Vol. 546 No. 5
6 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the procedures for the appointment of taxing masters to the High Court; his plans to review the system of appointment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32089/01]
Under section 3(3) of the Court Officers Act, 1926, Taxing Masters are appointed by and hold office at the pleasure of the Government. Paragraph 3 of the Eighth Schedule to the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, provides that two Taxing Masters shall be attached to the High Court. The procedure heretofore has been that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day requests the Government to arrange for the filling of the post of Taxing Master in the High Court. The last appointment to the position of Taxing Master was made on this basis on 1 August 1996. A new appointment will not arise in the normal course until 2015 and I have no plans at present to alter the method of appointment.
Will the Minister consider this matter urgently?
Deputies Howlin or Shatter might be Minister for Justice by 2015 and then they could address the matter themselves.
I raise some matters of grave concern. The Minister will be aware of the ruling of the High Court that one of the two Taxing Masters withdraw from a hearing of costs in the Haughey family case and the reasons for that.
Has the Minister an opinion on the vicious and outrageous attack on the tribunals of inquiry established by the Houses of the Oireachtas? Those attacks were from a Taxing Master. What is the Minister's view of them? Does he accept that Master Flynn is a court officer as defined by the 1961 Courts Act and not a member of the Judiciary? Does he accept that Master Flynn's functions are confined to the determination of taxing issues arising in the superior courts and that his comments, which publicly undermine the tribunals established properly and correctly by the House, are unacceptable?
The Taxing Master is an officer attached to the High Court under the Eighth Schedule to the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, and Deputy Howlin knows well that it would be entirely inappropriate for me as a member of the Executive to comment on individual judgments or statements contained in judgments by a Taxing Master, which are of course open to appeal.
I understood Deputy Howlin to be asking a question about changes in the way Taxing Masters were appointed and I answered that question in good faith. I cannot be expected to comment on the acts or statements of people in quasi-judicial positions. It would be unreasonable of Deputy Howlin to expect me to do so.
I am shocked but not surprised that the Minister would refuse to comment about an outrageous assault on the integrity of the tribunals. The actions of the Government in this regard seek to be less than helpful to the tribunals, as I said yesterday.
The question relates to the procedures for appointment.
Is the Minister content with just two Taxing Masters? When the High Court decides one of them is inappropriate to deal with a particular case there is little scope but to go to the other individual, who may or may not be available. In those circumstances will the Minister look again at the appropriateness of having only two positions of this kind? Has he had the situation reviewed?
I am satisfied the Taxing Masters are operating effectively and efficiently. If Deputy Howlin has a difficulty with a delay then I will be pleased to have it looked into. However, the information available to me is that two Taxing Masters are sufficient.
