In opening my remarks, I must express regret that the subject matter of this Bill was dragged into the political arena by some of the Deputies. Some of the speeches to which we listened in the House might have been quite appropriate to the election hustings but they certainly are not appropriate to a deliberative assembly of this kind. It is much to be regretted that people will stand up and utilise the terms of this Bill to bring in matters that are completely irrelevant to the Bill. They do it for their own particular purposes.
However, when Deputy McQuillan was opening his speech on the amendment, he referred to a couple of matters. One in particular to which he referred was that of conciliation and arbitration which he thought applied to the higher civil servants. If Deputy McQuillan had examined the matter more closely than he appears to have, he would have discovered that higher civil servants, that is, those with a maximum salary in excess of £1,200, do not have conciliation and arbitration applied to them. Naturally, the same would obtain in the case of judges. As has been mentioned here by some Deputies, the salaries of judges can be altered only by legislation and that means in fact, that they can be increased only by a vote of this House. Therefore, the question of conciliation and arbitration does not arise in dealing with judges' salaries.
I am glad, however, to know that Deputy McQuillan is not against the terms of the Bill. He favours the motion which is in his name and he suggested that a Committee should be set up to deal with this question. In effect, the motion standing in his name and that of Deputy Dr. Browne means that if that committee were set up, it would take 12 months to come to its conclusions. Deputy McQuillan said —Volume 177, No. 4, Column 539 of the Official Reports:
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.
At Column 540 of the same Volume, he said:
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 do 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 hope I have made it clear to Deputy McQuillan that the judges would not come under the terms of conciliation and arbitration.
If we take it that Deputy McQuillan was speaking for his Party, Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Dr. Browne disagree with Fine Gael and with Labour and are not against the increase but only against the method by which the increase is being brought about and, apparently, they would favour the setting up of a special committee, a suggestion which was taken up by other Members of the House, especially by Deputy O'Higgins, who stated in clear language that he was speaking for his Party and that they would vote against this Bill.
I am going to suggest that Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Dr. Browne were, at least, logical in dealing with this case and that Fine Gael were completely and entirely illogical. The speech that we listened to from Deputy S. Flanagan clarifies the position in that respect. It is very difficult for people on this side of the House to understand why, on this particular occasion, the main Opposition Party is taking up that attitude. I can understand Labour wanting to take up that attitude for propaganda purposes purely and simply. We listened to a tirade from Deputy Norton about this small increase, to which the judges are entitled, in my opinion, by reason of the increase in the cost of living. He dragged in the old age pensioners and tried to fling them in our face.
Deputy Norton in office and Deputy Norton out of office are two completely and entirely different people. If Deputy Norton has any doubts about what I am talking about, he has only to sit down and examine his own record when he was six years in office and see what he did for the old age pensioners during those six years and compare it with what was done by the Fianna Fáil Party. He will find that he was not stating the facts when he talked in the manner in which he did talk. As I described in the beginning, he was making a speech that was more applicable to the hustings in the thick of a hot election rather than to the matter before the House.
The only material change which has taken place since 1953 in circumstances affecting the Judiciary as a group, or any section of the Judiciary, is the increase in the cost of living. It should be clear that the question now for consideration by the Government and the House is the question of what compensation, if any, judges should get because of the increase in the cost of living. It is very limited in scope; it does not involve any new principle and does not justify another Select Committee of the House, for the simple reason that all we are discussing here today is the question of whether we should give this ten per cent. increase in the salaries of judges or whether we should not.
Deputies have referred to the Select Committee which was set up in 1953 and the fact that such a Committee has not been set up on this occasion. The reason should be perfectly clear. In 1953, a Select Committee was set up to examine a number of questions that applied to the increase in the salaries of the Judiciary: the question, first of all, of the amount of the increase; secondly, the question of pensions for judges; thirdly, the question of whether the widows of judges should be entitled to a pension and a further question as to whether or not judges should be entitled to something in the nature of a death gratuity. None of these questions is involved in this Bill.
All these principles were decided in 1953. They have not to be decided now. We are not considering these principles. We are not, in effect, giving an increase to judges in their salaries for any purpose other than the purpose of meeting the increase in the cost of living. That is really all that is being undertaken in respect of this Bill and there is no necessity, good, bad or indifferent, to set up a special committee to sit down and waste its time and to waste our time, because we would have to wait until its decision was arrived at to decide whether or not judges should get this increase.
I may have been doing an injustice to the Judiciary by making the Government themselves decide whether or not this increase should be given to the Judges. I do not mind saying that if my recommendation had been accepted, they would have got more than the ten per cent. recommended in this Bill. That would have been merely on the basis of justice for the Judiciary. However, the Government decided—taking into account that any increase given to the Judges as a result of a vote of this House would be permanent and could not be affected by a reduction in the cost of living in the future—that, instead of giving 15 per cent., which would meet the cost of living in present circumstances, they would give only ten per cent. I am satisfied—and I am sure any fair-minded Deputy would be satisfied—that if this matter went to a Select Committee of this House, they would say: the cost of living has gone up by 15 per cent.; surely the way to meet the claim is to give an increase of 15 per cent.
Deputy Norton and other speakers referred to increases for other workers. It is no harm to remember that since the end of the Emergency, workers have got no less than six rounds of increases, and just before I introduced this Bill I saw where preparations were being made to have a seventh round. When we compare the six increases secured by workers with the two received by the Judges, we can hardly say we are playing fair with the Judges. I regret that certain Deputies did not consider that aspect, but I am glad a number of Deputies did do so and dealt with the matter very fairly.
I concluded from the early stages of Deputy McGilligan's speech that he was in favour of this increase, but, later on, he created the impression— and I am sure I interpreted him correctly—that while he was in favour of the increase, he thought the time was not ripe for presenting it. The criticism that the present time is not opportune for the additional expenditure involved sounds strange coming from the Opposition benches. I had thought that argument was the special stock-in-trade of Governments and not of members of the opposition. It is all right for the Government to suggest in an effort to avoid giving something demanded by the Opposition that the time is not opportune, but it sounds strange coming from a leading member of the Opposition, even though he did express himself as being in favour of the increase.
If I interpreted correctly Deputy Lindsay's concluding remarks, he thinks the rate of increase proposed is unduly generous and that something much less would be adequate compensation for the increase in the cost of living. How he arrived at that conclusion makes me wonder. As I have said, the cost of living has increased by 15 per cent. and if we were to do justice, we would give the Judiciary an increase of that amount. I have already given my reasons why we have not done so.
Criticising the timing of the Bill, the Labour and Clann na Talmhan Members referred to the country's economic position. Deputy McGilligan mentioned the repercussions which he feels would follow up and down the country. Presumably he is referring to the possibility of claims being made later on by various groups of workers throughout the country. I feel there may be some but there will be no great number. As I have already said, workers have kept up with the increase in the cost of living by following up each rise with a further round of wage increases.
Deputy Loughman in the course of his speech referred to an interesting matter not mentioned, I think, by any other Deputy. He said "Even the £8,000 which the Chief Justice will get will be very seriously cut by income tax." I suggest that that figure of £8,000 is either a typographical error by the printer or a misstatement by Deputy Loughman. I think it is a typographical error because earlier on the Deputy referred to the Chief Justice's salary as being £5,300.
In view of the Deputy's reference to income tax I was interested to know how much of the increase will be recovered by the State in that way, and when I went into the matter I made a rather interesting discovery. The proposed increase for the Chief Justice is £485. That is the gross amount he would be granted. In actual fact, as a result of income tax, he will get £219. Indeed, if he has any private means or income from other sources, the increase will be reduced by a greater amount. The President of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges would get £370 under this increase, but the actual amount that will be received after deduction of income tax is £185. The Judges of the Circuit Court would get £257, of which £148 would be the net amount. The State is handing out a certain sum of money with one hand and taking it back with the other. Speakers have referred to exorbitant increases. One speaker referred to the £350 which the Chief Justice will get. In effect, the Chief Justice will not get £350. He will get the figure I have just mentioned.
I think it was Deputy Russell who said that he would have preferred a graduation of the amounts rather than a flat rate all round. I am, I think, interpreting the Deputy's remarks correctly. The position is that formerly circuit court judges and district justices got two increases—one in 1947 and another in 1953—and they were paid a higher percentage increase than the other members of the Judiciary. Because of the increases these two categories got formerly it was decided that it would be more just to give a flat ten per cent. increase all round on this occasion.
The reason we came to that decision is that the percentage increase which the Chief Justice has received to date amounts to 21 per cent. Supreme Court judges and the President of the High Court got 23 per cent; High Court judges and the President of the Circuit Court got 30 per cent; Circuit Court judges, 51 per cent; the principal justices of the District Court got 67 per cent; metropolitan justices, 71 per cent; and ordinary justices, 75 per cent. If we were to go on increasing salaries at that rate, in course of time, we would find ourselves putting the lower categories on such a high percentage rate that the position would become quite unfair to the other members of the Judiciary. When Deputies digest these figures, they will find that, in dealing with the position as we have done, we are dealing with it in a fair and reasonable way.
