich and poor. The Government are asking the House to increase the salaries of certain people by £450, at a time when our people are struggling under the high cost of living, many of them unable to get work. It is at such a time that the Minister for Justice comes in with this Bill after all the talk that we have had here since the Budget of 1952 was introduced.

Deputy Collins spoke about prisoners. I have put down questions to the Minister in regard to the conveyance of prisoners. As a member of a local authority, we have to provide £200 out of the rates for the conveyance of some unfortunate prisoners to Mountjoy. How are they conveyed? Not in a State car. No, but exposed to the country in a bus by the cheapest method of transport. At the same time, we are being asked to vote increases of £7 a week to some people under this Bill while we have skilled workers in our factories trying to exist on a wage of £7 a week.

I think that the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government were very unwise when they allowed this Bill to be introduced, in view of the present state of the country. The Taoiseach says that taxation has reached its limit. Here we are being asked to vote money to people who are in very snugpositions and are well protected by pensions after short years of service. We, on the local authorities, have to provide electric fires and paint the courthouses at the expense of the rate-payers for these gentlemen who sit in these courthouses for a few hours in the week. The solicitors and the barristers here have spoken in support of this claim, while the old people have to live on £1 1s. 6d. a week. I did not hear much from either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael members about increasing their allowances. We have had every solicitor and barrister in the House getting up and telling us how hard-worked the judges and justices are going to be. The people of the country have their ears to hear and their eyes to see that there is too much playacting with regard to all this. This country is supposed to be staggering under taxation. Therefore, this House should not vote for these increases. There is no need for them. If there were lowly-paid officials, as a trade unionist, I would be the last man to oppose increases for them. I notice in the Book of Estimates that there is an increase of £2,000 for the Secret Service.

That does not come into this debate.

It comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Justice.

Mr. Boland

No, it does not.

It is not relevant.

A few weeks after the by-elections and all the talk on political platforms about the economic position of the country, it is unwise of the Minister to ask the House to pass this Bill. There is a section of our people who are more deserving of the sympathy of this House than the persons provided for in this Bill. The members of this House who have been advocating the cause of the judges should fight for the plain people and get something done for them by the Government. Then we would not have the unemployed marching to Leinster House and on the streets of Dublin.

While that is going on, Deputy Moran, Deputy Seán Flanagan, Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Seán Collins are crying out about the hard work that judges have to do. It is wasting the time of this House. The Minister should not have brought in this Bill. There is more important work for us to do than to provide extra remuneration for persons who are already well provided for. Lawyers on each side of the House are all for the judges. There was not one lawyer who got up and spoke on behalf of workmen's compensation.

That is not correct.

They did not stress it as much as they stressed the case of the judges. I cannot understand that. There is no need to worry about the judges. They are all in protected positions. If there is money to throw about, there is a more deserving case than the case of these people. The whole matter is out of proportion. It is against the wishes of the Irish people. We have heard all the moaning and wailing since the 1952 Budget was brought in about the high cost of living.

Mr. Boland

We did not moan about it. You did all the moaning.

You did a lot of moaning when you were in opposition. On every platform you said that the Coalition had not left a penny in the till, that all the Marshall Aid dollars had been spent, that taxation had reached its peak, that if the Coalition Government were not thrown out, the country would sink. After all that propaganda, the Minister for Justice wants to give more concessions to the well-to-do people. I would not be representing my constituency if I did not condemn it as uncalled for. There is no demand from the trade unions for it. Did the judges look for it? No, they did not look for it at all. We are told that if we do not give them a higher salary there will be corruption and that they will not work. That is rather far-fetched.

I submit that the Government should take more notice of the things that areat their very door and try to deal with them in a constructive manner. If there is any district justice that the Minister thinks is not getting enough, he can give him an increase without bringing in this Bill.

I protest in the strongest manner on behalf of the constituency that I represent, on behalf of the farming community, on behalf of the unemployed, on behalf of the business people, against this proposal to increase the salaries of judges at the expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. The Minister is unwise to ask some of the members of his own Party to vote for this Bill. There are some honest men in the Fianna Fáil Party who do not agree with everything that the Fianna Fáil Government are doing. This is one of the matters with which they do not agree. The head of the Government was unwise to send the Minister in here to ask the House to vote for increases in salaries for people who are already well sheltered.

What I want to say in this debate has already been said and I intend to be very brief. I cannot agree with the views expressed by Deputy O'Leary on Part II of this Bill, principally because I regard the position of the judiciary as being of great importance and I regard the safeguards which we have to grant to them through the Dáil as being also of great importance. It is correct for this House to give expression to its approval of the advice given by the Select Committee of this House on judges' salaries which is contained in Part II of this Bill.

The other parts of this Bill, however, contain matters of a much more contentious kind and differences of opinion on both sides of the House, and I think in the legal profession itself, will be found on the matters contained in this Bill relating to the increase in jurisdiction in the courts and the extra High Court judge who is to be appointed under the Bill. I do not agree that the Circuit Courts should have jurisdiction up to £600. I do not think it is correct that the rule-of-thumb method which has beenapplied in this case should be applied when dealing with such an important matter as a man's right to claim damages for a sum up to £600. I do not think it is a correct view to state that just because the first Courts of Justice Act created a limit of £300 for Circuit Court jurisdiction, and just because the value of money has doubled since, that we should automatically increase the jurisdiction.

The value of money is halved.

Yes, because the value of money is halved, I do not think that we should automatically double the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. The figure of £600 is still a big sum whether the value of money is halved or not. We are in effect taking away the right of trial by a jury to a man who believes that he is entitled to recover £600 from a defendent in an action. Under the present Circuit Court rules, it is possible for a plaintiff to serve notice of trial with a jury.

It is very rarely availed of. At present it is only in very rare cases that a person has a trial in the Circuit Court with a jury in a civil action. To my mind, the result of increasing the jurisdiction to £600 will be that it is very likely that where a person is claiming a sum up to the maximum of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court he will wish to have his case tried by a jury as well as by a judge and, whereas he will be entitled under the Circuit Court rules, as they exist at present, to a trial by a jury in the Circuit Court, an appeal from any such trial to the High Court will be, under the rules, an appeal to a judge without a jury.

We have, therefore, a situation which I would deplore where a man who claims that he is entitled to a jury to hear his claim for £600 may win his action in the Circuit Court and may get a verdict from a jury, and he may have to face an appeal by the defendant before a judge without a jury, where all the issues and all the questions of fact are retried.

Could we not cover that point in this Bill?

I suggest that it should be covered.

I think it should.

I would prefer that the Circuit Court should not have jurisdiction up to £600. I think the jurisdiction should be increased to £400. I think a citizen's right to go to the High Court on an action should not be taken away in this fashion. I agree that the value of money has declined and that the jurisdiction should be increased, but I do not think it should be automatically doubled, and I would suggest a figure of £400 as a very proper figure for Circuit Court jurisdiction. If the section remains in the Bill, there should be some provision by which, if there is a trial by a jury in the Circuit Court, and if there is an appeal from the findings of the judge and jury in the Circuit Court, there should be an automatic appeal on a question of law, not on fact, to the Supreme Court, similar to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. There should be some rule under the rules of court by which, if there has been a trial by a judge and jury in the Circuit Court, there should not be an appeal to the High Court on all issues as there is at present, but only an appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court, as there is in the Workmen's Compensation Act.

I also disagree with the obvious compromise that has been reached in this Bill between the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice. It is quite clear that the Department of Finance objected to the extra payments that the Department of Justice demanded and found a way of meeting the demands of the Department of Justice by cutting down on other aspects of the judiciary. We are now in the almost paradoxical position of giving the Circuit Courts more work to do and reducing the number of Circuit Court judges. In theory at any rate, we are taking away work from the High Court by increasing the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and putting an extra judge in the High Court. That is quite obviously the result of interference by theDepartment of Finance in what I would consider to be a properly drafted Courts of Justice Bill. I do not think this House should allow it.

I suggest that the circuits should not be reduced in the fashion that is intended in this Bill. I am not qualified to speak about the District Courts in the country. It may be that in some districts in the country there is not sufficient work for the District Court divisions as they exist at present, and there may be a case for the rationalisation of these. I am convinced, however, that it is wrong to reduce the number of circuits and the number of Circuit Court judges just at the time we are increasing the work they have to do.

Some Circuit Court judges were only doing less than 100 days' work. That could not be tolerated.

The general experience throughout the country has been that in the Circuit Courts, as in the High Court, the delay has been in getting litigation heard, and it should be the desire of this House, as I know it is the desire of both branches of the legal profession, to see that cases get a speedy trial. I do not think we will help litigants to get their cases heard if we increase the work which judges have to do and at the same time reduce the number of judges. At the most, I think only one Circuit Court judge may not have what can be regarded as a full complement of work.

Is not work being taken from the Circuit Courts and given to the district justices?

That is correct, but I have no doubt that the effect of this Bill will be to increase the work in the Circuit Courts. For example, there is nothing in this Bill, or that I know of in the rules of court or the Courts of Justice Act for the remittal of cases from the Circuit Court to the District Court. After all, £50 is a substantial sum of money, and I think we will find that a lot of cases will not be tried in the District Court, but that litigants will like to have them heard in theCircuit Court from which they will have an appeal to the High Court. We have got to safeguard the right of people to go to the High Court in this country, and if people start cases——

If people were protected from the right of appeal they would save a lot of money.

Mr. Costello

The Deputy may have a lot of experience.

I have, unfortunately.

But I do not think the Deputy's experience will blind him to the right of everybody to have an appeal tried before the High Court, and under present circumstances an appeal from the District Court to the High Court is a final appeal, and the less cases we have in that category the better, I think. The desire of the legislature would, I think, be to bring in Courts of Justice Acts which would facilitate the hearing of cases as quickly as possible. I do not think we are doing it under this Bill. I would say by greatly increasing the amount of work the courts are doing at the moment you are going to increase the delay that litigants have already.

They can work overtime.

I do not know whether the Deputy has experience of them, but I think the Dublin courts are working as hard as they can and the work in the City of Dublin is going to be greatly increased in the Circuit Courts with consequent delay.

I am against increasing the jurisdiction to £600. I think we are taking away the right of any individual to have his case tried with a jury by the High Court and I am against reducing the number of Circuit Court Judges. I do not think it is going to give us the efficiency which we all desire.

In conclusion. I would have liked to have seen the Minister pay some regard to the suggestions which were contained in a recent report published a couple of weeks ago from a committeeof the British House of Commons on the question of procedure in the High Court and Supreme Court in Great Britain. To my mind one very valuable suggestion in that report was the increased power which it was suggested should be given to the Master of the High Court in England.

Would you make him a judge then if you give him more power?

I think it is clear he is in a quasi-judicial capacity. I see nothing wrong with that. I think there are a number of interlocutory matters which could be fixed before the Master of the High Court which at present are not so fixed and which would greatly lessen the work of the High Court. This, I think, would speed up trials and cheapen litigation.

Would that not be a matter for the rules of court?

It is not, because the Master's jurisdication is determined by the Courts of Justice Acts. The rules of court cannot give him any greater jurisdication than he has at present.

The Supreme Court said he must not act in a judicial capacity. That is the problem.

I agree. But take one simple thing, the right of the Master to remit cases to the Supreme Court.

That has been questioned.

I think it has been questioned correctly. I think in practice that all cases that could be submitted to the Supreme Court are not, and are put in the judges' list itself. It is a very simple matter which would lessen the work in the court and speed up litigation. That is one instance of what could be done, if we had examined properly, the giving of greater powers to the Master of the High Court. As I see it, there are matters—one of which, the question of the jurisdiction of the Master, is not in this Bill, but the others with whichI disagree are in this Bill and I think this Bill will have to be amended if not in Committee then by subsequent Courts of Justice Acts.

As far as the Labour Party is concerned—I think I could safely say this—with regard to the bigger portion of this Bill, that is from Part III onwards, we would be pretty well unanimous in our approval of it.

I would like to say in respect of one of the Fianna Fáil speakers, Deputy Moran, that the Deputy to my mind usually makes a very good speech, but I think his contribution on this particular Bill was one of the best he has made in the House and I can say, for myself in any case, as did Deputy O'Donnell, that I would agree with practically everything he said inasmuch as that, from Part III onwards, there are a number of what I might describe as politically contentious things on which the Minister ought to take his advice on this occasion. I am not advocating entirely that there be free votes of the House on the different amendments that might come up on the Committee Stage, but in view of the very valuable information we got from solicitors and barristers, both yesterday and to-day, I think this would be one of the very few occasions on which the House could help the Minister in framing a better Bill than that which he introduced.

The usual experience, so far as Oppositions are concerned—and I do not say it is peculiar to this particular Dáil—is that the Minister brings in a particular Bill and steamrolls it through the House. That is not peculiar to the Minister for Justice. It has been happening since the State was established. There may have been valuable suggestions, and inasmuch as all of us agree on most of the principles involved in the Bill, there could be something akin to, or there could be free votes on the different amendments that might be proposed.

As regards the position of the solicitor members and barrister members of the House I would not deny the right of a lawyer, solicitor or barrister to speak in the House on a measure suchas this. I would not take any exception to the fact that we have had a predominance of legal Deputies speaking on it and I do not think they should be accused of any ulterior motive when they speak on a measure such as this. If that were to be the case, farmers should not speak on agricultural matters and labour members on questions of employment, or doctors on medical matters. That is a brief comment of my own because I protested here before against slights on members because of the particular profession they followed.

Just growing pains. We are getting over it.

It has lingered in this House for quite a long time.

On this particular part to which we take exception, we do not feel any embarrassment in opposing it, nor have we any pretence about our opposition to this. We are, in fact, laying ourselves open to the accusation that it is so much political propaganda. Some Deputies said it was obvious that we tried to make a propaganda use of it, and one Deputy said he could not understand why the Labour Party would oppose these increases; that as trade unionists we should be pleased to support any increases that might be suggested in respect of salaries, no matter what the salaries or who the individuals were. I have listened to the debate in this House for the past two days barring, say, a half an hour or an hour. I have heard every single Deputy get up and make reference to the proposal to increase the salaries of the particular gentlemen catered for in this Bill.

A significant thing was that whilst they said that it was a good thing to increase the salaries of District Justices, they did not wax enthusiastic about it. We did not hear much eloquence about the district justices. The strange part of it also was that there was not one Deputy to applaud the Minister for his proposal to increase the salaries of the High Court judges and the judges of the Supreme Court. One Deputy merely threw in the Circuit Court judgeswhen he mentioned the district justices' case for an increase.

I have read the report of the Select Committee. I might say in passing, because there has been some criticism of our not agreeing to become members of the committee, that we did not become members because we believed and I still believe, that the only reason the Government invited the setting up of that committee was that they were not prepared themselves to take full responsibility for introducing a measure such as they have introduced.

It was introduced and the House suggested a committee.

They introduced a Bill and withdrew it.

The House suggested a committee.

The Government proposed a committee.

At the request of the House.

And put lawyers on it.

Was it not a Select Committee that proposed pensions for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries?

I do not know. I was not in the House at that time.

That is the usual way to deal with these things.

I am merely saying that we in this Party did not agree to act on that Committee and we gave our reasons in the House when the original proposal was made to set up a Select Committee.

It was a matter for every Party.

We shall agree to differ on that. I do not agree with some of the arguments which have been put up by various Deputies. The emphasis last night was on the desireto preserve and protect the independence of the judiciary. I would be all for that. I think none of us has cast a slur, or there has been no intention of casting a slur on the judiciary but the emphasis last night and to-day has been on the necessity to pay them sufficiently to preserve their independence. I do not understand that line of argument, because that immediately gives rise to the question of how much is it going to cost the State to preserve the independence of any of these gentlemen, whether they be Supreme Court judges, High Court judges, circuit judges, or district justices. How do we measure the independence of the judiciary? I am not against paying a man a decent salary but I would resent the suggestion—I shall not say the allegation—that has been put forward by some Deputies that if we do not give them a certain amount of money as salary or a certain increase, there is liable to be corruption on the Bench. I do not think that is so. I am certain that this Government and Governments in the past have picked their men so that they would be in all circumstances free from any suggestion of corruption.

A case has been made by these gentlemen themselves and the Select Committee have subscribed to the submissions that have been made. I have noticed in respect of the Circuit Court judges and the High Court judges that they have based their case on certain facts. It seems to me, because they mention it first, that they regard this as one of the most important arguments in their favour—that agricultural wages since 1938 have increased by 170 per cent.

That is a lovely comparison. Everybody in this House has agreed, and still agrees, that the agricultural wage was so abnormally low in 1938, that it had been so for many years and still is, that the efforts of all members of this House should be directed to bringing it up to a proper standard and to provide for a suitable increase when the cost of living goes up. The argument used in favour of an increase for the Supreme Court and High Court judges is a comparison of the salaries of certain higher civil servants in theyear 1924 as compared with 1952. I think it should be remembered as well, that an increase was given to the judges and justices in the year 1947. On that occasion a High Court judge got a 20 per cent. increase, a Supreme Court judge got a 15 per cent, increase, a Circuit Court judge got a 25 per cent. increase and district justices got an increase of 30 per cent. I am not saying that it was not due to them, in view of the fact that they had not got an increase since 1924, which possibly was the year in which their salaries were originally fixed. It is now proposed to give district justices an increase of 34 per cent. which would mean that on his original salary, a district justice would get 75 per cent. Yet the submission here is that the average increase in the case of top civil servants from 1924 to 1952 was 50 per cent. I am not prepared to take strong exception to increasing the salaries of district justice. Possibly a case could be made for it, but I am questioning the justice of giving them a 34 per cent. increase now when a 30 per cent. increase was given in 1947.

Many Deputies here have also spoken about the congestion in the courts. I think the Select Committee made a very admirable suggestion to try to eliminate that problem. I think the public should take notice of this and I am sure the Minister is taking notice of it. Whilst many of us have not any great experience of the courts, we know that in many District Courts in this country justice is administered in a slot-machine-like fashion.

In a perfunctory manner.

That is a good description. I do not suggest that people do not get justice. The people who attend the District Court do not see justice administered. They do not hear justice administered.

Good law but sometimes bad justice.

I think the justice should take more time. The ordinary man in the street who commits a trivial offence, such as having no lights on his bicycle, does nothave a chance. It is quicker for the court and for him to pay his 5/- fine and get out. Whether that is good or bad I do not know. I think it is an appropriate description to say that in some of the District Courts justice is administered in a slot-machine fashion. Since this Select Committee has suggested longer working days, longer sittings and shorter vacations the people may get a proper appreciation of the courts and feel that, when summoned, they are getting a fair chance and their case is fully heard.

The only reason why I intervened in the debate was because of the reference to what I said on this particular issue in the Wicklow by-election. If the Ceann Comhairle will allow me, I will repeat what I said and I will prove in three minutes that it was the Fianna Fáil vote that elected the Fine Gael candidate and not the Labour vote.

If I hear the Deputy first everything will have been said. Let us forget the by-elections now and come back to the Courts of Justice Bill.

One of my objections to this Bill is because of the submission made that the £ now in terms of 1938 values is worth only 8/11. It is pretty rough on certain people to have that put forward as an argument for giving an increase of £450 a year to a particular individual. Whoever was responsible for the commission of that gaffe has a lot to answer for. If that argument is to be advanced in favour of a gentleman who has £4,600 per year, it ought to be used too with regard to other sections of the community to whom the Government has direct responsibility. Because the £ to-day compared with 1938 is only worth 8/11, the man with £4,600 has to get an increase of £250, or £5 per week. Obviously, we will have to pay heavily for responsibility. I will not be allowed to go into the matter here, but what would that argument mean to the man with 21/6 per week?

And the man with 18/- unemployment assistance.

We might beaccused of inciting the unemployed and making political propaganda out of their marches. These people can read the papers for themselves. There is a time and a place for everything. Is it right to use that particular argument in favour of granting an increase to men who have from £1,300 per year up to £4,600 when there are people whose case demands that they should be treated on the same basis but who have not been so treated? That is what I said in Wicklow. I repeat it here now. Because we believe in the arguments that have been adduced by our speakers, we are opposing this Bill. We are not opposing it for Parts III, IV and V. We are opposing it because of the provisions contained in Part II.

Mr. Boland

I am sorry the Labour Party has taken up that attitude. I would have liked to have had them on the Select Committee but evidently they know their own business better. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that civil servants have had four increases in salary as between the time the judiciary received its last increase and to-day. When everybody else in the State has got an increase, and when the £ has deteriorated in value, surely the judges are entitled to be considered just as well as everybody else. I think they are entitled to be restored to the position they were in when the courts were first established. But we are not doing that. We are giving them a smaller percentage increase than some civil servants have got. I have here a list of civil servants. They have received four increases since 1946. A man with £1,000 a year in 1924, has got an increase of 58 per cent. and he has been enjoying that for some time; the man with £1,100 has got an increase of 56 per cent.; a man with £1,200, has got an increase of 78 per cent. and a man with £1,700 has got an increase of 68 per cent. The Labour Party is not satisfied with that. They want to give the civil servants more.

Do not twist it.

Mr. Boland

The Labour Party wants to give them another £1,000,000 at the expense of the taxpayer.

We do not want to give the judges anything at all.

Mr. Boland

There are only a few judges and there are any amount of civil servants. I am sorry the Labour Party has taken up that attitude. They are wrong in their approach. I am not ashamed of introducing this Bill. I know the position I will have to meet in my own constituency and I am prepared to stand or fall if necessary, in order to do justice to a section of the community that has not got fair play. The Labour Party and the little Party opposite are quite at liberty to make all they can out of that. These increases in salary are long overdue.

I have been taken to task by Deputy Morrissey for not implementing in full the recommendations of the Select Committee; that is, to make the increases retrospective to 1st April, 1952. The Government considered the matter and they were satisfied that on the whole since the provision made now for increases both for district justices and Circuit Court judges is more favourable than originally suggested, the judiciary was being treated fairly well, by making the increases retrospective to 1st April of this year. I hope that Deputy Morrissey will not adhere to his statement that in future he will not serve on any more Select Committees because we turned down that recommendation. In the main, I think we have given effect to the recommendations of the Committee, and I would be sorry if Deputy Morrissey withheld his services in the future because he gave excellent service on this particular Committee. Deputy Costello said that this was apparently a device of the Minister for Finance; he would not agree to these increases unless he got his quid pro quo.There is no truth whatever in that. The Opposition must be aware that the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of both the District Court and the Circuit Court was under consideration before I resumed office.

In relation to reducing the strength of the District Court and the Circuit Court, there are five Circuit Courts in which there is less than 100 days' workin the year. Even if there is an increase in business as a result of increasing the jurisdiction, I do not think the Circuit Court judges will be overworked. We are simply reverting to the number that was there prior to 1936; there were only eight circuits then, and that is the number we shall have after this Bill becomes law. Deputy Costello objected very strongly to Section 12, and so did almost every Deputy who spoke on the Bill. It deals with the transfer of cases from the Circuit Court to the Central Criminal Court. I am satisfied as I said when moving the Second Reading of the Bill that the position as it is has been abused—that at least half the cases heard in the Central Criminal Court in Dublin are cases that have been transferred from the Circuit Court in Dublin. That tendency is increasing, the result being that almost the whole of the time of a High Court judge is taken up with work which should properly be done by the Circuit Court. That was my main reason for asking the House to accept the proposal in the Bill. Strong exception has been taken to the section on all sides of the House, and I will not persist with it. If amendments are introduced I am prepared to consider them though I still think that there is a good deal of abuse in connection with the present practice. After all a person gets a fair trial in the Circuit Court.

I intend to put down an amendment to delete that section.

Mr. Boland

We can consider it. On account of the extra work in Dublin and of the increased jurisdiction there will be one extra circuit judge available in Dublin for a while after we have reorganised the circuits.

Will there be a court available?

Mr. Boland

We will have to see about that. On the question of having an extra High Court judge I had to be convinced about that before agreeing to it. Deputy Costello, Senior, saidthat we did not consult certain interests before we drafted the Bill. That is not correct. I saw the Bar Council and the Incorporated Law Society. The Taoiseach and myself met the President of the High Court and the Chief Justice. All of them urged the necessity of appointing an extra High Court judge due to the congestion of work in the High Court. There has been a large increase in the number of cases and they convinced us that there was a good deal of congestion. For the present at any rate the appointment of an extra High Court judge is necessary. I know that previously when I was Minister for Justice we had authority to appoint more High Court judges than actually we had functioning. When the arrears are cleared off and as a result of the increased jurisdiction the time may come when whatever Government is in power need not appoint the full complement of High Court judges. On the question of the increased power being given to the Master I intend to bring in an amendment to deal with that. We discussed that matter with the representatives of the Supreme and High Courts. They did not think it would make an appreciable difference. In any event I propose to move an amendment to provide for the giving of more power to the Master to deal with certain matters.

The question of the long vacation has been discussed. I think that the judges are prepared to do what they can in that regard. After hearing their point of view on that and the case made by the Incorporated Law Society and the Bar Council one is led to form a different impression from that held by a number of people as to what the long vacation means. It is not quite as bad as it looks. At any rate the judges promised to consider curtailing it so as to knock out some of the vacation period in the hope of getting more work done.

Did they make any suggestion about working longer hours in the day?

Mr. Boland

That was dealt with too, but it does not seem to bepracticable. The point has been made by a number of Deputies who have spoken on the Bill that people who are engaged in litigation find it necessary to see their solicitors and counsel before the court opens. The solicitors themselves have to go to their offices. In jury cases it was pointed out that jurors who are business men have to call to their places of business in the morning before the Court opens. I have gone thoroughly into the whole of this and I am satisfied that the judges are going to do what they can to expedite the work. If another High Court judge is appointed the appointment need not be continued when the present congestion has been relieved and there is a vacancy.

The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the question of a High Court in Cork. As far as I am concerned I am quite anxious to see that. I quite agree that if there is a case for having a High Court in Cork there may also be a case for other parts of the country. We can start with Cork.

There were eight cases for hearing at the High Court on circuit in Cork.

Mr. Boland

If there was power to initiate High Court litigation in Cork there might be a far greater number of cases to be heard there. At any rate when this Bill is enacted we can see what can be done. We can make a start in Cork and if it works well, it can be extended.

Is it suggested that the Cork circuit should be for Cork County?

Mr. Boland

I would say it might be for the South of Ireland. The rule-making committee will have to provide for that. I am putting that up to them.

Deputy Cowan says it will be for the old Munster circuit.

Mr. Boland

We have another change now in the rule-making authority.There will be two solicitors on the rules committee.

Cork always gets the preference.

Mr. Boland

It is the biggest city outside of Dublin. As regards this question of the increased jurisdiction I submit that what we are actually doing in this Bill is restoring the jurisdiction that was there formerly. There has been a drop in the value of money and what the proposal in this Bill is really doing is restoring what was the old position.

There is a certain amount of experiment about it.

Mr. Boland

There is. If the proposals which have been made here by different Deputies who want to increase the jurisdiction still further are to be considered I am afraid they will take a lot of consideration. In fact I would not see much hope of getting this Bill through in a hurry. Deputy D. Costello does not think there is a case for increasing the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court beyond £400. I do not see how he could make his case for that. As I have said there has been a drop in the value of money. Take a motor car that was worth £270 in 1939. It is now worth about £600. If there was an action about it it would have to be tried in the High Court whereas in 1939 it could have been tried in the Circuit Court.

A broken leg has not doubled.

There are very few accidents of the type the Minister speaks about.

Mr. Boland

The value of the £ has been halved and so compensation should accordingly be increased.

In all negligence actions you always claim more than £1,000.

You do not always get it.

Mr. Boland

If Deputies want to put down amendments about the increasedjurisdiction I will consider what can be done about them. I think we have increased the jurisdiction fairly well as it is. Apparently Deputy O'Donnell wants Donegal solicitors appointed for Donegal. I suppose the people in Connemara would say the same so that they will be able to understand the Irish of their clients. It may not be always easy to do that.

Deputy MacBride suggested that we should have courts in other areas as well as Cork. We will try it in Cork first.

There was a question of not having a right to a jury. There is a right in the Circuit Court. I was not Minister when the change was made in regard to appeals. It appears it was made in the 1936 Act on the insistence of the Opposition of the time. Now, apparently, the case is being made forreversion to the position that existed prior to that.

Some Deputies made, practically word for word, speeches made by other Deputies. The debate was longer than I had anticipated. I have dealt with most of the points made and other points can be dealt with on the Committee Stage.

Many points were made by Deputies that the Minister has not dealt with.

Mr. Boland

If they put down amendments, we can discuss them on Committee. If every point were to be discussed it would take a great deal of time. All these things require consideration. I do not see that there could be acceptance without a great deal of consideration by the House.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 12.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carew, John.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Deering, Mark.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • de Valera, Eamon.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gallagher, Colm.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
  • McCann, John.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Everett, James.
  • Finan, John.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Leary, Johnny.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies O Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Corish.
Question declared carried.

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

Mr. Boland

I was hoping it might be possible to have the Committee Stage before the Dáil adjourns, but in view of the amendments that have been suggested I think it would be impossible and I will have to ask it to be put down for 20th October.

Is it not desirable that this Bill should go through at once?

I think the Bill must go through at once. I suggest that we take the Committee Stage on Friday. If there is a little bit of common sense with regard to the amendments, I think there will be no trouble about them.

With regard to the suggestion of amendments, I think a Courts of Justice Bill, as I indicated, is not the kind of Bill which should be amended in a drastic fashion by amendments on the Committee Stage. It ought to be more carefully considered. We do not know where we are going by increasing the jurisdiction here, there and everywhere and making suggestions affecting personal and professional interests.

Mr. Boland

Let us have the Committee Stage on Friday then.

We would prefer to get it through.

Amendments can be taken up to to-morrow evening.

Mr. Boland

Very well, we will take the Committee Stage on Friday.

Will we get a full opportunity of putting down amendments?

You will get a full opportunity.

I object to the Committee Stage being taken on Friday.

The amendments will be circulated as early as possible to-morrow evening.

That does not comply with the Standing Orders.

What is the need for it?

Could we not meet next week and deal with it?

Mr. Boland

So far as I am concerned we can meet next week.

So far as we are concerned that is O.K.

Then we will have the Committee Stage next Tuesday?

We will have to meet next week in any event to finish the Workmen's Compensation Bill.

I understood the Minister was to take the Workmen's Compensation Bill on Friday.

Put the Committee Stage down for Wednesday next.

The Tánaiste says to put the Committee Stage down for next Wednesday. Is that agreed?

Ordered: "That the Committee Stage be taken on Wednesday, 5th August.

Top
Share