When we saw this Bill, we considered its terms and thought that here was an excellent opportunity to raise certain matters about which——
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
Supplementary Estimate, 1964-65. - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1964: Second Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete the word "now" and to add at the end of the motion the words "this day three months".
—(Deputy Dr. Browne).
As I was saying, when we saw this Bill, and gave it consideration, it appeared to offer an opportunity to those of us interested in the general terms of the administration of justice to express the views of great numbers of the people in connection with the position of the judiciary vis-à-vis the ninth round increase in salaries and wages, the methods applied to the correction or prevention of crime, the inadequacy of sentences in many cases, the method of appointment of judges and justices, which we have long considered not to be the most efficient, the best or the most advisable and the jury system.
Therefore, we put down a motion relating to these matters which we hoped would be taken with the Bill. However, the Government indicated they would not agree the motion should be taken in conjunction with the Bill except to the extent of one small phrase, which represents a parliamentary device purely, calling for the postponement of payment of the increased salaries of judges and justices for three months. That was allowed and the rest of the motion disallowed, leaving us in the position that we may discuss only the main proposal to increase the salaries of the judiciary.
The history of the salaries of members of the judiciary is an interesting story. None of us, least of all the Labour Party, would wish to prevent any public servants, who were doing a good job, from receiving what is termed to be their due. In fact, we of the Labour Party are quite prepared to go a considerable distance along the road to meet the equitable demands of all sections, particularly those who carry heavier responsibility than others. Still, it is very difficult to understand why there should be anybody in any position in this State receiving considerably more than the Taoiseach. This is the case in so far as members of the judiciary are concerned.
Of course, there are other public servants outside this House who are similarly circumstanced. If you look at the records of salaries paid to the various levels of the judiciary, from the Chief Justice down to the district justices, from 1924 it will be found that at no time could they ever be called the most impoverished section of the community. I do not consider that a district justice renders any more service to the community than a member of the Dáil. I consider that some of them render considerably less.
In 1924 most district justices had £1,000 a year—that is, 40 years ago. It is now proposed that they should have £2,520. I do not quarrel with that at all but there is something wrong with our whole approach to these proposals, which concern us all very vitally, that apparently once the machinery of the State gets into a particular kind of rut, in so far as emoluments and payments are concerned, it is a kind of mortal sin if it moves even slightly out of that rut. So far as the judiciary are concerned, we have had constant care for their welfare no matter what Government were in power. It did not matter whether it was the original Government of Mr. Cosgrave, the subsequent Government of Mr. de Valera or the inter-Party Government of Deputy Costello, we took more care of the judiciary than any other section of the community.
I have been looking at some of the debates which followed on proposals to increase the salaries of the gentlemen who carry the lives and liberties of all of us in the palm of their hands. The arguments advanced have been numerous and varied but, to my mind, the most bizarre was the one put up here on the occasion of the last increase, which was as recent as two years ago, that we must pay the judiciary sufficient to ensure they will be people above reproach, that their integrity will be unassailable. This seems to suggest that integrity is a purchaseable commodity. The criterion seems to be that a man's integrity is to be measured by the amount of money you give him. That is a contradiction in terms. Integrity exists. It is a quality which money or any other consideration cannot influence. It either is or is not there. To suggest, as was suggested previously by Ministers—perhaps not the present Minister, but certainly by one of his predecessors—that high salaries should be paid to the judiciary to ensure they will be above corruption is a very poor argument and one which reflects upon the standards of our people.
What then is the reason for these increases? We must, apparently, keep increasing these salaries because we have successive rounds of wage increases for workers. Surely it is ridiculous to suggest there is any comparison between the position of, say, a county council road worker or a farm labourer or a building trade worker in Dublin or a factory worker rearing a large family in Ballyfermot or any place else and the position of a member of the judiciary. The average wage in the case of a farm labourer in Limerick would be about £6 10s. per week.
Those days are gone. They are getting £9 a week.
I am glad. It must be sour in the hearts of many people that they have gone. I am glad I helped to give a little push to that day. There are now no six months slaves in Cork.
The only slaves are here.
We will have to do something about that. We will have to get a union. Is it realistic, when talking about percentage increases to district justices, to relate them to the ninth round increase to workers? Surely it is not. The percentage increase is one of the devices employed by mathematicians to suggest we are treating everybody the same. What does a percentage increase mean to a man earning £7 a week and to a man earning £6,000 a year? There is such a difference that it is beyond understanding. No matter what illusions we may have and no matter what euphoria may develop within the walls of this House, the people who carry this nation are the people I described —the ordinary workers who carry every aspect of the work of the machinery of the State and who make it possible for us to meet here. They ask what reasons can we advance for giving increases to these gentlemen who seem to be so well off, who seem to have more than any other class in the State. I would find it hard to justify these increases at this time before any body of Irishmen. It may be said that most of the money will come back in income tax. If that is so, what is the point of the exercise?
If we were to oppose this—we have no intention of doing so—it would probably be suggested that we were against the whole idea that people should be adequately paid. We are not, in fact, but I am trying to contrast the treatment of these privileged people, these people so essentially a part of the establishment, these people who are, in effect, all ex-politicians, most of them unsuccessful applicants for membership of this House and some of them former members of the House——
A judge's background does not enter into this discussion at all.
I bow to your ruling on that, Sir. I am sure I am just relating what is known to everybody here. Whenever I had occasion to go before the Labour Court to justify a claim for increased wages for any group of workers, I had to make the case as to the service they were giving the particular employer. In this instance, however, no effort is made by anybody to justify these increases, except to say we believe this should be done and that is all there is to it. I am looking for something deeper here. When paying these large salaries, we should, at the same time, seek to establish standards of recruitment in the future which will be different from those which existed in the past. I will not pursue it any further, because I do not want to make it difficult for the Chair. I know it is somewhat out of order. I want to remind the Chair that the motion we had in was based on that proposition. We have been very tightly bound in this debate and not allowed to develop the points we want to develop.
We are not going to actively oppose these increases, but as a member of this House, having seen what we did for the old age pensioners this year, last year and the year before—the miserable halfcrown—I could not in conscience quietly accept that we should do that for the most oppressed section of our people and do so much for these gentlemen, who are far from badly hit. There is something irrational between the two things. I cannot understand the Government that will do these two opposite things within so short a time. I make that point simply to ensure that we do not lose sight of the fundamental fact that our purpose is not just to look after a handful of people, the judiciary, but to look after the whole nation and, as the document down in the hall says, to cherish all the children of the nation equally. We are not doing that. We are cherishing some a lot more than we are cherishing others, and that is something to our shame.
I should like to add a word to what has been said in relation to this Bill. This Bill should commend itself to Deputies. It is correct, as Deputy Dunne has pointed out, that for the second time in 24 months, it has been necessary for the Minister to propose legislation to restore in some way the real value of judicial salaries. That is, as has been pointed out, an indication of the gross mismanagement of the affairs of this country by the Government. It is indicative of the fact that the real value of money in circulation has dropped and accordingly, step by step, efforts have to be made to restore the damage in the different spheres.
We are now dealing with judicial salaries. The object of this Bill is, from 1st February of this year, to increase judicial salaries in order to compensate for the fall in the value of money. Just like every other section of the community, judges and district justices have had to face the fact that the money they use has fallen in value. Therefore this Bill is necessary. I should like to say that, in my view, there should not be any grudging approach to this matter. Deputy Dunne has recalled that in 1924 the salaries of district justices were fixed at £1,000 per year. Today, in this Bill, in respect of ordinary justices, it is proposed that the new salary rate shall be £2,520. That would seem to indicate that in the period from 1924 to date, there has been a reduction in the real value of the salaries of justices, and in relation to the real value of other judicial salaries that they have not kept up with the rise in the cost of living and the consequential fall in the real value of money.
We know that related to the value of the pre-war £, the value of the present £ has dropped three times. The pre-war £ is now said to be worth something less than 6/8. That is a fair indication of the fact that in proposing the salaries in this Bill the Minister is not even doing what it was thought correct to do in relation to the comparative values of some 40 years ago. This Bill is clearly necessary and should be supported. I am glad Deputies who have spoken have recognised that it is necessary.
This country owes a great deal to the fact that we have been fortunate in having an independent and, I believe, upright judiciary, which acts and functions as it should, as a safeguard and a bulwark, when necessary, in defence of the people. Irrespective of how judges come to the Bench, irrespective of the source from which they have come to the Bench throughout the past 40 odd years, the remarkable thing is that our judges have always consistently maintained their independence and forthright role, and at times have stopped the Executive when it was felt that the Executive were acting wrongly and in a manner detrimental to the rights of the individual. We are fortunate in that respect. Some people say the system of appointment is not good. That is all very well, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In my view, since the State was formed, our judges have performed excellently and have maintained a very high standard. Indeed, they have maintained the respect of the ordinary people for the courts and those who preside in them.
I am happy that the Bill has commended itself to members of the House to the extent to which it has commended itself. Perhaps I should avail of this opportunity, while his remarks are fresh in my mind, to agree fully with what Deputy O'Higgins said in regard to the quality, independence and integrity of the judiciary and how well we have been served down through the years by the judiciary. Indeed, this debate would take a very different form, I am sure, if the situation were otherwise. It is a tribute to the type of democracy, society and civilisation which we are building up in this country that all of us can agree with Deputy O'Higgins in his closing remarks.
I indicated at the outset of the debate that the Government approached this matter of increasing the salaries of the judiciary from two points of view. One aspect of the matter was that the ninth round, or the 12 per cent increase, was part of a comprehensive incomes policy and, as such, should be applied impartially to all sections of the public service, including the judiciary. It seemed to us in the Government that fair play demanded this and indeed also that the very nature of the ninth round national wages and salary agreement also demanded it.
Apart from that, these increases in the salaries of the judiciary were rendered inevitable by the development of events. If we were not to bring about and tolerate a very serious disruption in the long-established patterns in the public service, we had no alternative but to proceed with this ninth round increase for the judiciary along the lines set out in the Bill. The proposals in the Bill represent a reasonable application of the ninth round to the situation of the judiciary in so far as we have given the full 12 per cent up to the circuit court level; ten per cent thereafter; and, finally, six per cent to the Chief Justice at the top of the scale. As I said, I am happy that the House in general seems to be in agreement with this solution put forward by the Government.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted, stand"—put and declared carried.
Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.