(Cavan): At Question Time today I tabled the following question:
To ask the Minister for Justice if he is aware that due to the interference by his Department in the day to day running of the Taxing Masters' offices in the Four Courts without any consultation with the Taxing Masters, the work of these offices has been completely disrupted and is at a standstill with consequent inconvenience to the legal profession and general public; if he will take steps to ensure that proper provision is made for the smooth running of these offices; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I regret to say that I consider the reply of the Minister for Justice to be unsatisfactory. I did feel that the Minister was apologetically standing over a state of affairs which he did not believe he could justify.
I should like to say at the outset that I raise this matter on the adjournment because I believe there is a considerable principle involved. We have here an example of the Executive, the Government in this country, adopting what I consider to be a very high-handed and arrogant attitude to a judicial or quasi-judicial officer or officers, and I think it is clear that unless we have a reasonably harmonious approach from the Executive to the judicial or quasi-judicial officers, indeed to all parts of the administration under the various Departments, we will have nothing but chaos.
In the very recent past we had some examples of the chaos which ensued from what appears to me to be either a complete lack of communication between the Department of Justice and such an important institution of State as the Garda Síochána, and I raise this matter on the adjournment in the hope that by doing so I will bring clearly home to the Government and to each member of the Government the necessity for trying to preserve harmony, good relations, and a better understanding between the various sections of Government and the institutions of State.
One of the oldest offices in the High Court is that of Taxing Master. I do not propose to weary the House with exact details of when that office was brought into operation but I believe it has existed for approximately 100 years. There are two Taxing Masters. They perform what, in my opinion, is a judicial, certainly a quasi-judicial, function. They should be independent; they should not be interfered with; the dignity of their office should be upheld.
Although it is not directly related to this question there is the position of Master of the High Court, another office of a judicial nature second only to that of a judge of the High Court, and according to reliable information which I have before me and which I intend to put on the record of the House, and defy the Minister to contradict it—if he does I will ask him to substantiate his contradiction—the present Master of the High Court will have concluded his term of office in a short time. I am informed that on 29th October last an officer or officers from the Department of Justice, presumably with the authority of the Minister for Justice, approached the Master of the High Court and asked him to vacate his court, to hand over the court for use for other purposes. Having considered the matter, the Master of the High Court decided that, having occupied that court and having discharged his duties therefrom for approximately 20 years, he would not vacate the court until his term of office had expired, and he so informed the officers.
He thought that was the end of the matter, but in the space of three or four days he received a letter over the signature of the Minister for Justice, the written signature, thanking him for his co-operation and for his agreement to vacate his court in favour of another judge to be appointed. The Master of the High Court was utterly amazed, and, it having been brought to his notice when he was requested to vacate his office that it was proposed to abolish the office of Master of the High Court and to hand over the functions of that office to the Taxing Masters to be discharged by them, he learned from the Taxing Masters that an approach had been made to them to accept the functions of the Master of the High Court, which, of course, was absolutely absurd because there is as great a difference between chalk and cheese as between the functions of the Master of the High Court and the Taxing Masters.
The Taxing Masters informed those officers who approached them that they were not interested in the proposal, that it was flatly in contradiction or contrary to the terms of their appointments and that they had no intention of assuming the duties of the Master of the High Court which they considered themselves entirely unsuited to perform. That was thought to be the end of it, but on 2nd November the Taxing Masters received a letter dealing with the interview which I have just related and which occurred on 1st November. The letter stated that there had been a change of thought about the matter and that it was not now proposed to proceed with the change or with the proposal to abolish the office of Master of the High Court.
Subsequently a letter was received stating that it was proposed to make certain changes, that though it was not proposed to abolish the office of Master of the High Court, the following changes would be made: the Master of the High Court would transfer his office to the Senior Taxing Master's office; the Senior Taxing Master would go to the office of the Junior Taxing Master and the Junior Taxing Master would transfer his office to a conference room 240 yards away. It was stated also that it was proposed to effect these changes as from 22nd November.
On 4th November the Taxing Masters replied stating they did not accept the proposed changes. On 9th November the most senior officer in the Department of Justice consulted the Taxing Masters regarding accommodation and there was a discussion between the most senior officer in the Department and the Taxing Masters, and the Taxing Masters made it clear they did not propose to transfer or to accept the alternative accommodation because it was not suitable. I wish to emphasise that they made that perfectly clear in their letter and made it perfectly clear to the Secretary of the Department on 9th November.
At that discussion, the matter was left in mid-air—there was no decision on it, no arrangement come to—and the Secretary of the Department left on the note that he would think about the matter.
Nothing further was heard by either of the Taxing Masters until they reported for duty on 22nd November which I think was a Monday. The senior Taxing Master found that the lock on the main door of his office had been changed and that his key would not fit it. He went around to another door which leads to his office and found that it was very crudely, as I said earlier, but permanently barricaded, by having a crude piece of wood nailed upon it so that he could not get into it, and it is very significant to note that there were two other doors— artificial or ornamental doors at the Taxing Master's office which were not doors at all but which appeared to be doors and which were there really only for ornamental purposes—and so determined were these officers of the Minister in ensuring that the senior Taxing Master could not get into his office that they drove six inch nails into these dummy doors—quite an unnecessary exercise, but, I suggest, evidence of their determination to permanently barricade these people out of their offices.
The only intimation this senior Taxing Master got that he was to move to another office was an arrow, in red, I understand, saying "Master de Valera" and pointing that he was to go into Master Bell's office, the junior Taxing Master, who found that his name was obliterated from his door, the only intimation that he got being that he was to go 240 yards away was a message to his clerk. It did not stop at that, because the official papers in the senior Taxing Master's office—his private papers and photographs he had on the wall—were taken in bulk, without by your leave or a word to him, and roughly thrown on the floor of the junior Taxing Master's office. That was the condition these quasi-judicial officers found when they reported for duty on 22nd November.
They very properly reported to the Chief Justice under whose direction they discharge their duties. I do not want to say that they discharge their day to day function under the direction of the the Chief Justice but, generally, I understand that the Chief Justice is in charge of the administration of the Four Courts, or at least of the judicial officers in the Four Courts. Having reported to him, the Chief Justice instructed them to down tools, to cease to carry out their functions, until such time as proper facilities were provided for them and between 22nd November and 9th December, there was something in the nature of, in fact, there was a strike. The Taxing Masters refused to discharge their duties because they were not provided with adequate facilities, and, indeed, it is significant to point out that since then the junior Taxing Master has not been requested to travel these 240 yards, or one-eighth of a mile, to the new office. It may be suggested that a journey of 240 yards is not an excessive distance for one of these officials to walk but it is very important when it is borne in mind that they are bound under the rules of the Superior Court, if not under statute, to keep in close consultation with each other, to consult daily on various matters and to ensure that they are acting in principle together. Furthermore, there is a common office, a general office, serving both and it means that if the man 240 yards away wanted a file, he had to send down for it.
The position now is that the two Taxing Masters resumed duty apparently on 9th December and both of them are working in what was formerly the court of the junior Taxing Master and working in shifts because they cannot work together. I want to say that I believe this discloses an entirely unhealthy approach by the Minister—and I regret to say that he has to accept responsibility for it—and the Minister's Department, to the administration of justice in this country. If this is an example of the arrogant approach of this Department, which is responsible for the administration of justice and the preservation of law and order, it is not to be wondered at that the Garda Síochána are up in arms suggesting that they are not getting co-operation from their superiors and from the Minister's Department and that everything is far from well in this important field of the administration of justice.
I felt today, rightly or wrongly, when I put down this question and the Minister was answering it, that he was answering it apologetically in the belief that what happened should never have happened and I will be surprised if, accepting the history of this unfortunate episode as related by me —I will not be surprised if he accepts it, but I will be surprised if he denies it, because the information I have, as I understand, cannot be contradicted —the Minister stands over it or justifies it, or seeks to say that it could be tolerated. I think he would serve his office, himself and the Government much better if he said it was an unfortunate incident which happened without his knowledge and which should not happen and will not happen again. I believe it would be difficult for the Minister to do that, but there is a principle here, and we must have harmony, and have the independence of people appointed, such as these Taxing Masters, protected, I want to go on record as saying, they are appointed not by the Appointments Commission or the Civil Service Commission but by the Government, on the advice of the Minister to discharge judicial functions and they are treated in a way that I do not think anybody should be treated.
As I said, if some ordinary citizen of this country acted as the Minister's officers acted in this case, the Minister would feel justified in invoking the Forcible Entry Act to have them thrown out and brought before the courts for a breach of the law. I am not raising this as any personal matter, but I believe I would be guilty of a serious dereliction of my duty as spokesman on Justice if I did not do so.
