Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jul 1946

Vol. 32 No. 7

Courts of Justice Bill, 1946—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

This Bill is brought in mainly to deal with the situation in the District Courts in Dublin City. The position at present is unsatisfactory. The city, as everyone is aware, has increased very largely, both in area and in population, in the last 20 years. Whereas 20 years ago three justices were able to do the work of the city, at the present time, besides the three permanent justices— that is, the senior justice and two others—there are three assistant justices, who were appointed originally to relieve justices who were ill or on leave. They have been kept on permanently in the city and in addition it has been necessary to appoint two temporary justices, making eight altogether, acting almost all the time in Dublin.

We have had the emergency conditions over the last seven years and that has contributed largely to the extra work. In the case of child delinquency, we have made special arrangements and that takes up the whole time of one justice now. These things have led to a certain amount of congestion and, after a lot of consideration, this Bill has been brought in. Dublin is to be dealt with by dividing the work into three blocs—criminal work, civil work, and the children's court—with probably the work that will arise out of the new provisions in the Rent Restrictions Act recently enacted, Part III of which has not been given effect to yet.

It is rather an anomaly to have assistant justices, and on several occasions in the Dáil during my Estimate the matter was raised, principally by Opposition Deputies who wanted to know the reason. I could never see it myself, as those assistants were working in the very same way as the other justices, but they were paid less. Even the temporary justices were getting a larger salary, though on a temporary basis, which was three guineas a day. I said I would make that right. In this Bill, we are abolishing the position of assistant justice and I have undertaken to see that the three people who have been acting in that capacity for a long time will be appointed as permanent metropolitan justices in the Dublin area. I think that is due to them, as some of them could have been appointed to some of the recent positions as district justices elsewhere. They did not wish to do that, in anticipation of this Bill.

In regard to the tenure of office, the position at present is that, if there is any reason to dispense with a district justice, there is machinery by which the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the Attorney-General deal with any complaint about the justice and, if they think there is sufficient reason, they give a certificate and the Government—not the Dáil or Seanad— can remove the justice from office.

Under Section 20 of this Bill, we are giving the district justices the same status as other judges. It may be suggested that that is modified by Section 21, but I do not think so myself. My assurance about Section 21 was that it was really an extra precaution for the justices. That position was not accepted in the other House and they divided on it, as they wanted to delete the section.

In Section 21 of the Bill we provide that if the Minister wishes he can ask the Chief Justice to nominate a High Court judge to hold an investigation as to the condition of health, either physical or mental, of a district justice or as to his conduct. I still think that is a good provision, notwithstanding the criticism to which it was subjected in the Dáil. One Deputy said that if the Minister got an adverse report he could hold it as a whip over the head of the district justice concerned. I said, in reply, that if there was an adverse report, it would be most unlikely that any Government would go to the Dáil and ask them to remove the justice straight away. If there was an unfavourable report, before going to the Dáil with a proposal to remove the district justice, the Minister could intimate to the district justice: "There has been an unfavourable report in regard to you and it would be better for you to retire. If you do not, there is only one alternative and that is to bring forward a motion in the Dáil and the Seanad to have you removed from office." I think from the point of view of the district justice that is a much more satisfactory provision.

Another provision in the Bill enables the Department to increase the number of permanent district justices. At present we have 33 permanent district justices and we propose to increase the number to 40. In practice, we have had 40 all told, but that number includes the assistant justices and temporary justices. It is hoped in future to avoid the necessity of having to employ temporary justices or, at least, to have recourse to that practice to a lesser extent than formerly. I think Senators, in general, will agree that it is undesirable to employ justices in a temporary capacity. A justice should have security of tenure and should be as independent as possible of the Government of the day. That is the principal reason we are providing that the number of permanent justices may be increased to 40. Senators, I am sure, have had an opportunity of studying the debates on the Bill in the other House and for that reason they are probably in a better position to deal with the measure than Deputies were.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister in his opening remarks said that the position in regard to Dublin was unsatisfactory. I am afraid that I must consider that he is bringing in an unsatisfactory Bill to deal with an unsatisfactory situation. I appreciate the way in which the Minister admitted so naïvely and accurately that we are, of course, a much better House than the other House.

Mr. Boland

I did not suggest that.

Mr. Sweetman

This is in the main a Bill with which I should prefer to deal in Committee rather than in Second Reading but there are some matters which I think it proper to raise on this stage of the Bill. I want, first of all, to deal with the provisions of Part II of the Bill which relate to the position in Dublin. It is agreed that the work of the courts in Dublin is excessive and that there is a good deal of overcrowding, largely, perhaps, on account of emergency conditions. Even though the emergency has come and gone, these conditions are leaving a trail behind them which I believe will mean that our morale, so far as crime is concerned, will be lowered with I am afraid a consequent further increase of work for the District Courts, particularly in the city. I want to deal with a slightly different aspect of the position with regard to Dublin, an aspect dealt with I understand also in the Dáil. Not having yet received the report of the Dáil debates, I am not in a position to know exactly how the question was dealt with in the other House. I have on more than one occasion in this House objected very strongly to the State altering the conditions of a man's contract without the consent of that man. Certain people were taken into the service of the State as district justices. They were asked to give up their ordinary private practice when entering the service of the State in order that they might preside in the District Court in Dublin. They were asked to do that on certain conditions, knowing the circumstances that existed in Dublin and knowing that they would have to undertake certain duties. It now transpires in this Bill, notwithstanding the fact that they were asked to enter the service on these conditions, that their terms of service are going to be materially altered under Part II of the Bill.

I fully appreciate what the Minister has said in regard to the appointment of justices as principal justices of divisions but they are now being brought, to an extent that did not hitherto exist, under the Department of Justice. As regards the regulation of their business, they are being brought much more stringently under the control of the Department. There is a possibility that under this Bill they may have to carry out much more arduous and much more continuous duties than was heretofore the case. I think it is only fair that it should be stated, particularly in the City of Dublin, the work of a district justice is the most tiring type of work that any justice could be asked to undertake. They sit from early morning until very late in the afternoon. The type of case that comes before the district justices in the Courts at Inns Quay and Morgan's Place is, I think, without question the most tiring type of work that one could possibly visualise. The nature of that work was always understood and justices who were called on to do that work were, accordingly, only asked to sit for a certain period each week. It was not intended that they should sit continuously the whole five-and-a-half days a week. They were given certain privileges under which they were allowed to sit a lesser number of days. Those privileges were there when they entered the service of the State but the Department is now taking power which enables them, if they so desire, to make these justices carry on work for which they did not contract when they entered the service. That is a matter to which I think I should refer in general on this stage, but I shall refer to it more specifically in Committee by way of amendment. I want to refer also on this Stage to the provisions of Section 19 of the Bill. I was completely put off my stride in the beginning by what the Minister said about Section 19. I think he will agree that the position in regard to the High Court judges is that they receive their full pension after 15 years, and that the same applies to the Circuit Court judges. The position in regard to the district justice is that he only receives his full pension after 30 years' service. I want to suggest very strongly to the Minister that that is not fair. There is an age limit of 65 being introduced under this Bill.

I would ask those who can remember what the position was 20 years ago, was it not reasonable to appoint as a district justice a man who was 45 years of age? He has now given 20 years' service and is 65 years of age. For that service he gets under this Bill a pension of one-sixth for his first ten years of service and a fortieth for each year of service after that. When we think of what the circumstances were at the time this State was set up, I think we will agree that it was eminently reasonable to appoint as district justices men who were between the ages of 40 and 45. Now, when we are determining their retirement at 65, we ought, I suggest, make somewhat better and more generous provision for their pensions. I do suggest to the Minister that in view of all the circumstances which exist in regard to district justices, and the fact that High Court judges and Circuit Court judges can get their pension after 15 years' service, it would be reasonable to alter the provision in Section 19 and ensure that a district justice can get his full pension after 20 years' service. It would not, I suggest, be asking the State to make an unreasonable concession if the period to qualify for pension were reduced from 30 years to 20 years. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider that now rather than leave it over until the Committee Stage of the Bill is reached. I suggest that 20 years is not an unreasonable compromise to put forward.

I now want to refer to the position of District Court clerks and of the staffs in the District Courts. Their conditions are very far from what they might be. So far as the District Courts are concerned, I think they are understaffed. In consequence the staffs have to do more than they should be asked to do. I might also say that the position of District Court clerks all over the country, their pensions and emoluments is one that requires urgent consideration. Frankly, I do not know if I am in order in discussing that on this Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There is nothing in this Bill about court clerks.

Mr. Sweetman

At any rate, I throw out that suggestion to the Minister. I am encouraged to do so by the alacrity with which he praised this House in the beginning of his speech. I trust that he will show the same spirit of alacrity in introducing something along the lines that I have indicated in regard to District Court clerks and the staffs in the District Courts. I apologise to him for stressing that matter about his approach to the House, but, having regard to the things that we have been hearing about ourselves from another Minister, I do think it was essential that I should stress the point. There are some other matters that arise in the Bill which we can go into in more detail when the Committee Stage is being taken.

In conclusion, I want to say a few words in regard to the appointment of justices in future and to the working of the legal machinery of State. In my opinion we are going to be forced to get a new outlook and a new method. The present position with regard to legal appointments is that the appointees depend for their advancement purely on political support. That is not a satisfactory method. It is not a method that makes for efficiency or makes for the satisfaction of their colleagues who are left behind them. It is difficult to suggest the method by which it can be altered, but it is desirable that there should be something substituted for pure political appointments.

Mr. Duffy

"Pure"?

Mr. Sweetman

I will leave Senator Duffy's aside aside for the moment.

Mr. Hearne

To be dealt with on a more suitable occasion.

Mr. Sweetman

I was about to suggest that these appointments should be made from some sort of a panel system put up by the Bar council and the Incorporated Law Society. From that panel the Government of the day would make its selection. That would be preferable to leaving it to the Government because it cannot have the skilled knowledge that the colleagues of the people concerned would have as to qualifications. It would mean that the appointments would not be made on the grounds of political patronage as has been the custom in the past.

Mr. O'Dea

With regard to the last portion of Senator Sweetman's speech, I think that if he will examine some of the appointments made in recent years he will see that the present Minister for Justice is very free from any political bias on the question of these appointments.

Mr. Hearne

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Dea

He has certainly appointed very excellent men.

Mr. Boland

It is the Government that makes the appointments.

Mr. O'Dea

I will extend the compliment then to the entire Government. It must be free from political bias.

Mr. Sweetman

Oh!

Mr. O'Dea

Yes. It has appointed men to these positions who were politically opposed to it.

Mr. Sweetman

In the District Courts?

Mr. O'Dea

Yes. If the Senator wishes I can give him the names.

Mr. Boland

No names, no pack drill.

Mr. O'Dea

I can give the names privately to my friend Senator Sweetman if he wants them, but I am sure he knows them. I have very little to do with the Dublin courts, and, therefore, it is not my intention to discuss them. I would not like to see any breach of contract as Senator Sweetman put it.

Mr. Boland

There is not any, and I will prove that when I come to reply.

Mr. O'Dea

I think that up to this the senior justices have the regulation of business, but as I understand it that is subject to the sanction of the Minister. I see that, under Part III of the Bill, the retiring age for the Dublin justices is 70.

Mr. Boland

I should like to apologise to the House for overlooking that point in my opening statement. The retiring age for district justices in the metropolitan areas of Dublin and Cork is 70. That will continue so far as the present justices are concerned, but under this Bill the retiring age in future for all justices will be 65.

Mr. O'Dea

That is not in the Bill as it stands?

Mr. Sweetman

Oh, yes. In Section 15.

Mr. Boland

It does not interfere with those who retire at 70 at present. They will not be interfered with.

Mr. O'Dea

Oh, yes, I see it now. That is only right and fair. I was feeling that we had as good air, food, and drink in the country as there is in Dublin, and indeed I would not object at all if the age was extended to 70. I think district justices could perform their work just as well as a High Court judge can at the age of 70, particularly in the country where they have a better and more open-air life. There is no reason why they should not be fit at 70, and I hope they are. If you do make the retiring age 65, as Senator Sweetman says, it is not fair that a district justice must wait 30 years before he can get his full pension. Not one of them, I think, can acquire the full pension unless he was appointed very young, and it is a very bad thing if you can only get young district justices. It would be much better to have men on the Bench who are more mature and have a greater variety of experiences and a greater knowledge of life. After all, district justices as well as having a knowledge of law, must know life and human nature, and it is more likely that they will have that if they are appointed at a mature age. But the pension should be available to them in full at the age of 65. I was hoping that the Minister would have taken this into account and would be more generously disposed towards them. When these men retire they sometimes have a family that is not fully grown up. With a small pension their lives in the future will be miserable. They don't live very long, and it would not cost very much. I am told that people who retire on pension live on the average for something like only two years.

Mr. Duffy

They would be better, then, without a pension at all.

Mr. O'Dea

Possibly they would. If that is the average life after retirement according to the statistics, the Government would not suffer very much by giving them a decent pension. I know a district justice who was appointed in 1924 and is now retiring on something like a little more than £300 per year. How can he live on this?

Mr. Boland

Of course he gets a gratuity.

Mr. O'Dea

Oh, he does. He gets one year's gratuity, but that is too small, and it is not fair that he should have to live on a small pension. I had also hopes that in this Bill the Minister would have increased the salaries of district justices. In Dublin, he has made the salary £1,100 instead of £1,000.

Mr. Boland

It was £1,100 for the ordinary district justice and £800 to £950 for the assistant district justices. Now they will all get £1,100, and they will all be termed metropolitan justices.

Mr. O'Dea

That is only fair. The other justices have not got an increase since 1924, when they were appointed at £800 a year has nothing like the same value it had in 1924, and certainly does not compare with £600 a year which the resident magistrates had 30 years ago.

Mr. Boland

None of them has £800 a year now. They have £1,000.

Mr. O'Dea

Well, even taking £1,000 and comparing it with £600, the £600 was worth far more at that time than the £1,000 is now. I know there are district justices in this country who cannot live as they are expected to live, and I know that a lot of them are in debt, and I know those who are not in debt have not one penny to spare. They can barely pay their debts, and some of them cannot pay their debts, and that is a very bad position for people administering the law. They are in a very awkward position. Taking into account that there are only 40 justices, what would an increase of £200 or £300 a year mean to this State? It would not be worth talking about. It would be all spent in the country, and spent on these men's wives and families who are trying to live in a respectable way. I make a strong appeal to the Minister to consider this in the Bill. I thought, as Senator Sweetman thought, that they should get a full pension the same as a Circuit Court judge. A Circuit Court judge can be as young as a district justice when he is appointed. The Minister should take that into account. The district justice has to be called to the Bar or be apprenticed to a solicitor. Then he has to qualify and a number of years must elapse before he can be appointed. It would be very bad if a Minister was not able to get the very best men for appointment. The courts are very important, and the District Court is a very important court, and although the jurisdiction has been increased, I would like to see it increased still further.

It is the poor man's court, and it seems ridiculous that if a man has to sue for a debt of £26 or over he must bring it to the Circuit Court. It was all right when you had justices of the peace operating who had not a knowledge of the law. It was very necessary then to confine their jurisdiction, but now, when you have experienced lawyers, there is no reason why the jurisdiction of the District Court should be limited as much as it has been limited. I would like to see it increased to the old County Court judges' jurisdiction which was £50. If a man has to claim £10 now for assault or running down, he must go to the Circuit Court where the fees are much higher than the District Court. I hope that the Minister will consider the question of a living wage and reasonable pensions for the district justices.

Mr. Duffy

There is not much that I desire to say in relation to the Bill because many of the points I had in mind have been dealt with. It occurs to me in relation to the Dublin metropolitan courts that the proposal in the Bill to name three principal justices is wrong. I would prefer to think that the Minister should appoint a principal justice, one principal justice and only one, for the Dublin metropolitan courts.

Impose upon him an obligation to organise the work of the metropolitan courts in the same way as the President of the High Court is required to organise and distribute the work of the High Court and as the Chief Justice is required to do in relation to the Supreme Court. Like other Senators who have spoken, I have the feeling that there is a suggestion that the work of the Dublin metropolitan courts will be directed, more or less, from the Department of Justice. That, I think, is a bad principle and I should urge strongly that the arrangement of the business and the allocation of the work as between the justices should be the job of a principal justice. For that reason, I should prefer to see one principal justice and so many other justices as may be necessary to deal with the work of the Dublin courts expeditiously. I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter from that angle. I gather from the Minister that his idea is to get rid of temporary justices completely.

Mr. Boland

So far as possible.

Mr. Duffy

I think that that is an excellent idea, but I have some doubt whether it is just as sensible in the case of the assistant justices——

Mr. Boland

That office is being abolished. The assistant justices are being made metropolitan justices.

Mr. Duffy

In this Bill, we are limiting the number of regular justices who may be appointed to 40. The work of the District Court has been growing for years and is likely to go on expanding, because it is, as it has been described by Senator O'Dea, the poor man's court. The great bulk of the legal business of the State will be discharged through the District Court. Therefore, its work will grow. The Minister will, probably, find in two or three years that, if he is to avoid delays and dissatisfaction to solicitors and litigants, he will have to appoint additional justices to the 40 so as to relieve congestion. He will, of course, appoint temporary justices. It would be wiser for the Minister to make up his mind that he will have 40 regular justices and have at the back of his mind the intention, when the necessity arises, of appointing deputy justices who would hold office permanently. A man who would be appointed a justice in this way would not be allocated to a district or court. If a vacancy arose in one of the permanent posts, one of these deputy justices would automatically be appointed. There would be a floating element of deputy justices holding permanent appointments.

Mr. Boland

That is provided for in Section 17 of the Bill. Four of those justices will be permanent and movable.

Mr. Duffy

I did not understand that. The Minister has adverted to the risks that attached to the appointment of justices who have no fixity of tenure. I remember on one occasion speaking to a temporary justice. Three or four persons were discussing a case in which he had adjudicated and he expressed the view that he was dissatisfied with the decision, but added that, if he were to hope for a permanent appointment, that was the only decision he could possibly give.

That is a very dangerous thing in relation to the administration of justice. I hope I am not unkind in suggesting that the Minister may not always occupy his present office and that the Government of which he is a distinguished member may not always hold office. Their successors may take the view that some of those appointments were the result of patronage and that the services of the persons concerned should be dispensed with. Men who had been serving for a number of years without fixity of tenure may have to go back and re-start life in a solicitor's office from which they had been divorced for years. Unless I am wrongly informed, that has happened in, at least, one case in Dublin. I am informed that one of the most capable justices in Dublin was appointed to a temporary position many years ago by, I think, the previous Government. His appointment was not made permanent until he had reached an age at which Civil Service regulations do not permit of the making of permanent appointments. The result is that he is still a temporary district justice and the only ground on which he is permitted to serve is that, as there is no power to give him a pension, the Government feel that they must retain him in a salaried position. That is wrong. So far as we here can influence the administration of justice, we should secure that it will be taken out of the realm of politics completely and allow all persons of common-sense in the State to evolve a system in which all elements may reach agreement.

I want to associate myself as strongly as possible with Senator O'Dea's statement that the salaries of district justices are totally inadequate. About a year ago, I was in a small town in the midlands. I happened to be speaking to the lady proprietor of a shop. When she saw the district justice walking towards the shop, she said: "I must slip away because, if this man comes in, I must refuse him credit and I hate to do so." I asked why she should refuse him credit and she said that he would not get twopence worth of credit in any shop within 20 miles. That surprised me and I wondered if it was due to some defect in the character of the district justice. I mentioned the matter to a lawyer of standing in Dublin and he said: "That is what they all say." He pointed out that these men were appointed 22 years ago at £1,000 a year when they had very limited obligations. They thought £1,000 a great deal of money then but they were no longer young and they had now heavy obligations.

In the meantime, their obligations have grown enormously, and costs have increased to such an extent that the purchasing power of the £1,000 is very much less than it was in 1924, and I think that what Senator O'Dea has said, and he has pretty wide experience, can be confirmed in relation to all the district justices.

I am not making any plea for district justices as such; there is only one of the district justices in this State whom I know personally, and I do not think that it matters very much in his case, because he will retire this year or next year, but I have to have regard to the fact that people are appearing in the courts of district justices, where the district justice is not free to do justice, and that I think is a very serious aspect of this matter from the point of view of the public.

Let us assume, for instance, that a publican is prosecuted for an alleged breach of the licensing regulations. The publican in that case comes before a district justice to whom he has probably lent £50 in the previous six months. I want to ask this House, as reasonable people, how members expect that a district justice is likely to act, no matter what his ability, no matter what his competence, in a set of circumstances like that. That has happened. It is a very serious matter from the point of view of the administration of justice.

I am going to suggest to the Minister —I know he has no direct responsibility—that as Minister for Justice he has there responsibility to see that justice is not likely to be corrupted and that it is not, in particular, to be corrupted because of the insufficient remuneration offered to those who administer justice, and he should boldly insist that salaries be increased over the 1924 level by 50 per cent. It may involve the readjustment of salaries for the whole judiciary but we are concerned only with the position of district justices and I want to urge that the remuneration fixed in 1924 should be readjusted and be increased by certainly 50 per cent. In regard to pensions, in order that a district justice may receive the full pension provided in the pensions code, he must be appointed at or under 35 years of age.

Mr. Boland

At 35.

Mr. Duffy

He must have 30 years' service to get the maximum pension. Now, I do not know how the members of this House feel in regard to that, but I feel that the majority of us have passed the 35 mark, and my feeling is that men of 35 should not be appointed as justices except in rare instances. I would prefer to think that we were appointing to the judicial bench men between 40 and 50 years of age than men between 30 and 35 years of age, but in order that the Department will ensure to the district justice his maximum pension at 65 years he must be appointed under 35 at present.

I suggest that that is all wrong, and probably no one in this House knows it better than the Minister for Justice. I would urge him, therefore, to revise the whole of the regulations relating to the appointment, pay and pensions for district justices, and to make it a rule that, except in exceptional circumstances, nobody will be appointed a district justice under the age of 40, that he should be entitled to full pension with 20 years' service and that his salary would be substantially increased.

Roughly these are the proposals I want to make. Let us bear this in mind. The age of appointment will have some considerable effect on the salary to be fixed. If a solicitor has developed a good practice and has himself well established at 35 to 40 years of age, he will not take the post of district justice unless he has made up his mind about one of two things. Number 1 is that he is never likely to be a success as a solicitor, and number 2 that his health has broken down and will not stand up to the strain of a busy life in a solicitor's office.

Is it not perfectly clear that these are the only grounds on which a Minister is going to get cheap justice? He is either going to appoint a solicitor who has completely failed to earn the standard income of his class or he is going to appoint a man who is in broken health, and cannot go on roughing it in the atmosphere of a solicitor's office. Surely, the Minister does not want either of these alternatives. In my opinion he wants to recruit for the District Court bench men who were eminent in their profession.

They need a bit more than knowledge of the law; they want common-sense and want to know the people among whom they live, and I will go farther and say that they want to have sympathy with the people among whom they live, but they want also to be energetic and healthy men, able to stand the strain which court life imposes on them. I know nothing about the Dublin courts, but I have heard from Senator Sweetman's description of them what the work is like, and he as a solicitor knows the work. His view is that it is exhausting work but it is very much greater, in my opinion, in the case of district justices serving in rural Ireland.

I know that Senator Sweetman dissents, but I would like to point out that work in the country means travelling long distances, and, in winter time, travelling long distances may mean great hardships, particularly in the cases of men who are becoming older in their positions. I do not want to pursue this matter further because I do not wish to enter into controversial matters with the Minister, but these are matters which might be taken into account in a non-political atmosphere, having regard to the fact that we all want to see the administration of justice beyond suspicion.

Mr. Baxter

I am not going to hold the House for very long, but Senator Duffy's last comment tempts me to remark that the Minister for Justice seems always able to manage to abolish politics. He is very successful in that.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

A good politician.

Mr. Baxter

He is a good administrator; he approaches his problem in a sensible way. This matter is not a Party matter in any sense. I am not familiar with the problems which confront the Minister or the people who have to deal with the courts in Dublin, but I would like to say that I subscribe generally to the view of Senator Duffy and Senator O'Dea. I hope I do not subscribe to one of the things advanced by Senator Duffy, because I would not like to think we have justices in the country in such a position that some of them had borrowed £50 from somebody who might have to appear before them in the morning. I do hope it is not a fact; it would be most unfortunate to make the suggestion that it should be so. On the other hand, it is true to say that the salaries paid to district justices from the point of view of purchasing power have seriously deteriorated, because the world in 1946 is very unlike what it was in 1923.

It is important that the courts of this land should have very high prestige. It was a very wise departure originally to introduce the plan of district justices, and we all agree that they have been eminently successful because in the first instance, the calibre of the men selected for them was very high and they established a prestige which it is important should be maintained.

It is true to say that you have to pay for service and for competence and ability, and we ought not to be afraid to pay for reliability in the courts of the country and the best service that law can be given is not an extravagance. I suggest that it should be the aim of a Minister to secure it, and I hope that he will keep that always before his mind.

He gave us to understand that in the re-arrangement of court work, his plan is to have criminal, civil and children's courts—at least I gather that from him. I wonder will the justices there at the moment have a voice in regard to which court they may choose to function in. I realise that already there is a justice dealing with the children, and I presume, if there is a reorganisation that this man may become one of the chiefs, but probably the Minister will explain.

I must confess that Section 11 makes me wonder how exactly this is going to work. The Minister may enlighten us somewhat, because, as the section stands, it does give one the impression that the Minister is going to order the business of the courts in a particular way. I think that section needs clarification. My view is that when you set up the courts, you ought to leave the courts to organise their own business. That ought to be the job of the courts and it would be much better, from the Ministerial point of view, that the Department would not have to enter into the matter at all, that the responsibility of the Department should be that the court was doing its business in its own way.

It is important that the court would order and regulate the distribution of its work according to its lights, and from its study of the particular problems from day to day. I do not know, if there are a number of cases listed at the same time, how the Department and the Minister's staff can work out a plan for disposing of them. If lists have to be sent in and checked and commented upon by the Department, I believe it is not going to work. That is how the section looks at the moment and I am not going to hold the Minister on it now, because when we hear his reply we will be able to decide what attitude we will adopt on the Committee Stage.

On Section 21, I would like to make one or two comments because the Minister has adverted to it. Section 21 provides that whenever the Minister requests the Chief Justice to investigate the condition of health of a justice or to inquire into his conduct, the Chief Justice shall appoint a judge to conduct the investigation. I put this to the Minister: in my opinion you want more than one person to pass judgment on the competence of any of us. Suppose you have a justice down the country or anywhere else and he is not regarded as satisfactory for whatever reason. You ask the Chief Justice to appoint a judge. It is quite conceivable that the Chief Justice may appoint a member of the judiciary who might temporarily and immediately display such an attitude of antipathy that a reasonable report on the capacity of the individual concerned could not be got at all.

Suppose that somebody comes along and makes a study of my capacity in something, or that of any other member of the House, and you know why he is coming—you can guess the kind of reaction there is immediately. I probably would not do myself justice. I might react very unfavourably. I think you should have two judges, because it is an awful responsibility to put on the shoulders of one person. If I had to decide whether a man was capable of keeping his post, I confess it would be far beyond me and that is why I would like to have a balancing factor with me.

From the conscientious point of view, it is quite an impossible proposal and I suggest to the Minister that he should re-examine it. Quite conceivably, he might get a report that a man should be kept on because a single individual might not like to take the responsibility of saying he should be dispensed with. I do not want to emphasise that to the House any more.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

Presumably, we would like to finish this Bill by six o'clock, and I will confine myself to less than the three minutes to which Senator Quirke confined me the other evening. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a matter which has not been referred to so far, that is, the inconvenience caused to the public by the delay in hearing cases in the District Courts.

It is a pity that the provisions we are asked to make now were not here in the emergency, because the congestion, in my own knowledge, was intense and the difficulty of bringing cases to the courts was increased by the danger of adjournments from day to day. The difficulty of that would not affect solicitors because they would be only getting extra pay for every day they attended.

Mr. Baxter

Extra fees for every day?

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I do not know if Senator Sweetman was listening.

Mr. Sweetman

I heard him the first time. I am not going to refute it.

Mr. O'Dea

Extra fees for every day —nothing like it.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

The fact is that the public are inconvenienced to an extraordinary extent and it is on that account that this provision is assumed to be necessary, apart from anything that other Senators had referred to regarding facilities for justices. The third minute I will spend in referring to the pension rates given to justices. As far as I can see, they are better than those applying to civil servants, and better than those applying to officials of local authorities, where they must devote all their time to the duties of their offices. I do not think there is anything in the law that district justices must do this.

Mr. Sweetman

They are not allowed to have any other business and, as we know, plenty of local authority officials have.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

In the last half-minute, I meant to refer to the fact that justices could not be kept continuously in one division of the courts. There are three divisions in the courts, and I think that Section 7 of the Bill provides for that. A justice may be transferred from one division to another and I think that that is a very important provision.

Mr. Honan

Before the Minister replies, let me for a minute add my voice to something that has been said. The salaries paid to district justices have never been reviewed since they were appointed over 20 years ago, and we all know that the value of money has depreciated by 33? per cent. since then. Their incomes are not commensurate at all with their responsibility and their position. I add my voice to those of Senator O'Dea and Senator Baxter, and request the Minister to have this matter reviewed at his earliest convenience.

Mr. Meighan

I would strongly support Senator O'Dea's point regarding appointing people of mature age to be district justices. I also think it would be sensible to leave the age limit 70 years. There are various heads of business houses and eminent ecclesiastics over that age and carrying on their duties. I would also support the pension to district justices after 20 years' service, but I could not by any means support the proposal to increase their remuneration. I think £1,000 is a nice salary for anybody and, while I do not believe in cheap labour, I believe that the duties of a county manager are just as important as those of a district justice and even more important, as he has very great responsibility.

Mr. Baxter

No, there is no comparison.

Mr. Meighan

He is a full-time officer. For those reasons, I would not support an increase. I know there are solicitors with apparently very fine practices who would not object to taking the job at £1,000 a year. After all, these men are not compelled to accept the appointment. I took it from the Minister's opening remarks that, if a district justice were to be removed from office, a committee would examine the case.

Mr. Boland

That is the present position.

Mr. Meighan

It should not be altered. One feels safer and surer of justice and fair play from two or three than from one only.

Mr. Boland

We discussed the question of the retiring age in the Dáil and I am satisfied that 65 is the proper age. It is the age at present, except in Dublin City. I agree with the Senators who said that the work in the District Court is more strenuous than in the High Court or Circuit Court. Those who know the position in Dublin tell me that the mental strain on the district justices there is such that they should be allowed to retire at 65. The question of pensions is a matter I cannot settle on my own. I will raise it with the Minister for Finance and the Government and see if I can get anywhere with it. On the whole, the pension is fairly good.

There is some misunderstanding about the ages. Deputy Costello said yesterday that we were appointing much younger men than were appointed by the last Government. I have a long list here, which shows quite the reverse: there were eight or nine under 30 who were appointed by the last Government, whereas there was not one single person under 30 in our case and the average is about 40. Of course, that may be making a case for a better pension scheme. The fact is that we have appointed older men than were appointed by the last Government.

I am surprised at Senator Sweetman—although I should not be—making the mistake he made, that we are trying to take away some of the rights of justices or altering their contract. Since Deputy Costello, a senior counsel, made the same mistake, I can excuse a solicitor, although he may know the law better. I will not read at length, as there is not time now, but will ask the Senator to read——

Mr. Sweetman

The House will give the Minister all the time he wants.

Mr. Boland

Very well. Objection is taken to the Minister interfering in the arrangement of the business of the court. In the other House, it was even suggested by Deputy Costello that we were interfering with the Constitution. I pointed out that, if so, there was a remedy, that he could take it into the courts and have it declared unconstitutional. He said something about the cost, but I did not retort that he could make it cheaper if he wished. The fact is that under Section 47 of the Court Officers Act, 1926, the justices had nothing whatever to do with the fixing of the business. It was entirely a matter for the Minister. The section of that Act says:—

"The Minister shall divide every district prescribed by him under Section 68 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924) into such and so many convenient areas as he shall think proper and may divide any such district into different District Court areas for the purpose of different classes of business"——

which is precisely what I am doing now—

"transacted in the District Court.

"(2) The Minister shall appoint one or more convenient places"——

which I am doing also—

"in every District Court area or within one mile of the boundary of such area in which, and such and so many convenient days and hours at which, the District Court shall be held for the purpose of transacting for such District Court area the business for the transaction of which such area was delimited.

"(3) It shall be lawful for the Minister from time to time, as he shall consider expedient, to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—

(a) vary or abolish any district prescribed by him under the said Section 68 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924;

(b) create any new such district;

(c) vary or abolish any District Court area;

(d) create any new District Court area;

(e) vary the class or classes of business for which any District Court area is delimited;

(f) alter the places or vary the days or hours appointed under this section for holding the District Court in or for any District Court area."

That is precisely what I am doing here. That was modified under Section 5 of the Court Officers (Amendment) Act, 1937, and the practice since then has been to leave it very largely in the hands of the Senior Justice himself, which I propose to do, save only that I insist on the right of the Minister for Justice, if any trouble should arise, to fix the hours, the place and so on— if that should happen, as I hope it will not. It is laid down in Section 5 of the Court Officers Act, 1937, that the Minister may delegate this work to the justice but he has, in sub-section (2), full right to change that. I hope that Senator Sweetman will read up these things for himself and he will find that I am not proposing to do anything which I am not entitled to do or which has not been done already. I am not interfering with any rights they had nor with their contracts.

In regard to the point raised by Senator Baxter the practice I think will be that when the first allocation of business is being made, the Minister will consult with the principal justices but he will not be bound by their views if he is not satisfied that a particular type of man would not be the best man for that class of business. Once, however, a justice is put in charge of a particular type of business, say criminal business, he will not be changed or cannot be changed without his consent. That is laid down in the Bill. In the first allocation, he will not have the last word but he will certainly be consulted afterwards and agreement will be sought for any proposed change. As far as possible the arrangement of the work of the court will be left to the justices but as I said in the other House you might have an obstreperous principal justice or there might be an ordinary justice who might have very little to do in his division, say perhaps two hours' work a day. In the next section there might be a glut of work. If we said to him: "We think you should give some assistance in the next section" his attitude might be, "I shall stay where I am."

In case he takes up that attitude, the Minister should have the right to say: "There is a slackness in your section and there is a lot of work in the adjoining section which we require to get through." That is the whole extent of the interference and it would be ridiculous if the Minister had not that right. There would be an outcry amongst the citizens generally that they could not get their work attended to and the Minister would probably be compelled to appoint another temporary justice.

Mr. Sweetman

There should be the consent of the principal justice as well.

Mr. Boland

We shall try to get it but I am certainly not going to tie up any Minister in case he might meet a headstrong justice who might not agree with our suggestions. As I said in the other House, if there is any question by the public about the administration of justice, it is not to the courts they go. They come to the Dáil and try to hold the Minister responsible.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

There have been some headstrong justices.

Mr. Boland

Yes, just as there have been headstrong Ministers and Senators. As regards the point raised about jurisdiction, that matter will arise in another Bill. In regard to Section 21, I have only to repeat what I said before. The judge is not being sent down to try any man or to find whether he is suitable or not. He will be asked to find out what the facts are in particular cases and to report the facts only. The decision on these facts will rest with the Government. The Minister for Justice will bring the facts to the notice of the Government. The position at present is that the Government can dismiss without any report from a judge. Under the proposal in the Bill, even when the Minister gets his report he must come to both Houses if he wishes to have a justice removed from office and he will have to state a case. The fact that under this Bill the Minister asks the Chief Justice to appoint a judge to investigate a complaint means that that judge may report "There is nothing in the complaint."

If, however, there is something in it and he sends in a report which is unfavourable to the justice, we can say to the justice: "You have gone a little too far and you had better retire or we shall be obliged to bring a motion before both Houses of the Oireachtas to have you removed from office." I think that that course is undoubtedly an improvement on the present position.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17th July.

Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.