I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the salaries of members of the judiciary, and the new rates proposed are set out in section 1 of the Bill.
Judicial salaries were last increased in 1959, and this measure has been rendered necessary by changes in the circumstances affecting judges' salaries which have taken place since that time. It seems appropriate that these proposals, which have regard among other things to what is known as the "eighth round" of salary increases should be considered now, on the virtual conclusion of the "eighth round", rather than be left in abeyance until some later time.
So far as remuneration is concerned, the position of the various branches of the judiciary in relation to other sections of the community may be said to have been determined by the Dáil Select Committee on Judicial Salaries, Expenses Allowances and Pensions, which reported to this House on 24th April, 1953. This Committee consisted of twelve Deputies, and examined the question of judicial remuneration in all its aspects. Comprehensive memoranda were submitted to the Select Committee by the various branches of the judiciary. The recommendations of the Committee, which were unanimous, were that the salaries of District Justices and of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court should be increased by £450; and that the salaries of the President of the Circuit Court and of judges of the Supreme and High Courts should be increased by £250. The new rates thus recommended were accepted by the Government and were made effective by the Courts of Justice Act, 1953.
The pattern of judicial remuneration having been provided by the Select Committee, the Government have since 1953 confined their review of judicial remuneration to ensuring in a general way that the pattern is maintained, and that the relationship with other groups in public employment, which secured the seal of approval of the Select Committee in 1953, is substantially maintained. Thus, when by 1959, it became apparent that by reason of increases secured by others since 1953, the judiciary had fallen behind in the matter of pay, the Government sponsored a flat increase for all branches of the judiciary.
Similarly, increases secured since 1959 by other sections of those in public employment make it now necessary to propose further increases for the judiciary, and the Government, having reviewed the changes in the interval, are satisfied that the new rates are fair and reasonable.
In proposing these increases, I realise that some Deputies, and some sections of the press, may be tempted to suggest that the rates of salary for judges are already high and that the money involved in providing the present increases could be spent to better effect for the benefit of other sections of the community. I would therefore ask that the question be approached with a sense of fair play, and with an appreciation of the facts. Let me point out that, of the 57 judicial persons concerned with this Bill, 52 have salaries which do not exceed those paid to the holders of the highest posts in the Civil Service. These holders of the highest posts to which I have referred have secured, or will shortly secure, the benefits of the "eighth round" increases. It is little more than a month (21 February, 1962) since the Minister for Finance moved a Supplementary Estimate of £600,000 for Increases in Civil Service Remuneration, and there was no opposition in this House to that proposal.
It is no harm to remind Deputies that in his speech on the Vote on Account on 7th March, 1962, the Minister for Finance said that pay increases account altogether for £5.24 million of the additional expenditure in the coming year, and he gave the break-down as follows:—
Civil Service |
£2.5 million |
Teachers |
£1.21 million |
Army |
£.55 million |
Garda Síochána |
£.38 million |
Health Authority Staffs |
£.6 million |
As I said, the heads of the Civil Service have salaries comparable to the salaries of 90 per cent of the judiciary and have benefited from salary increases corresponding generally to those now proposed for the judiciary. Nobody has suggested that salary increases should not be extended to the heads of the other public services, and, accordingly, it seems unfair to focus the spotlight of criticism specially on the judiciary who happen to be particularly vulnerable for the reason that their salaries cannot be raised except by special Act of the Oireachtas. By comparison with the other figures I have quoted—£2.5 million, and so on— the £21,000 which is the annual cost of the present proposals in relation to judges' salaries should, I suggest, be viewed with a proper sense of proportion. I hope that this debate will be conducted with restraint and a sense of decorum. It is very necessary that both the persons of the judiciary and their functions should be treated with respect. The judiciary's independence of the executive is provided for in the Constitution and is a valued safeguard in a democratic state.
The new rates proposed in the Bill have been formulated on the basis of providing, roughly, increases of the order of 15 per cent for justices of the District Court and for ordinary judges of the Circuit Court, and increases of about 12½ per cent for other members of the judiciary. I must emphasise that the percentages I have mentioned were adopted by the Government only as a very general indication of what would be an appropriate improvement. The sums arrived at on the basis of the percentage increases I have quoted have been rounded by the Government, upwards in some cases and downwards in other cases, so as to provide new rates which seem to the Government to be equitable, not only as between the judiciary as a body and the general public, but also as between the various categories and judge and justice. Actually the new rates involve increases varying from almost 17 per cent to 11 per cent. It seems necessary to emphasise what the proposed percentages are as it has been stated erroneously in some quarters that the Bill, if passed, will give judges' increases from 23 per cent to 29 per cent.
If the percentage increases involved in the present Bill were related solely to the eighth round increases granted elsewhere, some of them at least would be open to criticism. It is scarcely necessary for me to mention that members of the judiciary have not got anything like eight rounds of salary increases since the end of the Emergency. Indeed—I want to emphasise this point—their salaries have only been increased on three occasions since they were originally fixed in 1924. Since 1959 there has, apart from the eighth round, been a modest upward adjustment of the salaries of the more highly paid sectors of other public employment. This adjustment was based on a revaluation of work, and was related to increases obtained on the same basis prior to 1959 by the lower grades.
In considering, therefore, what the new salaries of members of the judiciary should be, the Government have felt that without carrying out any formal revaluation of the work of the judiciary, there is scope on this occasion for increases which in some cases exceed to a moderate extent the improvements which would arise solely from the eighth round. In considering this matter, the Government has not lost sight of the fact that since 1959 schemes of reorganisation of the Circuit Court and the District Court have been brought into operation with resultant economy. The new rates proposed represent, therefore, the Government's considered view of the extent to which, in all the prevailing circumstances, judicial salaries should be soon revised.
Deputies will have observed that the Bill proposes to make the 1st November, 1961, the effective date for the payment of the improved salaries. That date has emerged as the effective date for salary adjustments generally in other sectors of public employment, and it seems only fair to extend to the judiciary a similar degree of retrospection.