Vol. 235 No. 9
I move:
That it is expedient to authorise such charges upon and payments out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to amend section 46 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961.
I do not propose to press this point if the Minister thinks it is not workable. It would seem to be preferable that something active should be done in this House in connection with these increases rather than something passive being done. What happens under this is that when the Minister proposes to increase the salaries of judges in future, he drafts an order and it is laid before the House. He will make the order final provided no one moves to set it aside— I think "disapprove" is the word used in the Act—by resolution.
Knowing the pressures on the House and how difficult it is for some of us to keep up with the legislation we should be dealing with, it may very well be that when a draft is laid before the House, while it might be desirable to have a discussion, no one will put down a motion, and the way is then clear for the Minister to make the order final. It is desirable that the public should know the reasons why increases of this sort are given. If the Minister were to move in the House that judges' salaries be increased by so much, there would be the advantage of avoiding any delays which might be occasioned by having to introduce it formally as a Bill. While avoiding that disadvantage, you would retain the advantage that the matter would come before the House for discussion. However, this is simply a point of view I am putting before the Minister.
I appreciate the Deputy's point of view. I have given considerable thought to this matter. I have examined the different procedures and inquired about them in different cases. I decided that this was the most effective way of dealing with the matter. At all times any increase to the judiciary is not a matter that will pass unnoticed. Deputies will appreciate that if an increase were given at the wrong time, there would always be many Deputies who would be very quick to attack any such order being made and bring it to the attention of the public. I am quite satisfied that this procedure would be very well known by Deputies and by the Press. As politicians, Deputies will appreciate that any Government who at any time tried to slip through an increase to the judiciary in some quiet way would be fooling themselves. It is a matter which by its very nature commands public attention.
I was not suggesting that. It was a question of giving the facts to the public that I was talking about.
I appreciate that. At all events, I am sure whatever Minister for Justice is concerned, this matter would arise on the Estimate for his Department and he would certainly have to justify the increase given. If, as Deputy O'Higgins fears, the House did not bother putting down any motion to annul the order, Deputies could certainly attack the provision on the Minister's Estimate, if it were not justified.
Surely there would have to be a Money Resolution?
There would be no Money Resolution.
The finance would have to come from somewhere and in that case it would be open to discussion. I believe the discussion this evening was useful in that it gave to the public who might care to inquire the arguments in favour of the Minister's proposal. If it simply goes through by way of an order they might think they were not getting the facts and that might suggest, even though it was not the intention, that someone was trying to pull a fast one. For that reason discussion is desirable. I think a Supplementary Estimate is the answer.
This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.
