Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Oct 1959

Vol. 177 No. 4

Courts of Justice Bill, 1959—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. It is a short measure, the sole object of which is to provide for an increase in the salaries of all members of the Judiciary.

The question of making a further adjustment in the salaries of members of the Judiciary has been under consideration by the Government on a number of occasions since 1957, when the Judges and Justices submitted requests for pay increases. As Deputies are aware, Judges' salaries are fixed on a long term basis and are not revised, to cover changes in the cost of living, with the same frequency as occurs in the case of persons engaged in other branches of the public service or in outside employment generally. In fact, since the salaries of the majority of Judges were first fixed in 1924, adjustments have been made on only two occasions—in 1947 and in 1953.

Since 1953, the cost of living has increased by about 15 per cent. and, generally speaking, persons in the public service and in outside employment have received pay increases on two occasions. As I mentioned already, the Government have since 1957 given careful consideration to the question whether Judges' salaries should be increased, and if so, what should be the pattern of the increase. As a result of a full examination of all aspects of the question, the Government are satisfied that the increase proposed in the Bill, that is, a flat increase of 10 per cent. on all judicial salaries, is fair and reasonable, and I submit this proposal for the approval of the House.

It will be noted that the proposed salary increases are to be paid with effect from 1st January last. That is being done to meet the unusually long delay that has elapsed between the request for the increase, which was submitted in 1957, and the Government's decision on that request. My view is that it would be unfair to the Judiciary that they should receive no compensation for the exceptional delay, and I am satisfied that in all the circumstances the modest degree of retrospection now proposed is fully justified.

Mr. McQuillan

I move the amendment standing in my name and that of Deputy Dr. Browne:

To delete "now" and to add at the end of the motion "this day twelve months."

I move the amendment, Sir, not because of any actual criticism of what a judge or justice or any member of the Judiciary is entitled to. I want to get that quite clear. But, there are a number of points which the Government should consider in connection with this proposal and our aim in moving the amendment is to give sufficient time for our proposal to be examined and, if considered desirable, to be adopted.

It is admitted that in recent years the principle of conciliation and arbitration has been accepted throughout this part of Ireland. The trade unions, when they demand an increase in wages and salaries, have to put a case and, in many cases, have to go before the Labour Court. The Civil Service, State bodies, semi-State bodies have arbitration or conciliation boards, as the case may be. So, it is accepted that when a case is being put forward for an increase in salaries, there is some group charged with the responsibility of examining in detail the application for the increase.

It must be accepted that that principle of arbitration is in operation even in relation to the Garda Síochána and, to my mind, it would appear that some form of arbitration or examination of claims in relation to the Judiciary was in operation in 1953 because, although the Minister, and rightly so, has pointed out that the categories to which he has referred have received only two increases in salaries since 1924, it is necessary to emphasise that prior to their obtaining their last increase, in 1953, the Government of the day set up a Select Committee to examine the question of judicial salaries, expense allowances and pensions. That meant that in 1953 a Select Committee of this House, consisting of members of both the Government and the Opposition, considered a memorandum submitted by Judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and Circuit Court and submissions by the district justices on their claims for an increase in salary. As a result of the recommendation of that Select Committee, the Government decided, and rightly so, in 1953, to increase substantially the salaries of all members of the Judiciary by amounts ranging from £250 to £450 in the case of justices and circuit court judges. That was in 1953. I cannot understand, and many other Deputies cannot understand, why a similar move was not made in 1957 or 1958 when, apparently, members of the Judiciary made a further request for an increase in their salaries.

Under the Constitution, all the people in this State are equal. Of course, nobody for a moment suggests that the request of the Judiciary should be neglected or that their claims should not be listened to, but I submit that at least the same rules should be applied to their claims for an increase as are applied to the higher ranks of the Civil Service and other State bodies.

I am not the only one who is making a comparison between members of the Judiciary and the Civil Service. The judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, in 1953, in support of their claims for an increase in salaries, made a comparison between their position and the position of Secretaries of Departments and other higher civil servants and servants of State and semi-State bodies and based their argument for an increase in their salaries on the position that obtained in the Civil Service. Therefore, I cannot see any objection now to having another Select Committee of the House to consider the claims put forward in the same manner as the claims put forward in 1953 were considered.

I would also point out to the Minister that in the memorandum submitted by the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court in 1953, they stated as follows:

We wish to make it plain that we do not claim any right to have our salaries increased from time to time on account of any temporary increase in the cost of living, whether reckoned by reference to the index figure or otherwise.

That statement was made in the memorandum submitted by these very learned and responsible gentlemen. Surely, when they made such a statement in support of their claims in 1953, it is not unreasonable to suggest that this House, through a Select Committee, be given the reasons for the arguments these same members of the Supreme Court have evidently put forward to the Government? A great case can be made for the setting up of another Select Committee to examine those proposals.

When I make the comparison with trade unions and point out that even the lowest paid members of local authority staffs have to go before the Labour Court, that does not mean that I want to put the members of the Judiciary into exactly the same category. I merely wish to see the same attitude adopted as was adopted in 1953. It would appear that special privilege attaches to members of the Judiciary as far as remuneration is concerned, despite the fact that the judges themselves, in page 20 of their report, make it clear that they do not claim to have their salaries increased from time to time on account of any increase in the cost of living. In spite of that statement in 1953, we have a claim in 1957. Is that claim on the basis of a temporary increase in the cost of living, or is the case being made that there is a permanent increase in the cost of living? On what basis is the claim being made? If this House and the public were entitled to know in 1953 the reasons put forward by the Judiciary in their claim for an increase, surely the House and the country are now entitled to know the reasons advanced in 1957?

When those reasons were put forward in 1953, the case was threshed out publicly in this House. A Select Committee sat and the remainder of the House abided by their recommendations. Would it not be a better proposition for the Government to accept what was recommended in 1953 rather than have the whole question reopened, as it must be if the Government do not agree? Nobody is more anxious than the members of the Judiciary to ensure that their position in the State is kept above suspicion.

In 1957, an increase in travelling expenses and subsistence allowances was given to certain categories of the Judiciary. This House heard no word of that increase and no Government Order was made on it. I know I can be told that no Government Order was necessary, but those increases, made in November, 1957, were backdated to June, 1956. That information did not come before the House. It was extracted through the medium of Parliamentary Question. When I sought to find out what the position generally was and how expenses and allowances were arrived at, I found no records were available in the form of Government or Ministerial Orders in the Library.

Let me be quite clear about the comparison I am making. In November, 1957, the officers of the Garda Síochána received an increase in travelling expenses and subsistence allowances—on the same date, in fact, as the members of the Judiciary received almost similar allowances. A Ministerial Order was made and published—it is available in the Library or at any stationery office—giving full details of what the officers of the Garda Síochána received, but no Order was made concerning, nor did any member of this House know of, the fact that the members of the Judiciary received a similar increase at the same time. Was there not a question of privilege there?

I do not suggest that the increase the members of the Judiciary received was a large one, but I am suggesting there was an air of secrecy attached to it which is entirely undesirable and which the members of the Judiciary would be the first to suggest should be removed. Following that increase in allowances, we are now told there was a claim for an increase in salaries and that the Government have decided, having examined it, to back-date it to the beginning of this year.

I shall not talk much further on that aspect except to say it is accepted throughout the country that the principle of conciliation and arbitration is the proper method of dealing with any question of an increase in salaries or allowances to any section of our people. I do not think an exception should be made in this case, especially when, in 1953, a precedent was established. Otherwise, the public will be dissatisfied and the standing of the Judiciary will not be improved.

That is the first reason I advance as to why we believe that a lapse of 12 months would be desirable so that the Government may re-examine the position. In the meantime, it will not cause any great hardship to the members of the Judiciary. The second point I wish to make is this. Within that period, the Government will have an opportunity of examining the other privilege which seems to be in operation as far as the Judiciary are concerned, that is, the method of their appointment.

In regard to higher civil servants, in regard to local authority appointments, in regard to any appointment made in the State, there is an examination and interview and the Local Appointments Commission is brought into operation to ensure, not only that the best possible candidate is appointed but that there shall not be the slightest trace of influence. That is the general position, but in regard to the Judiciary, the position is that the only qualifications necessary for appointment to the Bench are, first of all, the initial law examination, and, after that, tie yourself on to some political Party until you climb so high in their graces that the day will come when you will sit on the Bench.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of the qualifications of the Judiciary is not before the House. The only matter before the House is their remuneration.

Mr. McQuillan

The matter before the House is to postpone for 12 months a decision on this motion. Reasons must be given as to why that postponement is necessary. The reasons are, (1) to examine the question of conciliation and, (2), to examine the methods of appointment. Consequently, 12 months is desirable for such a committee to work. I want to put the members of the Judiciary above suspicion. The House and the country would like that, and nobody more so than the members of the Judiciary themselves.

There used to be an old adage to the effect that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. We know how untrue that is, but there is to-day another aphorism creeping into the Republic; that is, that there is one law for those with influence and another for those who have no influence. Is it not only natural that that feeling should be there when people remember that appointments to the Judiciary are made because of association with and affiliation to a political Party? Admittedly, the appointee may be a very well qualified man, but he is inevitably in a weaker position than he would be if he were appointed by some neutral body specifically set up for that purpose. I do not propose to say anything about the composition of such a board. There are people here who are as anxious as I am to keep the Judiciary above reproach, and who are better qualified than I am to suggest a suitable type of board for the purpose of appointing members of the Judiciary on qualifications alone and without reference to political affiliations.

In Britain, political affiliations enter into the question. The system that operates there is similar to the system which operates here. But the fact that it operates in Britain, and appears to do so successfully, is no justification for putting the same system into operation here. For one thing, we have not the same number as they have in Britain from which to make a choice and, therefore, there is far graver need here, because of the limited number available, for careful screening and selection in the filling of these posts.

I am not casting any aspersions on any members of the Judiciary and I have no intention of doing so. I merely ask that this Bill be postponed for twelve months, or less, if in the meantime the Government adopt the proposal to examine into the position regarding the appointment of members of the Judiciary in general with a view to the elimination of any suggestion of political bias in such appointments; and, secondly, that in that twelve-month period a Select Committee on lines similar to that which sat in 1953 be set up to examine into the two suggestions made here. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposal. I know for a fact that it will meet with the approval of many members of the Judiciary itself.

Dr. Browne

I second the amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

I presume it will not be necessary to discuss this amendment and the Second Reading of the Bill in different speeches. I presume the whole matter can be covered in the one speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment and the Bill can be discussed together.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like, first of all, to speak briefly on the suggestion that the Bill should be postponed for 12 months and on the statements made in support of the proposals outlined. The amendment has been based on two arguments. One is that this country has got into a kind of mood in which increases in salaries are invariably discussed by some kind of arbitration board under some method of conciliation and arbitration; and, secondly, there has been a selection procedure adopted in regard to Judges on a former occasion and the Deputy supporting the amendment thinks the same procedure should be followed now. Another view put forward is that the Government should have time in which to think over the situation and eventually introduce some proposals with regard to appointments generally to the Judiciary. To my mind, that is a wholly different matter and one which the Deputy can raise by way of motion, leaving it open to discussion as an entirely separate issue.

The Deputy's first argument rests on two fallacies. It is not the case that everybody has to go before an arbitration board, a labour court, or some similar body, in order to get an increase in salary. The Deputy made a comparison with the higher officers of the Civil Service. There are certain non-arbitrable classes in the Civil Service. Yet, the fact is that Governments have, after arbitration in connection with State personnel subject to arbitration, given to those in the non-arbitrable classes increases corresponding to those given to personnel in the arbitrable classes. There is no reason, therefore, why Judges should be made undergo any procedure of arbitration or conciliation.

The second argument was founded upon the fact that some years ago a special committee was set up for a specific purpose. To my mind, that argument also fails. The Minister's case in presenting this piece of legislation is that, since the last increase in judicial salaries, the cost of living has risen by 15 per cent. and it is proposed to give the Judiciary now an increase of ten per cent. to compensate for that 15 per cent. increase in the cost of living. There can be no denying the fact that the cost of living has risen.

When the special committee was set up, it was set up for a specific purpose. It did a good deal more than merely examining whether the salaries of the Judiciary had, through the depreciation of money, lost a particular purchasing value and ought therefore to be increased. There was an examination of the position of Judges inter se. That matter was under discussion and required lengthy deliberation by the committee which eventually reported to this House.

The simple question that arises here is: do the members of the Judiciary require any increase in salaries in the light of an increase in the cost of living of 15 per cent.? It is proposed in this Bill to give the Judiciary an increase of ten per cent. On that, I have a very distinct view. I am clearly of the opinion that a case can be made for improving judicial salaries, and a ten per cent. increase does not meet the increase in the cost of living and, therefore, does not compensate these people as a group for what they have suffered because of the decreased purchasing value of money.

I speak with a certain amount of assurance in this because when I was Minister for Finance I had made up my mind quite definitely that the Judiciary should have some increase in their emoluments. I was looking at the salaries, not in relation to individuals but in relation to the positions which they occupy. Because of the very high positions these people occupy it was the view of myself and my colleagues in Government at the time that an improvement in their situation was required. The atmosphere in those days, of course, was entirely different because we had deliberately embarked on a policy of trying to level up salaries. Salaries had been pegged under Standstill Order, and by means of other devices, and held at a particular point.

There was no doubt that salaried classes, particularly those who were made eventually the subject of arbitration in the Civil Service, and those in industrial and other forms of employment outside, had suffered acutely because money had not kept its 1939 purchasing value. By degrees, between 1948 and 1951, the salaries of various groups were successively improved. First of all, the really badly-off were attended to—the old age pensioners and those who depend on the justice of the State, though it sometimes fails in charity. Having dealt with those and encouraged those outside to go to the Labour Court, arbitration was introduced and the Government encouraged State personnel to look for an improvement in their financial status. That, too, was dealt with in successive stages.

The last group which needed attention then was that composed of the members of the Judiciary and certain others whom it was my intention to put on equality with all the others. Because of the defeat of the Government in 1951, that was impossible, but in those days it certainly was the intention to recast judicial salaries. That would have been done in 1951 if Fate had provided us with the power to do it.

The atmosphere has changed considerably since then but I think a case can be made—a good case—for increasing judicial salaries. While personally I should have no hesitation in increasing them at the present time, there is a definite mood in the country that this is not the time to give an increase anywhere. I remember in 1956 a statement was made here about certain improvements made in the old age pensions and in certain of the State services which were described as chunks of inflationary expenditure being brought before the House and that our attitude towards certain State personnel had sparked off a demand for further increases and that was regarded as a bad thing. I regard it as a very good thing. The argument made by the Government when in Opposition was that we were adding to and increasing the claims that were made in order to have a better adjustment made to equate whatever moneys that were then being paid to the cost of living.

I believe there is a case to be made— a good case—and there is no necessity for a Select Committee at the moment because the simple case in any reconsideration of the salaries of the Judiciary is inter se and not a question of whether certain people should be raised from a low level to a higher one or that the cost of living has gone up by so much that we should increase the salaries.

Deputy McQuillan quoted from the statement of the Judiciary to the effect that they would not look for day by day or year by year increases on account of any temporary increase in the cost of living. That statement has to be understood as it was made. I take it to mean that their salaries should not be harnessed to a cost of living figure and go up automatically as it rose. They were applying for a radical examination of their salary position and they got that from the Select Committee. That is an entirely different matter. The cost of living figure has gone up and we are asked to raise the salaries of the Judiciary accordingly.

I should like to say that to raise the judicial salaries is a matter of greater importance and of far greater moment than raising the salaries of other people. Deputy McQuillan wants to know if this increase is being given because of a temporary increase in the cost of living figure. If I had any faith, any belief, that the cost of living figure would change and go downwards instead of up, I would say that there is a good deal to be said for giving this matter further consideration because we are not giving the Judiciary a bonus. We are giving them an addition to their salaries and once they get an addition to their salaries, under the Constitution, those salaries cannot be lowered while each individual judge is in office, so it is an important step. However, in the belief that there is no possibility of the cost of living coming down, I take it we have just got to face it now as year succeeds year that the fact is that the value of money has declined and that there is a downward trend.

If and when this measure is further discussed, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister. We have over the years in connection with salaried people—State personnel rather than salaried classes—developed two lines of approach. The Civil Service many years ago asked for and eventually in 1956 got a Superannuation Act in which power is given to any civil servant—actually it is in the Local Authorities (Superannuation) Act of the same year—who is about to retire and who is entitled to a pension on retirement, to come to an agreement by which he surrenders part of his pension. His pension in part is then given over to his widow, if the lady survives him.

There is also legislation which allows a dependent child to have part of the real value of the pension given over for his benefit. There is no cost to the State in that because the value of the pension substituted for the pension earned has to be actuarial and equivalent to whatever he surrenders. Therefore, there is no cost to the State. That principle is already accepted with regard to civil servants and servants of local authorities and, as it involves no cost to the State, I think it should be included in whatever legislation there is with regard to the Judiciary to enable them, if they like—giving each individual his choice—to surrender part of their pensions and to get a lesser pension to which they would be entitled during the joint lives of themselves and their wives.

There is another provision that is not made with regard to the Judiciary, and which has been made with regard to the Civil Service personnel, namely, that if they die in harness before they retire, they are entitled to a gratuity which is measured in different ways. I suggest both these matters should be considered in relation to the Judiciary as well as to other classes of the community.

I was rather astonished to hear the Minister say that the retrospective dating of this to 1st January is due to the considerations of delay. That delay was caused by the Government themselves. Requests for an increase in salary which were made in 1957 are only brought in here in 1959 and it is thought proper and reasonable to back-date them to the beginning of this year. That is acceptable from one angle but it has not always been the mood. I remember a time when the civil servants made a claim which was afterwards seconded by the Arbitration Court. There were months of controversy in this House as to whether it should be retrospective to the date on which the claim was advanced or retrospective to the date of arbitration. I am glad at least that this has been accepted now because it will be a principle which will bind hereafter with regard to other grades.

I do not want to have this 12 months' delay. The matter should be decided here and now and the legislation should go through in the next two or three weeks, or it should not go through. The 12 months' delay is asked for, for the purpose of setting up a Select Committee. I regard that as unnecessary. It is also asked for, for the purpose of having an examination into the system of the appointment of judges. That is an entirely different matter which is causing a good deal of anxiety throughout the country. It may eventually be debated here by way of motion but as regards the 12 months' delay, I would not be in agreement with that at all.

My view is that there is a good case to be made for giving the judges this or some other increase. Whether or not it is the proper time, the House will have to decide. Up and down the country, there are repercussions of a type out of all proportion to the value of the money involved. I think £13,000 or £14,000 would meet all the increases, but notwithstanding that small amount the view, which Deputy McQuillan expressed, will get an impetus if these moneys are voted at this time.

Mr. Donnellan

It appears to me that so far as the Government are concerned, the sky is the limit. My view simply is that it is ridiculous that people who earn or have a salary of nearly £5,000 should get an increase in that salary. I think that is madness. I understand the Minister said it was in 1957 that this application was made. I wonder what delayed them? Why not be honest about it? They were ashamed to come to this House or ashamed or afraid of public opinion on this matter. They realised what would be thought of their proposal to give an increase to people who are already earning up to £5,000 a year.

I am sure no Deputy from his heart would vote for a Bill of that nature. Yesterday I put down a question to the Minister in connection with those salaries. What has happened? In one case there is an increase of £485 per annum, to date back, by Jove, to 1st January last. As Deputy McGilligan pointed out, it is a new principle, anyhow. It is strange that a present, you might say of twelve months back money, is to be given to people already drawing huge salaries. I know it is very hard to mention it here and people may say that one is being personal, but that is not the case.

I put it straight to the Minister and to the House that it is ridiculous, in the case of large salaries such as £4,850, to give an increase of £485, bringing that salary up to £5,335 per year. That is his salary and that has been his salary. If it ever happens that the cost of living should come down, which I am afraid will never happen, that salary cannot be touched.

Does the Minister not realise that a salary such as that which I have mentioned is a ridiculous salary and that there is no need for an increase of £485 per annum? In the other cases, the salaries mentioned and the proposed increases are as follows: A salary of £3,700 is to be increased by £370 per annum and a salary of £3,550 is to be increased by £325 per annum. The salaries of the Judiciary alone in this country cost £158,768:10:0. That is an enormous amount of money. It is not difficult to imagine the public reaction to this proposal. Just ask yourself what these increases mean— £485, £370, £370, £325, £325, £257:10, £201. There are many people in this country who are in severe need of money.

The Minister may make the case that the cost of living has gone up by 15 per cent. Has it not gone up for every other section of the community? What is the reason for the special consideration for the Judiciary? Why is there not some similar consideration for the old age pensioners and the unemployed who also must live and make their pitiful way as best they can? There is no word about the cost of living as far as they are concerned but there is word about the cost of living for the man drawing £5,000 per annum. Surely these salaried people mentioned in this Bill should be able to live in much more than modest comfort on their already very high salaries indeed, to put it mildly? In my opinion, they can well live on them. The man who cannot live on £5,000 a year should die immediately. Gone are the days when £1,000 a year was too much for any man.

Mr. T. Lynch

Who was it said that?

Mr. Donnellan

The name of the person who made that statement is so well known that I shall not mention it. I wonder if some Deputies listening to me remember those days? I wonder if they ever thought the day would come when a Minister for Justice in a Fianna Fáil Government would introduce a Bill to increase salaries that are already £5,000 a year? I never dreamed that it would happen and I think it is ridiculous. I do not think it is the Taoiseach's wish, the Minister's wish or the wish of this Government. The Minister and the Government should withdraw this Bill which is absolutely ridiculous in the present condition of our country.

These salary increases must be paid for by the producer. Does the Taoiseach or the Minister realise the present position of the agricultural community, especially in the west of Ireland? Consider the sheep or lamb trade at the moment. The agricultural community, farmers and workers, will have to bear the brunt of the proposed increases. What is their position? Does the Taoiseach realise the position of the cattle trade at the moment? Furthermore, sheep are not saleable at all in the West of Ireland. The position as regards cattle is that people who bought them last May and 12 months ago have to sell them to-day at prices lower than those they paid for them 12 months ago. Yet they are the people who will have to bear this proposed increase in salary for people who in some cases are already getting £4,850 per annum and who are now to get an increase of £485, bringing that salary to roughly £5,335, the increase to date back to 1st January last.

I do not think the Minister, the Taoiseach, the Government, or any Minister or any Taoiseach or any Government, could make a case for an increase in a salary of £5,000 at the present time in this country. It is ridiculous and I shall oppose it in every way I can, both in this House and in the country. When I look across at the Fianna Fáil Deputies, I know they do not want this Bill. I know they were never consulted about it. I know it is not their wish. I know that if they go into the Lobby to vote for this Bill, they will do so against their will. They are well aware that the electorate in general will take a very poor view of their action. I would say that 99 out of every 100 voters would counsel them: "Do not vote for the increases. These people with £4,000 to £5,000 per annum are damned well off as it is and better off than any other section of the community."

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Every member of the House recognises the importance of the Judiciary and recognises how important it is that its members should be remunerated in accordance with the office which they hold. I believe that has already been achieved and that we are honouring our obligations to this section of the community in providing them with that reasonable remuneration in accordance with the resources of our State.

Few people enjoy the remuneration enjoyed by the members of the Judiciary. The Taoiseach, with the many onerous duties and major responsibilities imposed on him, does not enjoy the remuneration of several of the people whose salaries we are asked to increase. The office of Taoiseach is a much more important and onerous one, so far as the welfare of the country is concerned, than, say, that of Chief Justice. How does their scale of remuneration compare? The Taoiseach with all the burdens and responsibilities imposed on him, has a salary of £3,000 per year, a salary to which I believe he is entitled. If the Government had brought in a motion to the effect that that salary was inadequate, I would not oppose it, recognising, as I do, the importance of that office. The burden of the office of Chief Justice does not compare with that of the office of Taoiseach; yet the salary is some 63 per cent. or 64 per cent. greater than that enjoyed by the head of the Government. That should not be the case and that is one of the reasons why I oppose this measure.

The Chief Justice, if we may mention some of the persons in receipt of the highest salaries in the Judiciary, is in receipt of something like £100 per week, plus all additional expenses incidental to office. I am asking the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, who are present, do they consider that fair and adequate remuneration, having regard to the resources of the country? Do they feel that a person enjoying almost £100 per week for his duties to the State is not sufficiently remunerated? If that is their opinion, I should like to know what is their opinion so far as the ordinary workers are concerned, so far as the ordinary labourers in my constituency of West Cork are concerned, where they cannot get a wage greater than £5. 11. 0. per week and where they are very lucky if they secure the work to provide that wage for them.

Similarly, a reasonable percentage of the other members of the Judiciary are remunerated to the extent of £3,700 per year, plus all incidental expenses. A salary of £3,700 per year, as is enjoyed by the Judges of the High Court and the President of the Circuit Court, is adequate to meet their needs. The same can be said of the Circuit Court Judges and the District Justices.

If the Taoiseach and the Government have some money available from public funds to increase the incomes of certain public employees, they will have little difficulty, if they look around, in finding other sections of the community who need that increase much more than the judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Circuit Court and the justices of the District Court.

It is not my intention to take from the status of the Judiciary but, having regard to our economic resources and the position of our people—and if I may say so, many of the people I represent in West Cork are fleeing daily from the land to seek a livelihood elsewhere—no Government have a mandate to come into this House to vote an increase to people who, as far as salaries go, are in a very favoured position.

I am opposing this measure as forcefully and as vehemently as I possibly can. While we in the Labour Party always address ourselves sympathetically to the question of increases in the income of workers, irrespective of whether they are professional workers, manual workers, self-employed or other workers, having examined this question closely and diligently, we cannot say that the people who are the subject matter of this Bill are in need of an increase. We cannot say that and we do not propose to say it by our votes here.

It may be said there is little more to mention in regard to this Bill, but I know that other members in the course of their contributions have adversely commented on the system of appointing these people and I should not like to let this opportunity pass without adding my voice to that condemnation. We all know that if you wish to obtain office as a Justice of any court, it is necessary that you apprentice yourself to a political Party. That fact cannot be denied and if I were to review, as I think I am entitled to do on such a measure as this in order to support my argument that these people are sufficiently well paid, the activities of a number of these persons before they secured office as judges, what would we find? We would find that most of them were very active politicians. A number of them are ex-members of this House; another number of them sought to become members but unfortunately for them, or maybe fortunately, they could not get the confidence of the people so that they could be elected.

As I had occasion to mention in my own constituency of West Cork in connection with the recent Presidential Election and the Referendum, I had to contend in public speaking against potential judges. I remember a man from the city of Dublin, or from an area contiguous to it, telling the people of West Cork that they should support the nomination of the present President and warning them of the pitfalls that were before the Irish people if they did not back the Government's decision to introduce the straight vote.

Where would you look for some of these people to-day? They have obtained promotion. I had occasion to say to my constituents when addressing them publicly: "It is unlikely that you will have this speaker with you here again. He is here for the purpose of promoting his nomination as a member of the Judiciary." And indeed he has been so promoted.

Deputy Corry or anybody else in the Fianna Fáil Party will not deny that. He went out to West Cork trying to belittle the Opposition Party in West Cork and he got his reward. That is very fine. The Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice may say it is very fine, but I am asked, as a representative of the people of West Cork, to come here and impose a burden on these people in order to give him an increase in salary. I have no intention of doing so and if this matter were left to a free vote of the House, I do not think my friends on the Fianna Fáil side would do so, either.

I regret very much having to make such remarks because we all recognise the importance of law and order in the country. We all recognise the importance of the independence of those who administer that law and order. There is an obligation on every one of us to look up to these men and to acklowledge that they are appointed by the State, the Government of the day, and that they have certain functions and duties and we as citizens have certain obligations to them. I am asking the Taoiseach that in so far as future appointments to the Bench are concerned he as a new man in the office of Taoiseach, as a new head of the State, should put a few hours aside to look into this subject. I can tell him that as a result of these political appointments to the Bench in the various courts, we are losing, amongst the general public, a certain respect which they should have for the administrators of law and order.

Let us examine the position. If I were to go to West Cork and inform the people in the various districts that the man who was recently speaking to them has now been appointed a judge and appointed, possibly, as a result of going to West Cork and advising them to vote for Mr. de Valera's nomination and to vote "yes" in the referendum, that these are the main qualifications he enjoyed over and above his colleagues on the Bench for that office, naturally it would be bound to bring about a certain disrespect for the law which none of us would like.

No matter from what angle we look at this Bill, there is no justification for it. Look at it from the point of view of the professional worker or in comparison with other professional workers who may be endowed with similar academic qualifications. Comparatively speaking, the Judiciary are more favoured. Not only have they large salaries but there is no need on the part of the members of the Judiciary to look forward to the rainy day. Thanks to the goodness of the State, they are well looked after and as soon as a member of the Judiciary leaves the Bench on his retirement not only does he enjoy a substantial gratuity but a substantial pension which many of our people would not earn in the course of their lifetime, even if they lived to be 80 years of age.

Look at it from the point of view of the wage earner. At the present time, a big proportion of our people are in receipt of a remuneration varying between £3 and £8 a week. Unfortunately in my constituency many of them would be very glad if they were assured of an income even of £3 a week and many of them have family commitments. Are they likely to be favourably disposed towards the Government's proposal to increase by almost £500—or, to be exact, £485— the remuneration of the Chief Justice who, as I said already, enjoys the formidable salary of almost £100 a week? I doubt if they would be and I doubt if the Taoiseach, with all his ability as an orator, would be able to convince the people that this increase is justified. If we look at it from the point of view of the business man, let him be big or small, we find that, if anything, there is more of a recession in trade than anything else and that the income of business people is more on the decline than on the upward trend. That has been pointed out by the previous speaker.

If we look at it from the point of view of the people in the main industry in this country, the agricultural community what do we find? We find that during the past months the agricultural community had to bear a big decrease in income, due to the reduction of cattle and sheep prices. Now we are asking these people, the different sections—the wage—earning sections, the business sections, and I would include the professional sections, and the farming sections—to vote a ten per cent. increase, retrospective to 1st January, to people already in receipt of high remuneration.

I wish to oppose this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. We feel, as I have already stated, that any moneys which are available in Government funds for increases for public officials could be channelled towards the lower income groups and I am speaking of the many public servants, such as road workers and others, who have to live, whether they like it or not, on the uncertain remuneration of £5 to £6 a week. Consequently, I am asking this House to reject this uncalled for Bill in no uncertain manner. It is designed to increase the remuneration of people who got a marked increase in 1953 and who, in my opinion, have no case whatever for an increase in 1959.

The Taoiseach

The Government were well aware, when we decided to bring this measure to the Dáil, that it was likely to meet with an amount of criticism here, criticism from some, perhaps, who were concerned about the principles of public policy involved in it, and from others who were concerned to exploit the political difficulties which the introduction of a measure of this kind necessarily involves for a Government in office. If we allowed any thought of possible political penalties to ourselves, or any other improper consideration, to deter us from doing what we believed to be right in respect of the salaries paid to the members of the Judiciary, to induce us to fail to meet what seems to us to be a necessary obligation—to adjust these salaries in accordance with the changes in money values which have taken place since the scales were fixed —then it would be a very serious dereliction of duty on our part and, in my view, would demonstrate our unfitness to hold office as members of the Government.

Deputy McGilligan said rightly enough, that in presenting this Bill to the Dáil, the Government are not asking members to settle the principles which should determine the remuneration of judges but merely to make adjustments in existing scales considered necessary by reason of changes in money values since they were last fixed. If we were considering the basic principles which should determine the remuneration of judges, we would have to take into account a great deal more than the amounts they would require to enable them to live in comfort.

The question of what constitutes proper and adequate remuneration for judges has been considered in all democratic countries over many years, and principles have emerged from that consideration which have been applied almost universally. I am sure that all members of the House accept that the independence of the Judiciary is something which we should try to preserve. It is certainly something that all democratic Governments strive to uphold, and they try to express that aim in the levels of the remuneration fixed for judges.

In any democratic society, judges occupy, and should be seen clearly by the public to occupy, positions of high authority, of independence and detachment. Independence in the sense that we use that term in relation to judges means something more than freedom from improper Government influence. It means putting them into a position in which they will be, as far as possible, immune from improper influence of any kind, and it is no exaggeration to say, in my view, that an adequate and, indeed, a generous basis of remuneration for judges is the basis of their independence. It has always been so regarded here. It is, indeed, so regarded everywhere.

We have been very fortunate in this State in that from its beginning a very high standard of integrity has characterised our Judiciary. There is, I think, a widespread public realisation that we have in our judges people who are immune from improper influences of any kind, people on whose integrity the public can rely. That fact, and the recognition of that fact by the public, is the source of a great feeling of security to our people, and is an important contribution to the stability of our political institutions. It is clearly desirable that we here in Dáil Éireann should take no action which might prejudice it, or which might be thought by the public to place it in jeopardy.

The known integrity, independence and detachment of our judges is an important national asset which we must, in all circumstances, endeavour to preserve. I know it may be said that you cannot buy integrity but we, and perhaps even more important the people, must have absolute confidence that the judges cannot be subjected to improper influences of any kind.

Deputy Murphy and, I think, Deputy McQuillan, referred to the method of appointment. I want to place my position on that beyond all doubt. The appointment of members of the Judiciary is an important function of Government and to my last breath I shall oppose any proposition to transfer that function to some bureaucratic institution or committee. The independence of the individual judge in the exercise of his judicial functions is very important, but that the Government elected by the people are superior in status and function to any other branch of the administration is a principle we must assert—a principle always asserted by those who understand the real functioning of democratic institutions.

We must never be unfair to the judges, as we could well be tempted to, by the fact that they are completely within our power in respect to the adjustment of their salaries. The judges cannot, by reason of the character of their office, present their case to the Dáil or to the bar of public opinion. Nevertheless, they have a case and, indeed, one which would take consideration of their position considerably further than the proposals embodied in this Bill, if we were to attempt to deal with it fully. Why should judges be singled out in this matter? Why should they be subjected to definite objections to adjusting their salaries when there has been no opposition, as far as I know, to much greater increases given to other highly paid public servants?

The case made by the judges is based upon the fact that their remuneration has not increased in the same proportion as the remuneration paid to other public servants, the salaries of whom were originally in closer relation to that of the judges than they are now. In this Bill we are not in fact, proposing to give to members of the Judiciary increases comparable to that which senior officials of Government Departments and other public functionaries have obtained.

There are also some facts in this regard which I think should be emphasised. We here in this country, now and always, have paid our judges a great deal less than judges receive in other countries, a great deal less than judges are paid in the Six Counties or in Great Britain. I am not going to suggest that we should adopt British standards in this regard but, if we were to attempt to relate the salaries paid to our judges to the salaries paid in the Six Counties or Great Britain, or even to increase the salaries to the same degree as salaries of judges in these other countries have been increased, we would be giving them a great deal more than we are now giving them, or propose to give them. Furthermore, this reluctance to adjust salaries of judges, which has persisted over many years, has operated to reduce considerably the effective levels of their real remuneration.

Reference has been made to the position of the Chief Justice. The salary of the Chief Justice was fixed at £4,000 a year in 1924 and the new rate, which will come into operation when this Bill is passed, will mean that the salary attaching to that office will have increased by only 33? per cent.

Deputy Murphy said that the Chief Justice should not be paid more than the Taoiseach. He always has been paid more than the Taoiseach. The person holding the corresponding office in every country is always paid at a very much higher rate than the Head of the Government. There is, I think, the idea of symbolising in that highest judicial office the desire to ensure complete independence and detachment, and to emphasise the status of the judiciary, and the importance attached to that particular post.

In the case of judges of the Supreme Court the rates of the remuneration which will become operative on the enactment of this Bill have been increased by 36 per cent. as compared with the rates originally fixed in 1924. It is, perhaps, fair to say that in the case of the corresponding class of judges in the Six Counties, although in 1924 they were paid at a higher rate than the judges here, their salaries have since been increased by 85 per cent. In the case of judges of the High Court, the rate of increase which on the enactment of this Bill will have been granted on the rate fixed in 1924 is 43 per cent. while in that of the High Court judges in the Six County area there has been an increase of 116 per cent. in their salaries since that year.

In the case of judges of the Circuit Court, the salaries that will be paid on the enactment of this Bill will be 67 per cent. higher than the rate fixed in 1924. In respect of the Six County area the rates paid have increased by 141 per cent. over the same period. In the case of the ordinary District Justice, the rate which we are now proposing to bring into effect will represent a rise of 92½ per cent. on the rate fixed in 1924.

There are two observations I want to make in that regard. It is quite clear that the remuneration of judges in the Six County area, in so far as it is determined by the rates payable in Great Britain, would not be a proper standard for us to follow. We are not following it; we think that the salaries of judges here should be related to the higher rates of remuneration prevailing in other branches of the public service and the income which a practitioner of the law in good standing could hope to earn at the Bar.

I also drew attention to the fact that the changes in the rates of salary for the various branches of the Judiciary which have been effected since 1924 have resulted in giving a much higher relative increase to the justices and judges remunerated at lower rates than to those remunerated at higher rates. That has been a feature of all our salary adjustments in recent years, a feature on which I had very strong representations only very recently from the association that represents these professional and higher grade civil servants but one which I think we can justify in the special circumstances of a protracted period of inflation, of a decline in money values.

Deputy McQuillan urged that there should be a special committee to deal with this matter. I think there might be a case at some time to reconsider anew the basis of the judicial salary scales; I do not think this is the time for it. I think we should be concerned now merely with making the global adjustment which the decline in money values requires us in equity to make. It is not necessary to set up a special committee for that purpose. Indeed, I would regard the Members of the Dáil as just as competent to decide what is just and proper in that respect as any committee that might be chosen. I also see the possibility, having regard to the fact that the rise in the cost of living since the judicial salaries were last fixed has been 15 per cent., that such a committee might in fact propose to give the judges a higher rate of increase than that which the Bill provides.

It is, of course, not correct to say that civil servants remunerated on scales which relate to judicial salaries are within the conciliation and arbitration scheme and I think it would be highly inappropriate that judges should be subject to such a procedure. I do not think we should, by any device, seek to lower the status of our judges. If I have any anxiety about the position in regard to their salaries it is that, because of the much lower rate of remuneration paid to judges here as compared with other neighbouring countries, we appear to be representing them as less competent or entrusted with less responsible duties than judges elsewhere. We know that is not so; we know that if we have to pay them at lesser rates than judges doing similar duties are paid elsewhere it is because of factors internal to our economy. But if we cannot pay them at the same rates as judges are paid elsewhere, we must make it quite clear that that does not mean that we are proclaiming them, or regarding them, as being inferior in status or in competence to their opposite numbers in other countries.

I think it is also fair and reasonable to mention in this connection that the Government are proposing to reduce the number of judges of the Circuit Court and justices of the District Court and in fact the over—all cost of these services to the community will be less than it has been notwithstanding the increase in the remuneration which we are proposing here by reason of these reductions in the number of judges and justices, which incidentally will mean that, to some extent, the judges of the Circuit Court and the justices of the District Court will have more work to do.

I do not think that the changes which were made some time ago in the jurisdiction of the District Court involves, as has been contended by the justices, some further increase in their remuneration. At least, I assume that so far as these changes of jurisdiction preceded the report of the committee of 1953 they were taken into account fully by that committee in the recommendations they made to the Dáil and on which the Dáil acted.

The question of principle which arises here is whether or not changes in the judicial salaries are in the public interest. I would strongly urge that they should be so regarded. Indeed, I believe that I could justify higher increases than are proposed. I would like to think that there was no feeling of disgruntlement among the members of the Judiciary. I hope they will regard this Bill as an indication of the Government's acceptance of their claim and a reasonable attempt to meet them. I am quite certain that the vast majority of thoughtful opinion among our people will give an affirmative answer to that question and will, indeed, support the changes in judicial salaries for which the Bill provides. I would regard that, and shall regard it, as a very small price to pay for the preservation of the independence and the status of the Judiciary.

There is only one further thing I want to say. Deputy McGilligan suggested here that we should provide for judges an arrangement similar to that which we provided recently for civil servants under which, without cost to the Exchequer, a judge could voluntarily give up portion of his retirement pension for the benefit of his widow in the event of his death. I have informed the Judiciary that the Government would be willing to enact the necessary legislation to permit of that and I am awaiting their comments on that subject.

There are other aspects of the present practice in relation to the Judiciary which are under consideration because consideration has been urged on the Government but no decisions have been taken and no immediate proposals for the Dáil are in contemplation.

Mr. Lindsay

Having regard to the importance of the personnel with whose remuneration we are dealing under this proposal, I think that in this more than in any other measure before the House we should approach the matter with a full sense of responsibility and not be swayed by the popular mood or be directed towards anything in the nature of a partisan approach.

Fundamentally, this is a question of principle. Having listened to the Taoiseach in support of these provisions and understanding that the Minister made a somewhat different case I am now—I am sure other members will also be in the same position—unable to understand whether the Government's view is that these increases are simpliciter to meet the cost of living of 15 per cent. or whether the increases are imposed as a cushion against improper importuning of the Judiciary, making their independence secure and their dignity unassailable.

It would be extremely easy for me in my other capacity outside this House to get a different but also popular view, namely, to support this proposal but so satisfied am I of the integrity and the due exercise of judicial functions by the members of the Judiciary from the District Court to the Supreme Court that I am enabled to come in here and oppose these provisions on the grounds stated by the Minister, in the first instance, and equally vehemently on the grounds stated by the Taoiseach.

Indeed, the Taoiseach's intervention in this debate, if one were searching for a title for it, would well merit the title of The Great Conversion. He served his apprenticeship for very many years with the author of the famous remark that nobody in this country was worth more than £1,000 a year. In passing, it is interesting to note that, without any obvious qualm of conscience, the author of that remark is now drawing over £10,000 per annum.

Nobody can underestimate the value of an independent Judiciary. While it cannot be altogether left out of consideration, I think that salaries have, in the main, got very little to do with the exercise of judicial functions or the integrity that sustains the proper exercise of such functions. Even at a lower salary than those at present obtaining, I am satisfied that the people of this country would get the same value from the people who occupy various positions in the different grades of the administration here.

Mr. S. Flanagan

You have to attract ability as well as integrity.

Mr. Lindsay

I am well satisfied also on the question of ability. There are very few people who really appreciate that of the many appointments made by all Governments since the foundation of this State there was in each a degree of sacrifice involved for the appointees in giving up their practices either as barristers or as solicitors. It is true that the comparative security of the Bench provides some sort of compensation for relinquishing a busy and highly remunerative practice. Nevertheless, I would say that in relinquishing a highly remunerative practice an able person or a person of integrity has got within himself, irrespective of the salary commanded by the particular judicial office, the desire to serve and a full appreciation of the necessity that there should be a desire to serve.

The Minister for Justice has come in here and acknowledged, at this stage of our political arguments on economics, that there has been a 15 per cent. increase in the cost of living and that these provisions simply mean that the Government propose to go two-thirds of the way towards meeting that increase of 15 per cent. by giving a 10 per cent. increase. I think that is the least valid of all the arguments —and there are many—that could be made for increasing judicial salaries at the present time but when one looks, as one must to be realistic, at the level of the salaries obtaining now, and takes the example of the highest office enjoying approximately £100 per week, it seems to me, as I am sure it will seem to anybody who realistically faces the mathematics of the matter, that in order to cushion a person who is the recipient of £100 per week against a 15 per cent. increase in the cost of living, it is strange that it should be necessary to give him another £10 per week.

How will that be regarded by the person in receipt of £10 per week in any other avocation? To give him a 10 per cent. increase would mean increasing his salary to £11. Let us come down to the £5 per week person of which there are very many in this country. A 10 per cent. increase for him represents 10/-. I do not for a moment want to take away from the position which a judge of any court from the Supreme Court to the District Court occupies and the necessity for him to preserve a certain standard but if we are to relate that standard to a cost of living, it seems ridiculous in my view to suggest that it is necessary to give up to £10 per week in order to preserve that particular standard when we must realise that £10 per week is the average income of the majority of our people. In fact, it is not even so high.

Debate adjourned.