Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1945

Vol. 30 No. 3

Court Officers Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

As I said when introducing this Bill in the Dáil, it is not one which lends itself to the kind of debate usual on Second Reading, as it deals with a number of distinct and unconnected matters. The purpose of this Bill is to effect certain amendments of the Court Officers Act, 1926, which experience of the working of the system set up under that Act has shown to be desirable. I shall try to explain as briefly as I can the various provisions of the Bill.

Under Sections 2 and 3 it is proposed to take power to enable the Minister for Justice to relieve the Master of the High Court of the purely administrative functions and duties in relation to the central office and the other offices of the High Court which are vested in him at present by Sections 4 and 5 of the 1926 Act. The Minister will be able to exercise this power only after he has consulted the President of the High Court. If an Order is made relieving the Master of the administrative duties, these duties will then be performed by an officer of the High Court who will be nominated for that purpose by the Minister, again after consultation with the President. The judicial control provided for in the 1926 Act, so far as the conduct of business in court is concerned, is being fully preserved.

Sections 4 and 5 deal with the pension terms of a limited class of court officers, namely, the Master of the High Court, the taxing masters of that court, and county registrars. These officers are at present pensionable under the Superannuation Acts on ordinary Civil Service terms, which means that they can qualify for full pension only with a minimum of 40 years' service. The Act of 1926 lays down, as an essential qualification for appointment to any of the offices in question, a minimum period of practice in the legal profession—in the case of the Master of the High Court, ten years' practice at the Bar, and in the case of taxing masters and county registrars, ten and eight years' practice, respectively, as solicitors. The earliest possible age at which appointments can be made is, therefore, about 30 or slightly over. In practice the persons appointed are usually older; in the case of county registrars, for example, the average age on appointment has been about 40. The result is that, under Superannuation Act terms, few, if any, of these officers can hope to qualify for full pension, and, where the person has been appointed at a fairly advanced age, his pension is very meagre altogether.

Under Section 4, it is now proposed that these officers should have the same pension terms as district justices enjoy under the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, viz., full pension of two-thirds of salary after 30 years' service, and proportionately for shorter service. Section 5 makes special provision for existing officers, who are being given the right to opt in due course between the new terms and their present terms.

Section 6 proposes to amend the present law as contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the 1926 Act, relating to the qualifications for appointment to the posts of probate officer and examiner in the High Court. At present a person to be qualified for appointment must be a serving court officer with a minimum of 12 years' service in the court offices. Section 6 proposes two amendments, viz., (i) it dispenses with the requirement of 12 years' service in the case of any court officer who is a barrister or solicitor, and (ii) it opens up appointments to barristers and solicitors of not less than six years' standing provided that the Minister for Justice, after consulting the President of the High Court, is satisfied that at the time there is no court officer with the necessary qualifications suitable to be appointed.

The object of Section 7 is to enable a second examiner to be appointed in the High Court. The work at present done in the examiner's office is the same as was formerly done by the two chief clerks on the chancery side and their staffs. What is now proposed is, in effect, a return to the system of two chief officers. Actually, this does not mean the creation of an additional post. So long as there are two judges doing "chancery" work, it is convenient to have a fully responsible officer attached to each judge. At present the examiner attends one judge, and the assistant-examiner the other. The law and practice require that certain final steps be done by the examiner in person, so that at present when the assistant-examiner has done the work, he must submit his papers to the examiner before the case can be finally disposed of. The only way by which this can be avoided is by the appointment of a second examiner, which will be made possible by Section 7. In practice, it will mean the conversion of the assistant-examinership into an examinership.

Section 8, which was introduced during the Committee Stage in the Dáil, provides that officers of the Central Office of the High Court nominated to be registrars will rank as principal officers. It was suggested that these registrars should be regarded as principal officers for the purposes of the 1926 Act, and no objection was seen to making this minor concession. No question of alteration in rank or pay is involved.

Section 9 enables the Minister for Justice to require any court officer to perform the duties of another office attached to his own or any other court, where such an arrangement is convenient and practicable. Provision is made for consultation, where necessary, with the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court, and retrospective sanction is provided for certain arrangements of the kind in question that have been made in the past with doubtful legal authority.

Section 10 proposes that the assignment of county registrars to particular counties should be a matter for the Government rather than the Minister for Justice, as it is at present. A county registrar is appointed by the Government and there is no point in the Minister for Justice having to make a formal separate assignment to the only county in which a vacancy exists at the time the appointment is made. In practice the Government will appoint expressly to the existing vacancy.

Section 11 is merely a machinery provision intended to remedy a minor defect in the existing statutory provisions relating to the revision or alteration of district court districts or areas.

With regard to Section 12, since the enactment of the 1926 Act, no appointment has been made to the office of under-sheriff. According as vacancies occurred in that office, the duties were taken over by the County Registrar for the County or County Borough in accordance with Section 54 of the 1926 Act. This system has worked well on the whole, but in the case of Dublin and, to a lesser extent, of Cork, the duties of the County Registrar are already so heavy that it is not desirable that he should also be made responsible for the duties of under-sheriff. It may also happen in the course of time, in some of the other larger counties, that the double duties of County Registrar and under-sheriff will prove too exacting for one officer. Accordingly, it is proposed in Section 12 to take power to enable a County Registrar, to whom the duties of under-sheriff have already been transferred, to be relieved of the whole or part of those duties and also, as regards any county in which an under-sheriff is still operating, to enable an order to be made, if thought necessary, declaring that the provisions of Section 54 of the 1926 Act shall not apply so that the County Registrar will not be vested with the under-sheriff's duties on the latter vacating office. In any such case it is proposed that the Government may appoint a person to be sheriff and he will be responsible for such of the duties, functions, etc., of the former under-sheriff as are not vested in the County Registrar.

Section 13 provides for the repeal of Section 45 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act, 1840. Section 45 required every under-sheriff to nominate a deputy resident or with an office within one mile of the Four Courts for the receipt of writs, decrees, etc. In modern conditions this requirement is unnecessary. Compliance with it involves some trouble administratively every time a County Registrar takes over an undersheriff's duties. Repeal of the provision will mean a small saving to the Exchequer as the deputy nominated for each County Registrar is allowed to retain a proportion of the lodgment fees which would otherwise be surrendered to the Exchequer. The Incorporated Law Society and all the officers concerned have been consulted and there is unanimity of opinion that this out-of-date provision may be repealed.

Mr. Sweetman

The main thing that strikes anyone reading this Bill, in my opinion, is that it is yet another example of the trend of legislation, that has been so recently noticeable, of taking power out of the hands of anybody who has it in order that it may be vested in a Department of the Government. The effect of many provisions of this Bill is to take the power out of the hands of the judges, so to speak, and to vest that power, instead, in the Department; and the effect also is to take a certain amount of power away from the Oireachtas and delegate that power to the Minister by means of the provision in the Bill of a tremendous number of sections which say that the Minister "when he shall so think proper" may do so and so. It appears to me that that is an objectionable method of legislation, that it is taking too much discretion away from the Oireachtas and leaving too much discretion in the hands of the Minister. I fully appreciate the Minister will tell me that he can only exercise that discretion after consultation with the President of the High Court, but I do think that the Minister will also agree that he is not in any way bound, under the measure now before us, to accept the advice that the President of the High Court may give him, and while, as a matter of administrative procedure, it might be advisable to have that for certain matters, I think it would be better for the Minister to deal with them under the direction of the President of the High Court instead of doing certain things afterwards. One of the things that we are particularly jealous of here is the independence of the judiciary, and I would not like to see any measure going through this House that would even remotely militate against that independence, and I am sure that the Minister himself would agree with that. We are legislating here, not merely for a Ministerial office, but for those who may come after the Minister, and it seems to me that this is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

There are certain details with which we can deal better on the Committee Stage, but there are one or two matters to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. The Minister is given certain discretion in two of the sections of the Bill, and I should like to have some enlightenment from him in regard to them.

Section 7 deals with the appointment of a second examiner. I entirely agree with the Minister that this section is, in principle, absolutely desirable. The situation, by virtue of which an assistant examiner, having done all the work, had to submit it to the examiner for signature, was not satisfactory. I should like to know if it is mandatory that an assistant examiner, who has been carrying on the work, be appointed as the second examiner. It would be very unfair if he were passed over in the appointment of second examiner. If he was competent to be assistant-examiner, under the system in operation, he must, ipso facto, be equally competent to be the new examiner.

I should like to have an explanation from the Minister in relation to Section 10. I take it that, once a county registrar is assigned to a particular circuit, he must continue in that circuit. I should like to have an assurance that this section does not enable either the Government or the Minister to transfer a county registrar from a circuit to which he has already been assigned to another circuit, without his consent. If that were to be the case, the section could be utilised in a very harsh way. I do not think that there is any doubt about the matter but I should like to have it amplified. My real reason for rising at this stage was to point out that the whole tendency of legislation in recent years has been to vest more and more discretion in Ministers and their Departments and, therefore, in the officials of their Departments. That is an undesirable tendency. It may have been necessary during the emergency but it should be arrested at the earliest possible date. I should be very slow, for that reason, to accept this Bill in all its verbal implications though I am in wholehearted agreement with many of the principles contained in it.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

In the summarised version of this Bill with which the Minister provided us, I regret that there seems to have been no provision made for the very reasonable and equitable claims of the staffs of the circuit court offices. I have in mind three officials, aged 43, 46 and 48 years, who are on the staff of a circuit court office. These officials are liable to be retired on a week's notice without recognition of the many valuable years of service given by them. That service was absolutely necessary to the smooth running of the administration of the circuit court. Such treatment of officials who have given almost half a century of service cannot be considered fair or equitable. On the Committee Stage, I hope to have an amendment drafted which will cover such cases and I am sure the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Ryan

This is what I might describe as stop-gap legislation. The Bill is an amending Bill, and is accordingly disjointed. The Minister has not stated fully why this Bill has been introduced. Some portions of it are quite necessary, having regard to the working of the courts, but the main provisions of the Bill, which relieve the Master of his functions, has, in my opinion, been brought about by the difficulty of working the provisions of the Courts Officers Act, 1926, in regard to the Master's control and superintendence of the officers of the courts. I hold no brief for the Master, nor for any other person. The Minister has assured us that this legislation is necessary, and I accept that assurance. Unfortunately, it would appear that the system provided for in the Courts Officers Act, 1926, has not worked satisfactorily. That is because human beings are human beings. There may have been incompatibilities between the Master, as the head and manager of the central office, and the officials of the Department of Justice, and that is the whole reason for this provision in the Bill. I shall not say where the blame lies, but it is unfortunate, because there will now be a truncated Mastership of the High Court.

Under the Courts Officers Act, 1923. Section 5 (2), the Master is enabled to exercise the powers and authority given him by the Act, by statute and by the rules of court. The legislation here takes away the powers which were given him by statute, but not the powers given him by rules of court. The object of this Bill, so far as the Master is concerned, is to deprive him of the control of the officers of the court. There may be good reason for that, and I do not say that it is wrong. So far as I know, there is a good deal to be said for it. In substitution for the Master, the Minister takes power in this Bill to appoint an officer serving in the central office, or a principal officer attached to the High Court. We have, accordingly, a unique position. Under the Act of 1926, the Master was appointed to control and superintend the central office and the offices attached to the High Court. These offices were: the Central Office, the Office of the Taxing Master, the Probate Office, the Bankruptcy Office, the Examiner's Office, and the Accountant's Office. It so happens that at present, the Master, according to the Estimates, receives £200 a year for performing the duties of the Registrar in Bankruptcy. As a result of this Act, the junior officer in the central office who may be appointed by the Minister to manage the central office and the offices attached to the High Court will have the control and superintendence of the Master in so far as he is Registrar in Bankruptcy. I quite agree with the Minister that this Bill was necessary for the smooth working of the courts, but I should have preferred to have the question considered upon a broader basis. I should also be more satisfied if there had been consultation not only with the officers of the courts and the President of the High Court, but also with the Rule-making Committee of the High Court.

It is the intention of the Bill to take away from the Master control of the officials in the courts, but it will not effect that so long as the Rules of Court specify duties which shall be carried out under the direction of the Master. Order 33 of the Rules of the High Court and Supreme Court, 1926, provides as follows:

"Every judgment or order, which according to the practice at the time when these rules came into operation, would require to be entered by the proper officer, shall for the future be filed under the direction of the Master."

So that although this Bill is intended to relieve the Master of the management of the central office and the control of the officials therein, that order, which is not affected by this Bill, still gives to him the power to direct the filing of the judgments and the orders in the office. I fear there will be a clash between the Master and the officer who is appointed to fulfil the statutory functions of the Master. However, I am only putting this point forward so that the Bill may be considered in the proper light and so as to ensure the smooth and satisfactory working of the offices of the court.

There is another matter. The Central Office of the High Court which was established by the Court Officers Act, 1926, was based upon the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England which was established originally by the Supreme Court Judicature Act of 1879 and which was continued by the Supreme Courts of Judicature Act of 1925. Under the Rules of Court, it is provided that there shall be what is called a practice Master who has to attend there every day, to control the business of the central office and to give the necessary directions with respect to the practice or procedure relating to the business thereof. Under the Courts Officers Act, 1926, as it stands, the Master of the High Court is what might be called a practice Master, that is to say, if an official of the court has any difficulty or doubt as to the practice to be followed in a particular matter, he can repair to the Master. Now, if the Master is no longer to have anything to do with the officers of the court, an officer in doubt cannot repair to him, therefore he must go to the officer who may be nominated in place of the Master. The officer who may be nominated in place of the Master may be any officer serving in the office, according to the Bill. He may be a junior clerk.

The whole idea of court officers is this: that they are experienced in the practice and the procedure of the courts. They are not deemed to know what is called the substantive law, but on practice and procedure they are experts. The Minister will no doubt appoint an officer to replace the Master in the High Court as far as the control of other officers is concerned but I suggest that he should appoint an experienced official who will be able to direct other officials and advise them as to the proper procedure and practice in every particular case. I am making that suggestion now so that the new system may work properly and produce harmonious working. That is all we desire. I should like the Minister to remember that this arrangement, after all, is only what we might call a stop-gap. Sooner or later when the present Master retires, the whole question will have to be reconsidered.

The Minister in the Dáil said that the Master being a lawyer may not be a good man to handle officials or to deal with civil servants. I dispute that. A lawyer is as good a man to do business as any other man. It all depends on the individual concerned.

Mr. Boland

That is agreed.

Mr. Ryan

So, therefore, the mere fact that the Master is required by the Court Officers Act to be a barrister of 10 years' standing is no disadvantage at all. It is the man himself who may be at fault. Therefore, I say that the proper head of the Central Office should be a lawyer of common sense. I am sure that the Minister in dealing with this rather delicate problem will work out matters as satisfactorily as he possibly can, having regard firstly to the powers in the Bill, and, secondly, to the fact that the Master will still retain power under the Rules of Court.

The other matter dealt with in this Bill is the position of under-sheriff and county registrar. Prior to the Sheriffs (Ireland) Act, 1920, the under-sheriff was appointed by the High Sheriff. Thenceforward the Government appointed the under-sheriff and he became a Government official. All the powers, duties and authority of the High Sheriff were transferred to the under-sheriff by that Act. The High Sheriff retained some ornamental functions, such as entertaining judges on the occasion of assizes, and a few other functions of no consequence. When the Courts Officers Act came to be passed in 1926, the office of under-sheriff was in effect abolished.

It was abolished by providing that no further appointments should be made to the office of under-sheriff. The title under-sheriff was carried into the Court Officers Act of 1926 without having any High Sheriff. That Act provided by Section 54 (3) that the functions of under-sheriff should be transferred to the county registrar when a vacancy took place. I maintain that that was a fundamental mistake. It was a fundamental mistake to transfer the functions of an executive to a judicial officer. The county registrar, apart from the fact that he has sufficient work to do in his own department, is an officer of the courts and is not the proper person to execute the processes of the courts. That is an executive function and should remain an executive function.

In this Bill we have what is called a cat and mouse section. The difficulty about the county registrar carrying out the duties and functions of the under-sheriff arose quite recently, and in a marked manner, when the sub-sheriff of Dublin retired, and under the Act of 1926 his powers, duties and functions were automatically transferred to the county registrar of Dublin. It was immediately seen by everybody that a county registrar of Dublin could not do two men's work. That is one of the reasons why this Bill is urgent to relieve that situation. But what does this Bill actually provide? It provides firstly that the Minister may make an Order that whenever a vacancy arises, the powers, duties and functions of the under-sheriff shall not vest or be transferred to the county registrar. He may also make an Order that in the case of a county registrar in whom are vested at the present time the powers and duties of the under-sheriff, these powers and duties should cease, in order to make way for the appointment of what is known as a sheriff. As a result of this Bill we have three names for one official carrying out the one duty. There may be in one county or county borough a sheriff, in another county or county borough an under-sheriff, and in a third county the duties and functions are carried out by the county registrar. The Bill also gives power to the Minister, when an under-sheriff retires or when there is a vacancy in the office of sheriff, by Order to revert the duties and powers to the county registrar.

In other words, it is a cat-and-mouse and in-and-out type of section. My suggestion is that there should be one officer with one name for executing the processes of the courts, that he should be called a sheriff, and that legislation should be brought in, if necessary, changing the title of under-sheriff in any county or county borough to sheriff, and that the county registrar in each county should be relieved of the duties of under-sheriff.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Ryan

Before the Adjournment I was dealing with the office of sheriff provided for in this Bill, and I stated that there are three titles for the same office. We have "sheriff" in this Bill, "under-sheriff" in a previous Bill, and, under the Court Officers Act, 1926, we have "county registrar", all executing the processes of the court.

My submission is that there should be one officer, with one title, to execute the process of the court, and that that officer should be called a sheriff. A considerable amount of confusion has been caused in statutes by having the officer performing these functions designated by different titles in different counties, with the result that in a number of statutes there are a number of explanatory clauses providing that where the word "under-sheriff" is used in the case of a county in which there is no under-sheriff, it shall be deemed to mean the county registrar.

I suggest that the Minister should seriously consider remodelling or reframing this legislation, not necessarily now in this Bill, but at a later stage, so as to unify the office of the person who executes the process of the court, and to designate him by one uniform title in every county and county borough as the sheriff. Under this Bill the Minister has power, by Order, to relieve the county registrar of the duties formerly carried out by the under-sheriff. He has power to do so, so to speak, at his will or as he thinks proper. I would suggest to him that he ought to make a survey of the conditions operating in every county, and that he should endeavour as far as possible to segregate and separate the office of county registrar from that of sheriff.

A clear case was brought home to the Minister in the case of the county borough of Dublin. When the late under-sheriff, Dr. Lorcan Sherlock, retired and when, under Section 54 (3) of the Court Officers Act, 1926, his duties came to be performed by the county registrar of Dublin, it was clearly seen that he would be unable to combine his present office of county registrar with its multiplicity of duties, with the very onerous office of sheriff.

Although that is a glaring case, there are other cases throughout the country not quite so glaring, but almost so. In my submission, the county registrar has quite sufficient work to do, to do it properly so to speak, in his own particular sphere, the judicial sphere, and I say that it is a fundamental mistake in the Court Officers Act of 1926, to impose executive functions on an official of the Judiciary, namely, the county registrar. I trust that the Minister will reconsider the position and that at a future date legislation will be introduced providing for the office of sheriff. That officer should be an officer of the Minister, that is of the executive power and should have no connection with the Judiciary except to execute the writs and processes issued by the judges.

There are other matters in this Bill to which I desire to refer briefly. I am altogether in favour of the two examiners of the High Court. I think the system of two chief clerks worked very well in the old days when there were two Chancery Judges, and the system introduced under the Court Officers Act, 1926, of having only one examiner where there were formerly two, and making the other examiner merely on assistant examiner did not work so well, because the officer who was the examiner had to go over the work done by the assistant examiner who was quite as competent as himself.

A difficult situation was created in the courts when the two examiners retired almost simultaneously recently, and one officer serving under the former examiner was made examiner, while the other officer was made assistant examiner. Both officers appeared to be of equal status, but having regard to the legislation then in force one officer only could be appointed to the position of examiner. I am glad the position is being rectified by this Bill. It is quite a proper thing that each Chancery Judge in his department should be self-contained. That is what this Bill provides.

There is another matter-an amendment was introduced on the Committee Stage of this Bill by the Minister in the Dáil. That is Section 8 in this Bill which provides that a registrar of the High Court shall be a principal officer within the meaning of Part I of the Court Officers Act, 1926. In Section 3 (2) of that Act, there are enumerated a number of officers who are principal officers-namely, the Master of the High Court, Taxing Masters, Probate Officers, Registrars in Bankruptcy the Official Assignee, Examiner and Accountant, but for some reason or another in the Act of 1926, the office of Registrar of the High Court was omitted.

The office of Registrar of the High Court is a most important office, because the Registrar of the High Court is an official of long experience, as a rule, in the practice and procedure of the High Court, and as a rule the judge has to refer to his registrar for guidance on practice and procedure I cannot understand why the position of Registrar of the High Court has been, so to speak, degraded as it has been by legislation and by the Department of Finance as regards salary.

I am now going to speak of the relative positions of the Registrar of the High Court who is now a principal officer within the meaning of the Court Officers Act, and principal officers in other Departments. The Minister for Justice may say to me that he is not concerned with salary, that that is a matter for the Minister for Finance, but he is concerned with the salaries of the officers of his Department, and I would ask the Minister now to consider making representations to the Minister for Finance in respect of Registrars of the High Court for the purpose of putting them on the same level as the principal officers in other Departments.

A principal officer in the Department of Finance, according to the Estimates, has a basic salary of £700, rising by increments of £25 annually, to £900 a year. A principal officer generally in the other Departments—the Department of Justice or the Department of Industry and Commerce—has a salary of £700, rising by increments of £20 to £800.

The salary of the Registrar of the Supreme Court according to the Estimate which I have here before me as provided by the Department of Finance is £600-£800, a year, below the salary of a principal officer of any other Department. I am now referring to the Registrar of the Supreme Court because in the near future there will be a vacancy for that office. The present officer has a personal salary. He is an old official and he is approaching the retiring age. The person most appropriate to fill the office would be a registrar of the High Court. Now, the salary of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, according to the Estimate is £600-£800, something like the salary of an assistant principal in another Department. Under Article 25 of the Constitution every Act signed by the President has to be deposited in the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court and every authentic text of the Constitution under the same article has to be deposited with him so that he is a most responsible officer. Yet the view was taken that he was only worth £600, increasing by increments to £800, while a principal officer in other Departments had a salary of £700 to £800, and a principal officer in the Department of Finance had a salary rising to £900. In the Estimate there are four registrars of the High Court; one has a salary of £800 rising by increments of £20 to £900. He is an old officer. The next has a salary of £700 rising by £20 to £800. He is a responsible registrar of the High Court and has the same salary as a principal officer in any Department other than the Department of Finance. Another registrar has a salary of £600 rising by increments of £20 to £700. There are two registrars with salaries of £500 rising by £20 to £700, far below principal officers in other Departments. I do not know why these salaries were fixed at these rates. There is a note in the Estimate that the salary of £500 rising by increments of £20 to £700 is subject to review. Am I to take it that the Minister for Finance intends to reduce that salary?

At all events, now that the registrars of the High Court are raised to the rank which they ought to have occupied under the Act of 1926, namely, principal officer, the Minister for Justice should make representations to the Minister for Finance to place these officers on what might be called a proper scale of salary. From the point of view of the administration of justice it is most important that the men who are engaged in what I may call the office work, routine and procedure of the courts should be men of experience, and thoroughly competent and certainly I would say that the salaries which have been appropriated by the Department of Finance to these officers are not sufficient to attract the best men. The Minister, after this Bill, will introduce another Bill called the Juries Act in Section 7 of which certain duties which were formerly performed by the Master of the High Court and the under-sheriff have been transferred to the registrars of the High Court. The registrars of the High Court are getting added duties and I trust the Minister at all events, will see that these officers who are the pivot of the administration of justice in the courts will be properly remunerated. There is one other matter. In this Bill in Section 2 the Minister is given power to appoint an officer to manage the Central Office. Under Section 58 of the Court Officers Act of 1926 it is provided that the person who has to manage any office may manage it by officials or through officials. I think that that is a matter that should be considered by the Minister between this and the Committee Stage. Section 58 provides:

"That the powers, authorities, duties and functions conferred or imposed by Part I of this Act on the respective officers therein referred to as principal officers and by Part II of this Act on the county registrars shall be exercised and performed by these officers with the assistance of the officers and servants employed in the offices under their management respectively, and every such principal officer and county registrar shall arrange for the exercise and performance by officers or servants in the office under his management of such of his powers, authorities and functions (other than those which he is for the time being expressly required by statute or rule of court to exercise or perform in person) as he cannot conveniently exercise or perform himself."

I would suggest that a new section should be inserted in the Bill giving the new officer who has to manage the Central Office the same powers as are given to the principal officer in the Act of 1926. He is in a new office for the purposes of the Act of 1926, and, therefore, a special section is necessary to enable the officer to be appointed to manage the Central Office by directing the officials under him to perform the duties of the office. I am merely making that suggestion for the purpose of consideration by the Minister.

Apart from these observations I think the Bill on the whole is a good Bill. It is not a final measure. It is stop-gap legislation but stop-gap legislation is often most necessary and often beneficial. With these few remarks I wish the Bill success.

Mr. Baxter

I have just a small point or two to make. It is very obvious from the speeches of Senator Sweetman and especially of Senator Michael J. Ryan that this is really a technical measure which requires a considerable amount of study and practical experience in the courts. It is a very healthy thing that we can have such an examination of this Bill as we have had from Senator Ryan. He has gone to a good deal of labour and it is of value to the House and those of us who are laymen to hear such a discussion on it. What has been puzzling me about this measure is the fact that while the Minister is making provision for the superannuation of Circuit Court officers and registrars and a number of other people he has neglected the situation which exists elsewhere. I have no practical experience of a Circuit Court area in the country. Senator Seán T. Ruane has referred to what conditions are like in his own county. I think exactly the same conditions exist in my own county. There is an official there who I am satisfied has reached the retiring age, at least he has reached that age at which a man ought ordinarily to be able to retire. I am not exactly certain, but my opinion is that he is held there because there is no provision for superannuation. A colleague of his some time ago worked on until he became ill and went to the grave. I think that is the situation all over the country. It wants to be rectified and I wonder, when the Minister has decided to provide for certain officials under this Act, he has not taken any steps with regard to these others. I would like to hear the Minister on that matter.

In the Dáil there was reference made to the position of District Court clerks. I did not read the debate fully, but from what I saw of it I understand that the Minister indicated that he was considering this question. I wonder why it is not possible to deal with these officials under this measure, too. I would like to hear from the Minister what difficulties are there or whether, in fact, he has no policy with regard to them. No matter what view we took at the time the District Courts were established in this country after the signing of the Treaty, we all know what the difficulties were for the people who undertook their responsibility. That is 25 years ago and a number of them were then men of 40 years of age. They should have had, as most of them had, practical experience of the law. They were engaged in one way or another in activities connected with solicitors' offices or in different capacities. Anyhow, they had experience and legal training. A number of them up and down the country have reached the age when they must retire. I think I actually know of one man in my own county who has had to retire within the last six months. I am sure there is no provision made for him. It is terribly unjust and I can hardly believe that it represents the point of view of the Minister. There is no doubt that these men undertook a task which not so many were prepared to face up to. I think the status which our courts achieved in the early days of this State was, to a very considerable extent, due to the integrity, capacity, earnestness and sincerity of the men who went in as District Court clerks. They went in as the young men went into the Volunteers, with no feeling that they were going to expect superannuation. They went in to serve the State and take the consequences of what was coming to them from the service which they offered the State then. I think it would be very unbecoming of us, now that we have reached the position of stability which we enjoy and achieved a prestige for our courts, if the services of these men who made a major contribution to the building up of that prestige should not be taken cognisance of. I feel the Minister is not the sort of man to ignore that, but it is an urgent matter.

I believe some time ago one of his predecessors gave consideration to a scheme of superannuation. As far as I know nothing came of it. I do not know why. There is a problem there, and perhaps the Minister would be prepared to let us know what progress has been made and what is his attitude exactly on this question. I do not know how many men are concerned but it would not be a very large number and it would not mean payment of a large sum of money. But there is a principle involved. There is above everything the principle that the State owes to servants who have given excellent service some tribute, and we ought not to be slow to recognise that fact.

Mr. O'Dea

As Senator Baxter has said, Senator Ryan has been very helpful in his statement. I expect the Minister will take note of some of the amendments he has suggested. I think he has suggested an amendment that words should be inserted to take away the powers given to the Master under the rules of court. I think the Minister thinks that would be necessary. The Court Officers Act of 1926 gave power to the county registrar to employ certain officials in his office. They were employed. Some of them were taken on a new but most of them had been there for many years. I understand that Senator Baxter referred to one of these officials as being there for 40 years, and I know of one who has been there 40 years. Some years ago this man was advised by his doctor to retire but he could not do so. He had a very bad heart and was in danger of death at any moment but, because he had a wife and family and was not entitled to a pension, he had to keep going on day after day doing his work as best he could. That is a dreadful position for a man to be in. I believe this man is only one of several all over the country and there are also other difficulties connected with them. Not alone are they not pensionable but they are not permanent. The county registrar has to get permission from the Minister to keep them on in employment at all. Their position is most insecure. I am quite sure the Minister does give that certificate and they are kept on, but that insecurity is very bad for people doing responsible work of such a nature.

Their duties are of a very technical and serious kind. I see by the Dáil report that the Minister for Finance was said to be considering the matter, but I am sorry provision was not made in this Bill so that they would get that proper protection that any ordinary citizen employed in an office ought to get. After all, in most countries these people are provided for by old age pensions. We in this country should not be slow to give them the protection that officials of county councils and other officials get. The Court Officers Act also refers to the District Court clerks. Their position is altogether peculiar. I know one man who was clerk of the pretty sessions for very many years. After we took over the State he retired on a small pension, but afterwards was re-employed as a District Court clerk. He was in that position for 20 years before he retired. By taking that office he saved the State the pension he would have been drawing, and yet not one penny was added to his pension when he retired from the position of District Court clerk. No allowance was made for his 20 years' service. That does not seem to be justice, and I think the matter ought to be looked into.

Senator Ryan has mentioned that there ought to be more examiners. I am very sorry power is not given to the Minister to appoint examiners. I think a great many of the delays that occur in court are due to the fact that we have not sufficient examiners. With regard to the rest of the Bill, I think we are all in agreement that it is necessary and we ought to adopt it, but I wish that if at all possible these amendments should be made to give protection to certain officials.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

On the point about the staffs, I could not get that question settled in time for this Bill. The Minister for Finance is concerned in that.

Mr. Baxter

He should not be.

Mr. Boland

Whether he should or not he is concerned with it. I think everyone will agree that in matters of staff the Minister for Finance must have the last word, otherwise you could not carry on the State at all. It is not alone a question of temporary officers in the Department of Justice. There are temporary officers in other Departments also, such as the Land Commission, and I know that there are a number of hard cases, but if the Minister has to deal with the temporary people in the Department of Justice he will also have to deal with temporary people in other Departments. So that this is a bigger question than some Senators may think. However, as I have said, I could not get this question settled in time. On the question of the county registrar doing the under-sheriff's work, the point is that outside Dublin and, I think, to a lesser extent, Cork, there is scarcely enough work for the county registrar to deal with, and the county registrar alone has been able to deal with all these matters in counties outside Dublin and Cork. By comparison the county registrar in Dublin has considerably more to do.

Mr. Hayes

I am afraid that he is a very exceptional person.

Mr. Boland

Yes, I am aware of that. He is a very exceptional person, but we are well aware in the Department of Justice of what the position is in the different counties, and I think I can safely say that the county registrar, at least, is not overworked in any of these counties and that, accordingly, outside Dublin, and perhaps, Cork, there will be no necessity for appointing a sheriff. It may be necessary to do so in some cases, and if it is, then, when this Bill is passed, we shall have power—a power which we had not up to now—to appoint a sheriff.

I could not agree with Senator Sweetman that we are trying to take away from the judges powers which they already have. In the old days, as, I am sure, Senators know, the judges actually appointed the staffs. That was done away with when a new Government was set up here, and when a Minister is responsible for the appointment of the staff, that means that he is responsible to the Oireachtas, which can take him to task in regard to the matter, and I do not think that that could be done in the case of a judge. It is only in the matter of staffs that we are interfering with the Master's powers. We are not interfering with his quasi-judicial functions at all. There may be a certain amount of responsibility in regard to the matter but, nevertheless, it is not desirable that there should be an exception made in the case of court officers or that they should be treated differently from civil servants in other Departments of the State. On the question of principal officers, I think that Senator Ryan is overlooking one thing, and that is that under the 1926 Act certain officers who are called principal officers have not the same status or the same pay as other principal officers. The Master, for instance, is in a different position, and there is a big difference also, both in regard to pay and status between some of the people named there as principal officers. As a matter of fact, there are actually officers in the courts who are not styled principal officers—they will be after this—who have bigger salaries than principal officers in other branches of the Civil Service. One of them, I understand, has £900 a year, and so it is not a fair analogy at all.

Mr. Baxter

Is he an official?

Mr. Boland

I am not as familiar with the staffs in the courts as Senator Ryan is. I have not had personal experience of the matter, but I do know that that is the case. The Master is styled a principal officer and he gets a much bigger salary than any similar principal officer in the Civil Service. Others who are styled principal officers get lower salaries than the principal officers in other Departments. I think, therefore, that there is nothing in that matter of the name "principal officer."

Mr. Ryan

I think the Minister misunderstood me. I spoke of the registrars not because they are called principal officers in the Bill but because their duties are as responsible and onerous as those of any principal officer in any branch of the Civil Service, whether the Department of Finance or any other Department—I mean, on their merits.

Mr. Boland

Well, I must have misunderstood the Senator on that point.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I agree with Senator Ryan.

Mr. Boland

What I understood the Senator to say was that they should get the same pay and status as the principal officers in other Departments.

Mr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Boland

I cannot see anything in Senator Sweetman's point about taking away certain powers. I do not think we are taking any powers away from the Oireachtas, which is what I understood him to say. After all, if the Minister is responsible for the staff, he is responsible to the Oireachtas and will have to answer for it there. With regard to Senator O'Dea's point about temporary officials getting permission to remain on after 65, I think that that is a general provision in the Civil Service, and that if after having reached the age of 65 a temporary official can satisfy the Minister that he is physically fit, the Minister for Finance generally agrees to keep him on for a longer period, since he does not get a pension, but that, of course, is considered a privilege.

Mr. O'Dea

I understand that certain officials in the county registrar's office who are not that age, and who are comparatively young men, have to get permission to remain on, every six months or so. At least that is what I am informed.

Mr. Boland

Well, I have had no decision on that matter. I made no promise in the other House, and I could not do so. We had to appoint a sheriff for Dublin City; that was the urgency in regard to this matter, and not the other question; but when we were dealing with the one case I thought it better to take advantage of it to deal with the other. There will be no more undersheriffs. There has been a lot of misunderstanding on this matter. At any rate, I know that I have got many letters from all over the country from people who evidently had the idea that we were going to appoint sheriffs for every county. I want to make it clear that that is not the intention. It is only in places where too much work will be put on the county registrar that the Minister will appoint a sheriff and put such duties as he thinks should be put on the sheriff and not on the county registrar.

Mr. Baxter

Are any officials in a county registrar's office pensionable at all, anywhere?

Mr. Boland

Yes. A great many of those coming in now are appointed by the Civil Service Commission, and they will all be pensionable.

Mr. Baxter

Even through the country?

Mr. Boland

Yes. All these people are now being appointed by the Civil Service Commissoners and will be pensionable. I know that in the case of some of the older people there are certain hardships, but in the case of the county registrars there is only a limited number. Undoubtedly, it was very hard on a man of 45, being appointed and giving up his practice as a solicitor, that under the Civil Service regulations he would have to have 40 years' service before being eligible for a pension. That would be obviously impossible in the case of a man of 45, and so the Minister for Finance agreed to give him the same pension terms as the district justice has, and, of course, there was a very limited number there. The temporary officers in the courts are analogous to a lot of other people in other Departments such as temporary surveyors in the Land Commission, and so on, and that question could only be dealt with separately by the Minister for Finance. I do not think it could be dealt with in any other way.

Mr. Hayes

That is Senator Ryan's remedy—that the Minister for Justice should do his best for those staffs as against the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Boland

We always do. That may be taken for granted. Every Minister does that but, at the same time, we have to recognise that the Minister for Finance has the final word in staff matters. Ministers do not regard the Minister for Finance as Enemy No. 1, but they certainly press the claims of their officials upon him. As he is the man with the purse, we have to bow to him.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister deal with the two points I mentioned in regard to Sections 7 and 10?

Mr. Boland

As regards Section 10, the position at present is that, when there is a vacancy for a county registrar, the Government appoints him and then the Minister for Justice has to make an Order assigning him to a particular county. That should be unnecessary. The Government now proposes to appoint the county registrar to a particular county. Instead of two operations, there will, in future, be only one. As regards the second point, it is not mandatory upon the Minister to appoint the assistant examiner but that is what will, in fact, happen. He will be the most likely man for the post but there is no necessity to tie the Minister's hands.

Mr. Sweetman

It is only the first appointment that will really matter.

Mr. Boland

The intention is as I have stated.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for next meeting-day of the Seanad.